Talk:Boots (EP)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. —harej (T) 06:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Boots (KMFDM single) → Boots (KMFDM song) — Naming conventions — Cannibaloki 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Boots (KMFDM single) → Boots (KMFDM song)
• Rules (single) → Rules (song)
• Brute (single) → Brute (song)
• Light (single) → Light (song)
• Sucks (single) → Sucks (song)
• Money (single) → Money (KMFDM song)
• Vogue (single) → Vogue (KMFDM song)
• Split (single) → Split (song)
• Godlike (single) → Godlike (song)
• Virus (single) → Virus (KMFDM song)
• Don't Blow Your Top (single) → Don't Blow Your Top (song)

---

• A single (music) is not the same thing as a song. A song can also be part of an album.
  • Page Don't Blow Your Top (single) says that the record Don't Blow Your Top contains 3 songs; it is therefore not a single as defined by the start of page Single (music); nor is it (one) song. It contains the song "Don't Blow Your Top". (I have not yet examined the other 10 pages listed above.)
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Don't Move: I moved all these because they're about the singles, not the specific songs on them. Most of these pages don't go into the songs themselves (who wrote the song, how it was recorded, where the songs came from, etc), but instead talk about the single release (the actual physical CD/12"/7"). A couple do have minor information on the songs themselves, but the information on those pages is still predominantly about the single itself. Note that the template on the right-hand side on each page says "Single by KMFDM", not "Song by KMDFM". Essentially, this is the same as labelling an album as "AlbumTitle (album)", instead of "AlbumTitle (songs)". MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support move. Firstly, we don't have articles on singles. We have articles on notable songs, and if they were released as singles, we describe information on the single release (track listing, chart position etc.) among information on the song itself. That's simply because there's very little to say about a single that couldn't be covered in an article on the song, and because a reader is more likely to be interested in the song itself than its release information. Secondly, no matter what the decision on the single/song distinction is, some of these articles are going to have to be moved in any case. The KMFDM release simply isn't primary topic for the title Money (single) – that, in my opinion, would be Money (Pink Floyd song). Also, Money (Jamelia song) was a single as well. So were Vogue (Madonna song), Vogue (Ayumi Hamasaki song) and Virus (song). If it's somehow decided that "(single)" is an acceptable disambiguator, I feel that at least three of these articles should then be moved to "(KMFDM single)", to disambiguate them from other more notable (or at least similarly notable) singles. Jafeluv (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "I feel that at least three of these articles should then be moved to "(KMFDM single)", to disambiguate them from other more notable (or at least similarly notable) singles." - This seems reasonable, I hadn't personally heard of either the Pink Floyd song or the Madonna song, so it didn't occur to me. I would support moving those articles to "(KMFDM single)". I disagree about moving any to "(song)", however, simply because these pages are about the physical release, not the songs specifically. If "(album)" and "(EP)" are legitimate disambiguators, it follows that "(single)" would be as well. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

    I think that the idea of creating article specifically for the single release may be a mistake. I don't see why that limited information (specifically about the physical release) shouldn't be a sub-section of the song's article. Yea, it is a release, but... there's a distinct difference between an album/EP and a single.

    Ultimately though, all of the above is simply my personal opinions. As far as I know there's no guideline for this sort of issue (please correct me if I'm wrong, there), and I think that this is the wrong forum to go about creating such guidance primarily because any consensus building that may be accomplished here will inevitably be lost on this talk page. I highly recommend setting this movereq aside for now, starting a debate at WP:MOSMUSIC (or elsewhere, if there's a more appropriate location), and then readdressing this once consensus is available.
    — V = I * R (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think there's any guideline explicitly forbidding articles on single releases (there's a chapter at Wikipedia:Notability (music) titled "Albums, singles and songs", but it really only talks about albums and songs). However, what current practice is can be seen by looking at the numerous pages that use Template:Infobox Single. (Spoiler: it's a pretty long list of song articles.) Jafeluv (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm certain that you have a point but, since the issue has come up, why not actually address it and come to a consensus on a site-wide guideline? It never hurts to attempt to extend the completeness of guidelines. You seem to have a good grasp on what currently is, so capture that info on WP:MOSMUSIC and start a discussion on the talk page. Incidentally, since guidance should be descriptive rather then prescriptive, that suggests to me that either a merger or rename is appropriate here, depending on the existence and state of individual song pages for all of these entries.
    — V = I * R (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

    I guess it wouldn't hurt to have the guidelines for single releases specifically, the same way that we currently have for albums and songs (here). In any case, a single would need to satisfy the general notability guideline by having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as a single release. So even if the song was notable per the relevant guideline, that would not automatically make the single release notable. There would have to be enough encyclopaedic information to warrant a stand-alone article for the single.

    I guess that could be possible - look at the "Single release" section at Hey Jude, there's quite a lot of information there. However, what benefit would separating that section from the article present to the reader? I would think that they were better served by having information on all the releases in one article, because that way they don't have to navigate between several articles to find information on the song (especially if the song was released multiple times, like Higher Ground (Red Hot Chili Peppers song) or All Along the Watchtower).

    In my opinion, this is a pretty straightforward case. We write articles on songs, and if an individual release as a single is notable, we add a section on it. This is the established practice (you don't have to take my word for it - follow the link above and look at articles that use Template:Infobox Single), and in my opinion changing it on a site-wide scale would require a pretty good reason. Note that if you look at featured song articles, like Hey Jude, Layla, Smells Like Teen Spirit, Real Love (John Lennon song) or Under the Bridge, none of them have more than a section about the release itself. I don't think it serves any meaningful purpose to write articles specifically about certain releases. I mean, a single doesn't in most cases even have a name apart from the song's name. Yes, a single can contain more than one song, but it's really just a release of one main song with extra material, be it remixes, alternative versions, or B-sides.

    To tell you the truth, I'm pretty terrified at going over to the MoS and proposing changes - people have got banned for getting too heavily invested in the heated discussion there, and it really doesn't improve the encyclopaedia, at least not in the same way that writing articles does. In any case, I'd rather not be the one that starts it, especially since I'm the one opining for the status quo. Hope you understand. Jafeluv (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Info and article title

I'll start by saying that while I agree with the above RfC, in that articles about songs should be about those songs (and then include info on their singles).

KMFDM doesn't have a song called "Boots", just an EP called Boots featuring the song "These Boots Are Made for Walkin'". The lead incorrectly identifies KMFDM as having a song "Boots", when it was somewhat more correct before ("TBAMfW" is a cover...but "Boots" still isn't a song, that whole part is wrong).

So I'm thinking two things: One, the article should talk about "TBAMfW" as a cover; and Two, I think this should be moved to Boots (EP) or Boots (KMFDM EP). Alternatively, the info could be merged with These Boots Are Made for Walkin'. But I prefer moving it to an EP disambig.

Thoughts? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't even think of that. I'd support going with the (EP) disambiguation. It makes sense, considering neither of these songs is on any other release. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to be bold and make the move, but if someone disagrees they can reply to the discussion and we can hammer it out. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved. I started going through the What Links Here for Boots (KMFDM song) [1], but there was a bunch of articles listed that didn't seem to link to that article at all (redirect or no). So if someone else wants to sift through and find out which articles actually DO link there and fix those, go right ahead, but I'm not wasting my time. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's the KMFDM template that gives all those false positives. I fixed its link. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)