Talk:Scarlet (song)

Requested move 4 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Scarlet (The Rolling Stones song) → Scarlet (Rolling Stones song) – Consistency with all other disambiguated Rolling Stones song articles. (There are a lot of them.) — BarrelProof (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I would also note it's probably time to have (another?) discussion on these given a similar request at concerning Closer (Chainsmokers song). -- Calidum 19:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I note that all other disambiguated articles about songs by the Chainsmokers include "The" (except Save Yourself (Chainsmokers song), for which there was an undiscussed removal of "The" one week ago). The situation for the Rolling Stones (and the Beatles) is different. I think we should at least have consistency among songs of a particular band, if not an agreement that generally applies across different bands. At the moment we do not seem to have a consensus that applies across different bands. — BarrelProof (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is at The Rolling Stones which is correct. It is standard practice to disabiguate as per article name. Not withstanding that the artwork for the single is by 'The Rolling Stones' It is reasonable to assume all those articles missing 'the' in the disambiguation are in the wrong. In response to Calidum, what might have been agreed for another band, would not necessarily be correct for another band.--Richhoncho (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It is not a matter of disambiguation by the name of the other article. This matter has been discussed, and at some point there was a clear consensus declared that was different from what you are saying. Now there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus that applies generally either way. For this band, there are many song articles that omit "The", and there is only one of them that includes it. So for this band, I would say it is clear what should be done unless there is a decision to remove "The" in all those other titles. As I said, there are a lot of them. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Doctorhawkes: and @Roman Spinner: The guidance is that 'the' may be dropped. So why has BarrelProof gone round and changed every song by "The Stones by removing "the" - in fact one might say, they were consistent until BarrelProof went round unilaterally removing 'the'. Therefore consistency remains with re-adding 'the' and if BarrelProof wishes to rename, to nominate all the articles, not just this one. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Hunh? There was an RfC (in which I did not participate) that said to drop "The", so I moved them. Then there was a unanimous confirmation in an RM that was about album works by this specific band. Then a year went by, and then someone created a new article that was different from the others. So I politely submitted this RM to rename that one. It was only after all that when someone else started new mass moves to try to force a different outcome before the discussion could conclude. — BarrelProof (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The band is called The Rolling Stones, not "Rolling Stones" and disambiguation follows the name of the subject. --Gonnym (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Please see the response to another of your comments below. This is a matter that has been the subject of MoS discussion. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and per WP:CONSISTENCY. A glance at Category:The Rolling Stones songs confirms that indeed WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — All About You (Rolling Stones song), Back of My Hand (Rolling Stones song), Bitch (Rolling Stones song), Brown Sugar (Rolling Stones song), Connection (Rolling Stones song), Dance Little Sister (Rolling Stones song), Dead Flowers (Rolling Stones song), Don't Stop (Rolling Stones song), Each and Everyday of the Year (Rolling Stones song), Factory Girl (Rolling Stones song), Goin' Home (Rolling Stones song), Happy (Rolling Stones song) and 31 other such title forms. Not a single title, other than the one under discussion, uses the form "(The Rolling Stones song)". I would support a mass move nomination of all main title headers bearing the parenthetical qualifier "(Rolling Stones song)" to "(The Rolling Stones song)", but a single non-conforming qualifier is counterintuitive. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It's actually not consistently used, but rather was moved without discussion by the nom. All About You (Rolling Stones song) was moved without discussion as was Dance Little Sister (Rolling Stones song), and I'm sure the others as well. These should all be moved back to their starting article per Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requests_to_revert_undiscussed_moves. --Gonnym (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I understand how you could have gotten that impression, but you may have missed some of the history of the topic. There is a passing mention of it in the RM at Talk:Closer (Chainsmokers song). Those were not undiscussed moves. There was an RfC for the MoS that started on 7 July 2019. The discussion is recorded at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music/Archive 8#RfC: using "The" in song/album article titles. There was a consensus declared on 23 August 2019 that the "The" should not be included in such cases, and a lot of articles were moved in the next couple of months to reflect that. The Beatles was one of the highly discussed examples. That consensus was then declared overturned on 11 October 2019, but the moves you're talking about happened during the time the MoS said that this was what should be done. The moves were not controversial at the time – they were merely implementing the outcome of that discussion. (You may note that I did not participate in the MoS discussion – I merely helped reflect its result as it affected the Rolling Stones.) Note that although the consensus to not include "The" was overturned, there was no decision to say that "The" should be included either – so we ended up with the MoS being neutral on the subject. That meant that there was no need to move things back to titles that included "The". That is how we ended up in this situation – not a unilateral action by me. (Also, that was all more than a year ago, and AFAIK no one objected to those moves since then.) — BarrelProof (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I now notice that you have started moving all the other articles. Please don't do that, at least until this discussion is concluded. Those articles have been at those titles for more than a year, and they received those titles as the result of a consensus RfC declaration, and that was more than a year ago. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Please note also that there was a multi-article RM for the corresponding Rolling Stones albums at around that time too, and it unanimously supported the same outcome. As I said, those moves of September 2019 were not mere undiscussed moves. Please see Talk:Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)/Archive 1#Requested move 17 September 2019. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
      • The pages in question did not have a RM. Your moves were a good WP:BOLD move, but I've reverted them. You should not have re-reverted them. The discussion at Talk:Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)/Archive 1#Requested move 17 September 2019 is also questionable, seeing as how it was closed after 4 days. There is a reason why we keep discussions open for 7 days (and usually more), and that is to allow editors enough time to see and respond. I'll note above that Roman Spinner supports per consistency, but that consistency has no community consensus and was done by you. Please note that if you do not restore the titles to the original titles, I will move them again. Please save us the appearance of edit warning and do so yourself - See WP:BRD. --Gonnym (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
        • As I said, those moves were more than a year ago and were supported by an RfC and another RM at the time and were never questioned since then until now. I could understand if they were a month ago, but they were not. Please leave things alone until this discussion concludes. After about 60 weeks, one more week should not be an unendurable further wait for you, and will allow the rest of us to reach a conclusion on this discussion. If you want to submit a multi-page RM for all those other songs (and albums as well, I suppose), you are hereby invited to do so. Currently, none of the talk pages of those other articles have any notification about a potential change of title. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONSISTENCY, though I'd be understanding if they were all changed. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support although I don't think it's at all important. This was moved without discussion. It seems to me that songs by the Stones, as with those of the Beatles, are more often referred to without the The. But we're not all that consistent, and neither is English. See Category:The Rolling Stones songs and Category:The Beatles songs. Andrewa (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Previous move

09:30, 4 November 2020‎ Richhoncho talk contribs block‎ m  129 bytes +35‎  r incorrect disambig 
09:28, 4 November 2020‎ Richhoncho talk contribs block‎  94 bytes +94‎  Richhoncho moved page Scarlet (Rolling Stones song) to Scarlet (The Rolling Stones song) over redirect: as article

Just in case it gets overwritten by another move. Andrewa (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.