Talk:Shape of My Heart (Backstreet Boys song)

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

Too many No. 1s?[edit]

Where did the information come from that "Shape Of My Heart" went #1 in so many countries? It was a #2 in Germany and according to this site it didn't chart in France at all. Can the remaining ~20 countries be verified? - Velour 05:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The chart section has been fixed. Thank You --50cent4 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Sting's "Shape of my heart" song[edit]

I am not sure if songs should be added the encyclopedia. However, I guess Sting's this song is too famous and should be mentioned in an article. --Araks 08:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 February 2015[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: Both moved per nom. Oppose votes debating the validity of guidelines and policies were not given any particular weight, as this will not be resolved here, and aside from those, consensus is overwhelmingly clear. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Clear primary topic. Far, far more notable than Sting's song or Noah and the Whale's song. Unreal7 (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • A musician's notability does not determine the notability of their songs - chart success does. Unreal7 (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sting might be the better musician but he is not more notable than this group, more like on par, as they have sold more than The Police and Sting combined, if his wikipedia page is accurate. Even if he was more notable, that doesn't mean his song is too. It doesn't even have its own page.--Krystaleen 16:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The fact is that there are three songs with the same title and the Backstreet Boys song loses NOTHING, that's right NOTHING (IMO) by having the name of the group mentioned in the title. GregKaye 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the fact is that, whilst there are three songs with the same title, neither of the other two have even a fraction of the notablility of the Backstreet Boys song. Also, whilst the song doesn't lose anything by having the name of the group mentioned in the title, that's totally irrelevant because, when something (e.g. this song) is quite clearly the primary topic, having the name of the group mentioned in the title is completely unnecessary. Unreal7 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest that "Shape of My Heart" becomes the disambiguation page, i.e. no particular song favo(u)red with the article title "Shape of My Heart" without disambiguation. 195.147.25.84 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The Backstreet Boys song is the clear primary topic by any measure: Page views, commercial success and critical acclaim. The existence of other songs with the same name doesn't mean this can't be the primary topic. Of course the same group of editors is attempting to block this move, but the whole "we need to disambiguate every song" routine has been rejected several times [1] [2] [3] [4]. WP:IDHT is a guideline for a reason. -- Calidum 16:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Calidum: And been rejected many more times. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, all that proves is that you want the least number of losers, whereas I am rooting for NO losers. Shut down the casino. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Or to put it another way, you want 18% of readers to "go forth and multiply" or some similar expression. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you want 100% of readers who type "Shape of My Heart" and hit enter to go to the wrong page. No one wants a dab page. I only want 18% of them to go to the wrong page. Dohn joe (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not for me, when I have typed "Shape of my" I see four entries for Shape of My Heart including 3 disambiguated, so I would go straight to the Backstreet Boys if that was the article I was looking for. The problem you describe happens when you remove the disambiguation. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Richhoncho: It sounds like you’re opposed to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Might I suggest arguing against it there rather than in a move discussion? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against primary topic, it is a guideline that says if something is extremely notable there may be a primary topic. When applied against several song titles which are cliché and commonplace it does not work. This is why WP:SONGDAB, without any encouragement or changing by me, eschews primary topic. Also as I pointed out above, primary topic is not generally required. If the removal of primarytopic means more stability for article URLs then I would be in favour of its removal. Gradually, because some editors love WikiVegas Casino, I find myself in opposition to PT. The is no compunction anywhere that says we must have a primary topic. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
“WP:SONGDAB … eschews primary topic.” Where and how does it do that? It says to disambiguate when necessary. Nowhere does that page state when disambiguation is necessary, so that naturally falls to WP:Disambiguation, which includes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And it is not necessary to disambiguate a primary topic. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says when there are two articles with the same name ("when necessary") to add (song). When there are two or more songs to add (artist song). It's not the best written guideline, but it is clear. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where Wikipedia policy specifies that definition, and I will concede the point. Otherwise, I’ll assume that WP:D—not you—defines when it’s necessary. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SONGDAB. It's a guideline, unfortunately there is no policy that ensures reders read WP guidelines correctly. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That page gives no such definition. It says to disambiguate (e.g. (song)) when necessary, and then to disambiguate further (e.g. for multiple songs) when necessary. It does not say when disambiguation is necessary. WP:D does, and a primary topic (even if that’s a song) is a case where it is not necessary. SONGDAB does not tell us to disambiguate here. It is true that we can, there’s nothing that says not to do it if we think that’s best; but invoking policy that doesn’t apply just distracts and detracts from that argument. (Note: By the general term “policy,” I mean the collection of policies, guidelines, and widely accepted essays.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (judging by page views). WP:SONGDAB does not say to disambiguate the primary topic, so it need not apply. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the compunction in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC you refer to? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure what you mean. If you’re asking how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC supports this move, then: “A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.” Evidently, this is the case here. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It opens with, "Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic.". Sometimes? That's a key word that nobody reads. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And it goes on to explain when those times are. This is one of them. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the word "must" or compunction in primary topic. There isn't. You know there isn't and I know there isn't. All Primary Topic says that editors may agree amongst themselves there is a primary topic. It's not like we can get rid of all disambiguation, is it? Some of it helpful to the reader and this song is a prime example. BSB and music is so "in universe" we need to help readers, not make it more difficult, when there are two or more songs with the same title. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So we’re agreed that disambiguation is not required here. Good. So why is it desirable here, when the only alternatives on Wikipedia are two songs with significantly less interest? Why have the disambiguation page at the base name when most of the people looking for an article by that name are going to be looking for this one? What’s behind your position other than a disdain for statistics? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what I said and you know it. For "cultural" items fuller disambiguation is not only beneficial but necessary when there are two of more items with the same title. I support my claim with a screenshot at File:Wikipedia_search_Shape_of_My.pdf --Richhoncho (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So… you believe policy does require disambiguation here? I maintain that it doesn’t, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (a point which I thought you agreed on; sorry for misunderstanding). Or do you contest the claim of primariness despite the pageview stats? I’m not sure what your screenshot is supposed to prove; if this page is moved, that search would read something like:
    • Shape of My Heart
    • Shape of My Heart (Sting song)
    • Shape of My Heart (Noah and the Whale song)
    • Shape of My Heart (disambiguation)
    So if you were looking for the article that most readers look for, it’d be the first suggestion rather than the second. I just don’t understand what it is that you believe would be problematic. Do you think that without “(Backstreet Boys song),” readers would think the article was about the shape of an editor’s heart? What are you trying to avoid here? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with primary topic which says it is a guideline (NOT a policy) and it may be beneficial in SOME instances. I have no problem with that whatsoever. What I have a problem with is those editors who run from RM to RM irrespective of the subject/project trying to enforce PT as though it contains compunction and without reference to context. We are talking about a song recorded by Backstreet Boys, so there is nothing misleading about leaving BSB in the article URL - in fact it is beneficial in any event (disambiguate by content?). To oppose (Backstreet Boys song) only makes sense if the song is famous for other artist(s). Sting or Noah fans may have never have heard of the BSB song, so they will assume the UNdisambiguated title is the one they require. Isn't it preferable to have the disambiguation page (where same name songs without articles can also be listed) which is quick to load?
An additional considerations for song-related discussions is that song titles are usually commonplace and/or cliché i.e. not distinctive on their own.
Readers looking for this article are interested in Backstreet Boys, why hide the clues? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because disambiguation is not needed here. Disambiguation is not the default state of article titles. We have rules about when it’s needed, not about when it’s avoided, because titles are not disambiguated when there’s no need for it. In some situations, it’s been determined that there’s always a need for it even where there’s a primary topic, such as numbered classical pieces per WP:MUSICSERIES. This is not the case here—there is no consensus that song titles must always take a disambiguator (though it’s an idea worth considering). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have 3 songs with the same title, Shape of My Heart, in Wikipedia, although you can in real life, so we have a discussion whether there should be disambiguation for this article. We do NOT have rules that make it incorrect, wrong or anything else, we do have guidelines that say to avoid when it is best practice. In this instance, as clearly demonstrated, it is not best practice. That's how I voted, and that's how my !vote stays. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we can have one song at that title as the primary topic. Do you deny that the BSB song is primary for “Shape of My Heart”? You’ve said several times that we don’t need a primary topic for every title, but you haven’t claimed that this title did not have one, so I’m asking. Note that a term can have a primary topic and still have a DAB page at the base title; it’s just not the norm. What makes this case different from all the undisambiguated PRIMARYTOPIC articles? If it’s because it’s a song, should all non-unique song titles be disambiguated? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, if you check WP:NC (A "policy") you will note there are 5 considerations for naming, and I quote in full below.

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles.

So here's my comments against each guideline in respect of this nomination :-

  • Recognizability. Is "Shape of My Heart" recognizable? No it's not because it does not signify content.
  • Naturalness. In general terms songs are referred to in conjunction with the artist's name - NOT separated from it. So in an instance where there are two or more songs with the same name it is natural to disambiguate by artist.
  • Precision, Primary topic as discussed on the page is direct opposition to precision.
  • Conciseness. This is one the nominator and his supporters have elevated to the detriment of the other 4
  • Consistency. A large number of songs are titled song (artist song), some unnecessarily so (i.e. nothing with the same name in WP), so it is not inconsistent with naming. The words "specific conventions on article titles" should be read and understood, too.

Furthermore WP:NCM supports this view as does WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The inconsistency arises when one of the above is elevated above all others in every single case.

Another consideration is stability, this article has been at the same place since 13 Nov 2009. Why move it now when it has happily sat here for the past 6 years?

Finally to answer your question, I don't think there can be a primary topic between songs. Different songs by different artists in different genres in different eras will have a totally different demographic amongst readers. We should acknowledge this. And, as I have already said song titles can be commonplace and cliché so there is no reason why another song with the same name comes up and becomes "more notable" so we go through all this crap again.

Leave this song where it is, it is doing nobody any harm except those that are OCD about WP titles and they can help in the real world. LOL --Richhoncho (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think there can be a primary topic between songs." That's the problem, chief. That thought runs counter to our guidelines on article titles, which make no such claim. -- Calidum 15:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I very clearly pointed out above with direct quotes WP:AT there is no policy or guideline that says we must have a primary topic. We should be considering 5 items, which you are not doing. Stars and Stripes would be a primary topic if there were 2 songs with the same name, but some long forgotten song should be primary topic? Nah, that really is OCD. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd lay off on calling others OCD if I were you. I don't think you'd like it if I called you a paranoid, delusional manic depressive. -- Calidum 15:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only if was true. LOL. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, to a degree. Nothing says that we must have a primary topic - when there isn't one. We are, however, mandated to apply the primarytopic process to each title and see if there is one. Here, applying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to "Shape of My Heart" shows that - among all the uses - this article is the primarytopic. You can certainly believe that no song should be primarytopic, but recognize that that is an exceedingly minority position. Dohn joe (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dohn joe:. If you believe there are examples where there is no primary topic can you point me to an RM where you have come down against having a primary topic? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to go through my entire contrib history, but I found Talk:Alexander Davidson and Talk:Reina (singer) without much trouble. I have no trouble with dab pages when they're the better solution. It may seem like I always !support finding a primarytopic, but that's because there are a couple of RM regulars who have been trying to expand the usage of dab pages away from longstanding community consensus. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of cases where a dab page is the better solution. This is not one of them. Dohn joe (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, one or two was all I required, although I would have been happier with a song-related example. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:No Place to Hide (song). Dohn joe (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, how about a discussion relating to 2 songs? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to prove exactly, if I may ask? (By the way: No Place to Hide#Songs.)—174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No Hiding Place was the only song in a disambig page move, so obvious that I didn't even bother to comment, but I wonder whether Dohn joe has ever felt it necessary to decide there must NOT be a primary topic between two songs? I should have made that clearer from the start. Just because there is a horse race, doesn't mean you have to lose your shirt. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that One More Time is a pretty good example of lack of primarytopic among several songs (and other topics). Dohn joe (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very good example, but not one you supported "no primary topic" in an RM. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No we are not "mandated" to apply a primary topic, however, it does say we "may" apply primary topic. I note, for instance, you commenting on many RMs across every subject, whereas I mainly comment on music-related and primarily song-related RMs. Isn't that telling you something? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mandated to apply the process. Not mandated to act on it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
“There is no policy or guideline that says we must have a primary topic.” True, but in this case we do have a primary topic. The question is whether or not to disambiguate it, since (as the primary topic) we have the choice of whether or not to disambiguate it. You make a good case for disambiguation, in my opinion, in laying out how the naming criteria factor into it. I’m considering changing my vote, mainly on the basis of recognizability now that someone’s pointed it out. (I’ve seen a lot of other non-disambiguated common-phrase work titles that seemed to need disambiguation on the same grounds, especially single words where capitalization cannot differentiate them.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Page views do not tell the whole story. There is considerable doubt as to whether there is a primary topic, and even which of the three songs it is if so. Under these circumstances, the DAB should stay where it is. Andrewa (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrewa - where has that doubt been expressed? In ictu said that Sting is 20x times more notable than the Backstreet Boys, which a) is probably wrong, and b) has nothing to do with the primaryness of either of their songs. GregKaye said that there were three songs with the same name, but did not address wp:wprimarytopic in his comment. IP 195 opposed without any rationale. Richhoncho has stated a preference for universal (or nearly) disambiguation of multiple song titles. You also opposed without saying why you thought the Backstreet Boys song was not the primarytopic. If you have doubts as to why the song being viewed 85% of the time is not the primarytopic, please explain why. Dohn joe (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dohn joe:. As Andrewa has the commonsense not to reply to you, I shall. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC reads, in part
Determining a primary topic
There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move. Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons) include:
That's clear enough, even primary topic says there does not have to be a primary topic and be careful of how you garner your evidence if you argue for primary topic (a prime example is the support below by 107.107.59.46). --Richhoncho (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because I've never heard of the other songs of the same name. This one reached the top 10 on Billboards chart and earned a Grammy nomination. How can anyone say it's not more notable? 107.107.59.46 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Backstreet boys have gotten 25M views on youtube for their version, Sting got 0.65M views. Obvious primary topic. ~~Ip user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.33 (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by all evidence.--Cúchullain t/c 21:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not that there aren't some poor arguments on this side as well, but there are some exceptionally weak arguments against this move. The claim that this song is PRIMARYTOPIC for the term has not been seriously, substantially challenged. It's been denied, but that's a very different thing. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. All of the support !votes rely on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which says that you may or may not decide to have a primary topic. Bit like instructions to turn left or right and then saying you was told to turn right...--Richhoncho (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Garbage. Please see WP:LISTEN. -- Calidum 01:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you've made an argument regarding primary topic besides a general "there doesn't have to be one" (which is a straw man if I've ever seen one), please point me to it. I'm talking about specific evidence as to why there's no primary topic for this term. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD:. Look here. 4 policy reasons and more not to remove the disambiguation.

Then we have a number of projects that specifically request "unnecessary" disambiguation, these include:

So, the answer to BDD's question "why there's no primary topic for this term," it is because there is a music guideline that says we don't have primary topics. Because you cannot compare two songs from different eras and different genres, we don't do WP:CONCISE because it messes up WP:PRECISION and if you want to prove that I am wrong you need to ensure all projects are suitably admonished and have primary topic added to their guidelines. My question to you is why must the name of the artist be removed?

Yes, I am listening, I am paying attention and sometimes I ask for clarification if a new point is raised - not that I've seen much that needs attention. I think it is some others that desperately need to read WP:LISTEN.

--Richhoncho (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except WP:SONGDAB says no such thing, and this has been confirmed over and over across many RMs and policy discussions. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC very much does apply to albums and songs. There are dozens and dozens of songs and albums which are located at the base name despite the existence of songs and albums with the same titles. If you wish to change this consensus, feel free to start an RfC to that effect. In the meantime, accept that this is the current state of the community. Dohn joe (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2015 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shape of My Heart. 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) 11:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 December 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move Shape of My Heart to Shape of My Heart (Backstreet Boys song), and move Shape of My Heart (disambiguation) to Shape of My Heart. A case of how consensus can change. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– The Sting song should be primary topic. It has a lot more page views, and is also known for many cover songs. Tholme (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Iffy★Chat -- 11:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative support, or at least would support a shift to having no primary topic. Bearing in mind the earlier discussion from 2015, long term page views show a clear rise in interest for the Sting song beginning mid 2016 then increasing significantly in the middle of this year, the latter perhaps due to the Juice Wrld song? PC78 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • PC78: The jump in page views is tied to when this was created as a separate article; it was previously a redirect.—Cúchullain t/c 18:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, of course. So clearly a different situation from the last discussion in 2015, when the Sting song was merely a redirect pulling in minimal page views. PC78 (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the Backstreet Boys song at least, neutral on Sting. Page views since the Sting article was created show that the situation has changed substantially since the last RM, and the Backstreet Boys song is no longer the primary topic.—Cúchullain t/c 18:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moving Sting per long-term significance of the Backstreet Boys song; neutral on status quo vs. disambiguation page. Red Slash 18:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Red Slash. --Bsherr (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial support. I would prefer the dab page at the base term. The Backstreet Boys song is certainly not primary. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1, oppose 2 move Shape of My Heart (disambiguation) to base line. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose primarytopic grab; disambiguate instead. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 11 December 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:Shape_of_My_Heart_(Backstreet_Boys_song)&oldid=1210335631"