Talk:Bad Company

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Bad Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 March 2018[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Arguments suggest against moving this page and the general consensus is against such a move. Closing.(non-admin closure) QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 08:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– There are 28 entries listed at the Bad Company (disambiguation) page and no discussion on any talk page to indicate whether the British band is automatically assumed to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There should be at least some argumentation to confirm if such a consensus exists. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Was this just moved against consensus or something? Because there is no argument being made in this nomination, and the existence of other pages is obviously not an argument against a primary topic (otherwise the concept of a primary topic wouldn't exist).--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In reply, it should be noted that a predominent majority of disambiguation pages do not specify primary topics and a proposed or a grandfathered primary topic has the burden of demonstrating that not only is it the most notable entry among those listed within the dab page in question, but that it is more prominent than all the other entries combined. Otherwise, every single dab page would have a primary topic. Thus, with the greater number of entries upon a given dab page, the greater the burden of proof. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you are getting that idea -- there isn't some sort of "grandfathered primary topic" concept, by which stable situations are just challenged to "prove themselves" without any demonstrable reason for an alternative.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But if an actual argument is made for why this should be moved, I'm happy to reassess this !vote.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that page views do show a clear primary topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Putative primary topics which have existed, often for years, in previously "stable situations" are being nominated every week at RM for downgrading from primary topic to a status as one among other equals at any given dab page, thus exemplifying a "demonstrable reason for an alternative", which would be a dab page main header without the parenthetical "(disambiguation)". If page views do, indeed, show a clear primary topic, then such an argument can serve as the key element in casting one's vote. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the default is not "no primary topic." The default is what has been the stable consensus for what seems to be the entire history of this article. So coming in and saying "prove the stable consensus is right" without an argument of why it wouldn't be is not how to go about requesting a move. A move proposal needs to actually give a reason. For example, it would be perfectly within my rights to go to Apple and argue that the computer company should be the primary topic because of page views (although I don't agree with that). But I could not just go and request a move with no argument other than "no one has shown why the current situation should be what it is."--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"No primary topic" is, in fact, the default, as confirmed by the already-mentioned specific that the great majority of dab pages have no primary topics. Some RM nominators prepare an elaborately detailed presentation, while others simply indicate that, in their opinion, the submitted dab page has no primary topic and let the !votes fall where they may. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting this idea? That's just not how things work. No more than you can start an AfD which the argument "I don't think this is notable." You don't need an elaborate argument, but your idea that primary topics revert to not existing as a default is quite simply incorrect.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how frequently you peruse WP:AfD or WP:RM, but that is, indeed, how things work. Numerous AfDs have gone through lengthy discussions with nothing more than "I don't think this is notable" as a nomination. Also, I did not state that "primary topics revert to not existing as a default", which has an unclear meaning. My statement was that "'no primary topic' is, in fact, the default".
At RM, few, if any, editors would challenge obvious primary topics, such as Winston Churchill, Paris, Philosophy or Blood, no matter how many other topics are listed at Blood (disambiguation). On the other hand, uncertain or dubious primary topic candidates, such as the currently active Talk:Michael McCormack (Australian politician)#Requested move 25 February 2018 (7 other Michael McCormacks) or Talk:Doug Jones (actor)#Requested move 6 March 2018 (5 other Doug Joneses and 6 other Douglas Joneses), may or may not, on the basis of discussion and vote, rise to become primary, but at least a historical record of the arguments will remain for future consultation.
In fact, the majority of currently existing primary topics have never been tested in a discussion and are not as obvious as Paris or Blood. Once this RM is completed, we will at least have a chronicle of where the topic of this musical group stood among Wikipedians in March 2018, in the event future generations may wish to bring it up again. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"No primary topic" is not the default. Primary topicness just an arrangement of articles to best serve the readership. Typically, an article will be created for a title (no ambiguity, so only one topic) and some time later an article will be created that could also have the same title, so it gets a qualifier (ambiguity, primary topic). It might be that the second article creator boldly decides to move the first article to a qualified name as well and create a dab page at the base name, but that's not the default. The second article creator might even boldly move the first article to a qualified title and create the second article at the base name (and fix the incoming links). No primary topic might be the supermajority among titles that have ambiguity, but that is different from being the default. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is the concept that is at the heart of the matter, not the specific phrasing. We may approach each dab page with the preconceived idea that it has no primary topic and then apply common sense and, if need be, search for pre-existing talk page discussion(s) on the subject. The commonsense approach eliminates obvious primary topics such as Albert Einstein, Calculus or London (no need for even a discussion as to whether such topics are primary).
Other currently existing primary topics, such as Bob Brown are not obvious (there are 22 Wikipedia entries at Bob Brown (disambiguation) and 71 entries at the Robert Brown disambiguation page which has no primary topic). The pre-existing discussions at Talk:Bob Brown indicated that a majority of !voters considered the retired Australian politician to be the primary topic above 21 other entries with main headers "Bob Brown".
Throughout the years that the article about the English rock band existed, no discussion has been initiated as to its prerogative for being positioned as the primary topic. Common sense does not indicate it to be an obvious primary topic such as The Beatles or The Rolling Stones, nor does it have an overwhelming number of page views. Thus, this nomination places in doubt the article's suitability for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and asks Wikipedians to support or oppose its primary status. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We may also approach the question directly. There is a primary topic. There's a proposal to change from that to no primary topic. The question of "default" or "what the majority of dab pages do" is irrelevant. The present is the default, and the proposal is to change from it for this particular case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. No such user (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 55% of page views isn't a PT by either criteria. There are way to many other articles, too many even to add to the PageView tool totally, even before counting mentions in other articles, and added up they displace the band. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per both the lack of argument in the nom and the stats linked above, and esp. when you add in the disambiguation page. The vast majority of readers reaching the Bad Company article do not continue on to the disambiguation page, indicating the proper arrangement of the primary topic and the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 55% of page views out of 28 means the other 27 have 2% on average. Clearly primary for the usage criteria. Perusing the other articles does reveal any approaching the band's long term significance. Simply being one of very many is no reason not to being the primary topic if it is the primary topic. There is no policy/guideline that says the commonality of a word/phrase reduces the possibility of having a primary topic. Shadow007 (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Shadow007. While I admit that it's anecdotal and subjective, I've heard only about this particular Bad Company, but 55% of users seems to agree with me. I disagree with In ictu oculi that 55% isn't a PT - the definition is much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined, and a) no other topic comes close to, say, 20% and b) he omitted the fact that the 3rd and 4th place, some 20% together, are occupied by the band's debut album and the eponymous song, clearly subtopics of the band. No such user (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Primary topic by page views, incoming links, and usage in reliable sources. While this is a well intentioned request, it is generally expected to have a valid reason for requesting a page move - testing consensus is unlikely to be regarded as a valid rationale. And if a user is curious as to if a topic is primary, then doing appropriate searches and checks themselves is more advisable than starting a move request. SilkTork (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - so many different uses. Red Slash 18:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that "so many uses" is not a primary topic consideration. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Originally, no case to answer. In light of the page view stats, I also note that almost no one is heading from the band's article to the dab page. At worst, 98% of readers are getting to the right place: stats. Dekimasuよ! 23:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bad_Company&oldid=1198941593"