Talk:See You Again/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Requested move 29 February 2016

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. WP:SONGDAB says "As per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, a term may redirect to its primary topic", so the argument that songs can't be primary topics is discounted. While many people are going to the dab page, we can only speculate on which of the "three degrees" (Khalifa, Cyrus or Underwood) they are looking for. While clearly Khalifa dominates current usage, sentiment is leaning towards giving this one more time for long-term significance to settle out. Khalifa, When Will I See You Again at requested moves?

As an aside, it blows my mind that this was number one on the Billboard Hot 100 for 12 weeks, and wasn't even the top single of 2015. "Hey Jude", the Beatles' biggest, only lasted nine weeks at the top, and Billboard named it the 10th biggest song of all time. But note that the 9th biggest, "You Light Up My Life" is parenthetically disambiguated. wbm1058 (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

– This song is the primary topic for "See You Again". Page view statistics: [1] show that this page is accessed far more than the two other songs named "See You Again". In fact the disambiguation page is more viewed than either of the other two songs, meaning that we are inconveniencing many readers by having the disambiguation page at the base title. Google Trends: [2] show that the relative peak search interest was 14 for the Miley Cyrus song, 5 for the Carrie Underwood song, and 100 for the Wiz Khalifa song, meaning that the other two songs never had even a fraction of the search interest of the Wiz Khalifa song. Long-term significance: all three GNG-meeting topics named "See You Again" are songs. Comparing the months when the three articles reached their highest page views: the Miley Cyrus song had 29,131 page views, the Carrie Underwood song had 14,693 page views, and the Wiz Khalifa song had 225,409 page views. This shows that the Wiz Khalifa song is overwhelmingly the primary topic for "See You Again", both historically and at present. Some editors may continue to think that songs can never be primary topics; this has been refuted in similar precedents, such as Talk:Shut Up and Drive#Requested move 4 October 2015 and Talk:Thinking Out Loud#Requested move 3 October 2015. sst✈ 08:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Easily the most famous, popular and searched-for song. Unreal7 (talk) 11:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not more notable than all the others combined, and a couple of examples of ignoring WP:NCM doesn't mean we have to keep doing this. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, popularity and pageviews are not the only requirement to be primary. Notability is not temporary, and Cyrus' and Underwood's songs are as notable as Khalifa's (commercially speaking). I suggest trying again in a few years when pageviews normalize. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 02:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCM. This is a classic case why that guidance should be followed when talking about song and album titles. “See you again” is a common enough phrase and all English-speakers will use it from time to time. Hence it is quite a popular song title, whether as just those three words or very similar. Wikipedia titling requires stability and long-term notability. If this is moved then we must accept that the Miley Cyrus song would be the primary topic from 2007 to 2013, when it would have to be moved for the Carrie Underwood song of the same name, which would stay there until the Wiz Khalifa song, and then in a year or two we’d have re-add Wiz Khalifa back in the title because somebody else had a hit record with the same title, but different song. Hardly the road to long-term stability?
Furthermore, we need to consider modern “pop” music, and two assumptions can be made
  1. Singles, these days, are never re-released with another artist which means this particular song is and will only be associated with Khalifa and Puth.
  2. The notability of any particular song is fleeting (this is the aim of the industry, otherwise we stop buying more music!), so this song is only notable as long as Khalifa is.
I am also reminded that one of the examples of primary topic is Paris. At which point does anybody think that there will be a new Paris as primary topic?
BTW songs can be primary topic, but not every song that is currently in the charts!!!--Richhoncho (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Calidum ¤ 05:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – two well-known, commercially-successful, identically-titled hits released in the last 8 years. PTOPIC requires being more likely to be desired than other topics combined. The Wiz Khalifa song is far too recent for this to be reasonably discussed at the moment. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral - as with another discussion at Talk:Never Be the Same Again (Melanie C song), several users here have erroneously mentioned WP:NCM as a reason to oppose, even though WP:NCM has nothing to say on whether articles can be considered primary topic or not. If this song is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then the move should go ahead, irrespective of WP:NCM. However, I'm quite undecided on this one if it is primary topic or not. It's borderline. Clearly the Whiz Khalifa was a lot more successful than the others, reaching number one in several countries. But on the other hand it is a very WP:RECENT song, and it's certainly early to say that it may be primary by long term significance. Inclined to say leave it as it is for now, but I can see the case for the move as well. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Unambiguious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by all evidence; the fact that so many people are going to the dab page apparently looking for this song shows that we're throwing a roadblock in readers' way. As Amakuru says, contrary to what's claimed above, WP:NCM doesn't indicate that articles on songs can't be primary topics.--Cúchullain t/c 18:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now as recentism. Miley Cyrus' "See You Again" was very successful as Chase previously noted, even if not quite as much as this one has been. No prejudice against rediscussing this matter in a year or two, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose recentist primarytopic grab. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. ApprenticeFan work 11:05, 8 April 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 13 March 2017

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: Moved by Primefac (who forgot to close the discussion) Pppery 19:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


– Trying this again a year later. All topics with this name listed on the disambiguation page are songs, so significance can be directly compared. Three of these topics pass WP:N. This has higher long-term significance than the other two songs: it is the best-selling digital single of all time, and obviously has higher peak chart positions and more certifications than the other two notable songs with the same name. Since this song is newer than the other two songs, it is unlikely for the other two songs to ever exceed this song in significance. Ignore page views and current significance because these are unreliable statistics for popular music. And even if you care, this song trumps the other two songs in page views.

Yes, this song is newer than the other two notable songs, but topics don't automatically become more significant over time as they age. WP:RECENT only prevents topics from being automatically primary because they are new, it does not prevent topics from being primary as long as they are significant in their own right. Sales in 2016 are no more significant than sales in 2008, but they are no less significant either. As long as it satisfies both criteria for primary topics, it should be allowed to take the base title. Simple. feminist 10:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. A year later, this continues to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by all measures. It has more page views by an order of magnitude, receiving 94.7% of all views,page views and has more long-term significance as the most prominent and best known of ambiguous topics.--Cúchullain t/c 14:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Cuchullain and the nom are spot on. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Bang on the money. Unreal7 (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on See You Again. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of discussion about dbase.tube as reliable source in this article

Please see this discussion at WP:RS/N:

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Writers

Added additional writers to the song, as per the ASCAP registration for the song (searchable here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.82.88.29 (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It must be hacked by hackers with false registered writers. Better use liner notes from the album booklet instead. 123.136.106.66 (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Oops, I mean additional registered songwriter has been "miscredited". 123.136.106.51 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
ASCAP has not been hacked, but it is the most up to date source. You can see the same registration at BMI here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.203.135.5 (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
And also at the Warner/Chappell website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.203.135.5 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
This matter has also been brought up at WPSongs, would be useful to keep the debate there. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Three writers (Phoebe Louise Cockburn, Dann Hume, Joshua Karl Simon Hardy) who actually credited to "Dreamers" by Hopium, here. However, should rely on reliable, third-party published sources for three writers of "Dreamers". 123.136.106.29 (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This page does not match the official registrations for this song. [See here https://mobile.ascap.com/aceclient/AceWeb/#ace/search/title/see%20you%20again/performer/wiz%20khalifa] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.115.94.253 (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to contact ASCAP or APRA for mistaking credit. 115.164.59.43 (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That's just crazy - it's very common for disputes to happen and be resolved after a song is released. ASCAP, BMI, Warner Chappell - these are up to date sources of truth and Wikipedia should reflect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.75.145 (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Socks

All European-located IPs are possibly Xboxmanwar. Feel free to revert any/all of his/her edits, without need for explanation, per WP:EVADE. 115.164.172.149 (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The possible sockpuppet is returned after two years of silence as an Australian-located IP. 2402:1980:8249:5940:75D0:431:F6D9:5C24 (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:See_You_Again/Archive_1&oldid=1137179033"