Talk:Private Idaho

What is it about?[edit]

The article should say what the song is about. --Srleffler (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. 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: article about the song moved per request with no dab page. Favonian (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– The disambiguation page is currently set up with only two pages, and the second page is My Own Private Idaho. Given the difference in page titles, I believe the singular page with this title should be the primary topic, and the current disambiguation page moved (or, my preferred solution, deleted and handled via hatnote) to accommmodate. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC). Dewelar (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Private Idaho had been a redirect to Private Idaho (song) since February 2009 and is the only page with the title. Dewelar used {{db-move}} on the redirect so that the song article could be moved. Nyttend declined the deletion, but instead of restoring the redirect, replaced it with disambiguation page. I have restored the redirect, as the disambiguation page is unnecessary. There is no reason to expect that the movie is commonly referred to with the name of the song. Hatnotes are sufficient for disambiguation in this case. older ≠ wiser 16:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving the song; there is no need for a standalone disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 16:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Title can refer to either one. Time to start helping readers instead of assuming that the song is what "Private Idaho" seekers want. Nyttend (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I did not expect this kind of response to what I thought was a simple request, so my curiosity continues to be piqued. Why do you feel a disambiguation page in this instance is more helpful to readers than a hatnote? This seemed to me to be exactly the type of situation for which hatnotes were created. -Dewelar (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per WP:TWODABS and unnecessary disambiguation. If disambiguation is justified in cases like this, it's justified in countless other cases, and they all should be moved, with a new title having to be determined in each case. Absurd. --B2C 19:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as an unnecessary move. What is the benefit to remove the word "song" from an article about a song? --Richhoncho (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, would you support moving all articles about songs to include "song" in the title? If not, why only in this particular case, especially when there is no other article with the same title? older ≠ wiser 19:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I see no benefit to unnecessary moves. The title is neither incorrect nor imprecise. Therefore it is an unnecessary move. Nyttend has made a good supporting comment above. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The move was requested to remove an unnecessary disambiguation per Wikipedia guidelines, particularly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but also WP:TWODABS and WP:HAT. You and Nyttend need to support your argument with more than just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Perhaps you can answer the question that Nyttend has thus far refused to answer: why is having a disambiguation rather than a hatnote in this specific case beneficial enough to override the guidelines? -Dewelar (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Richhoncho, If this title is "neither incorrect nor imprecise" then by that standard you should be supporting the renaming of all other articles about songs. Nyttend makes a completely unsupported assertion that is contrary to guidelines. How is that helpful? older ≠ wiser 23:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. What I am opposed to is the incessant and unnecessary moves for songs. If the nomination had been vice versa, I would have still opposed because it would be still be "neither incorrect nor imprecise." Using WP:PRECISE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to overcome WP:COMMONSENSE is farcical. Think about it! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You oppose consistency in the application of guidelines. Very well. I assume the editor closing this will take that in to consideration when evaluating the comments. older ≠ wiser 12:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again you misread me. I favor WP:COMMONSENSE, moving articles because of a guideline that is precisely that, a guideline, that does not mention nor measure the transient nature of songs generally is not beneficial to WP. To nominate a RM just to remove the word "song" from a song article has to be one of the biggest wastes of time on WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no obligation for you to "waste your time" if that is what you consider it. If you are unable to articulate a reason not to move that is based in policy or guidelines, then why do you bother? The benefit is that there is exactly one article by the title and the base name has been a redirect to the song for over four years. There is no naming convention that suggests the song article should be titled in the way that it is now. If you truly think that having "song" in the title is a benefit for readers, then you should support moving all articles about songs. older ≠ wiser 13:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More succinctly, if WP:COMMONSENSE were in operation, this article would have been titled simply "Private Idaho" from day one. The disambiguation page was never necessary. -Dewelar (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Private Idaho (song) to Private Idaho. Per WP:PRECISION. Oppose a DAB page with two links per WP:TWODABS. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support easy decision as per the many wise opinions and the guidelines already cited. Red Slash 23:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support given my current opposition to various recent ambiguating album/song RMs which are against WP:AT and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) it would be churlish to not support an RM that for once is in line with policy and guidelines. However a hatnote will be needed on the film given proximity of titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move, oppose a dab per WP:TWODABS. Absent solid evidence that My Own Private Idaho is commonly referred to simply as "Private Idaho," this is very unnecessary disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the move of the song, per PRECISION. However, use a HATNOTE instead of a DAB. Tiggerjay (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2013 (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.