Talk:Child of the Universe (album)

Requested move

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: Not moved. I'm reverting the 10 February move of Child of the Universe to Child of the Universe (disambiguation), since that was done before any discussion had occurred. Until such time as the Delta Goodrem album becomes the primary topic for 'Child of the Universe', the base name should not be a redirect to that album. The DAB page should occupy the base name if there is no primary topic. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Child of the Universe (album) → Child of the Universe – This is the only article on Wikipedia of it's name. Really hoping that an administrator can help by changing article name back to Child of the Universe. Child of the Universe redirects to the Child of the Universe (album) page. BennySOTOTW:) (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm sorry but this album is way too WP:RECENT to be sitting as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I realise editors want to create articles on the latest albums and songs, that's great. But Primary Topic is determined by what is primary topic in Books, which articles Wikipedia's editors volunteer to make is not a factor (not a reliable source) for what is notable. Child of the Universe (disambiguation), Child of the Universe (Barclay James Harvest song) [after which was named Child of the Universe the Barclay James Harvest greatest hits album], Child of the Universe (The Byrds song), etc. these are more notable than Delta Goodrem's album, because they have more coverage in print sources than Delta Goodrem. Whatever way, the Australian artist's album, however popular now, is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for what is a well-used title. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This shouldn't have been moved in the first place, and the current set-up is awful. The base title Child of the Universe already redirects to this album, and there are no other articles on the dab page. In fact, most of the items on that (poorly formatted) dab page as it stands aren't even mentioned in the articles they link to. The best move will be to return the album to the base title Child of the Universe and link to a properly formatted version of the dab page in a hat note.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Cúchullain, I'm sure you agree that WP:DAB indicates that disambiguation is by topic not by article:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia. (A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.)

Primary Topic is determined by what is primary topic in Books. What evidence can you provide from Google Books that the 2012 album is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Or alternatively if you believe that WP:DAB should be by article not by topic then that demands a WP:FORK of album article content re the singles Child of the Universe (Barclay James Harvest song) and Child of the Universe (The Byrds song) into separate articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

First, you undermined your own argument with that poorly formatted disambiguation page that didn't even link to articles that mention the entries (I've now cleaned it up). Please take more care about that. Second, your interpretation of "covered by Wikipedia" is flawed. An item is not "covered by Wikipedia" by being off-handedly mentioned in an article or its track listing. This album remains the only Child of the Universe with an article, the base title redirects here, and we don't need to shuffle readers off to a dead end by moving the dab page to the base title. If readers are really looking for passing mentions of items buried in other articles they can find them from a dab page linked in a hat note.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe my interpretation of "A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject." is flawed, I understand that to mean exactly what it says. There is obviously an extension of the WP:RECENT problem with any volunteer-driven project into how much exactly is in album articles. If Child of the Universe (Barclay James Harvest song) and Child of the Universe (The Byrds song) were 2013 singles they would have large articles - as it is 1950s-1990s singles are squeezed into thin spaces on album articles which are also thin.

But back to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if there's no evidence that the 2012 album is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in Google Books then it should not be occupying the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC space. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The wording says "a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject", not "something mentioned in passing in some other article", and it certainly doesn't say "something being mentioned in passing in some other article negates the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status of other articles".

Beyond being the only entry with an article, or any real coverage in any other article, it's clearly the primary topic. It was viewed 4921 times in the last 3 months. That's comparable to the entire album the Byrds song is mentioned on, twice as many as the entire album the Barclay James Harvest song is mentioned on, and over 5x as many as the main articles on Screwdriver (musician)[1] and DJ Taucher[2]. Even if every single reader of those articles was there for their mentions of songs called "Child of the Universe", Delta Goodrem's album would have a solid claim to being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes thank you that does cover 1 half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but the fact is that the album is still selling, I don't believe that still selling = long term notability. If in 2 years time the album is proven to be so notable that all trace of The Byrds, Barclay James Harvest, DJ Taucher, Robyn Hitchcock, etc are overshadowed then "(album)" can be removed as unnecessary. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Cuchullain. There's no such thing as "too recent to be primary topic." If it's the only article on Wikipedia that could plausibly have this title, it's a no-brainer. --BDD (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The phrase is "primary topic", not "primary article". Child of the Universe (disambiguation) lists several other topics of that name which are already covered, just not in a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi. This topic is far too recent to be the primary topic, and Child of the Universe (disambiguation) lists many other topics of greater long-term significance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support per BennySOTOTW:) and Cúchullain. Melonkelon (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi. The recentness of the Delta Goodrem album and the existence of several other well-known songs at this title are both arguments in favor of disambiguation. Where possible, with respect to disambiguation, it is always better to plan ahead for topics that are extremely likely to be covered in WP as if those titles already are covered in WP. For one thing, this accounts for tangential mentions of those titles in in-article content (which might be rightly defined as "coverage" in a sense.) For another, the real existence of these extremely likely titles is sure to affect the search choices of readers. It serves both their convenience and the purpose of clarity to disambiguate for well-known titles, even if their articles are yet to be written. Xoloz (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The primary meaning of Child of the Universe is none of the possible articles by that name, it's the famous title track of Desiderata (Les Crane album), which features a repeated chorus You are a child of the universe. Andrewa (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. the Leonard Nimoy "Spock Thoughts" spoken word album didn't pick up the phrase "Child of the Universe" and emphasize it, but the Grammy winning music album by Les Crane has "Child of the Universe" as the first words and then the chorus. Most of the references on Child of the Universe (disambiguation) relate to Les Crane's chorus. This new album is nowhere near WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd have called it Fred Werner's chorus... but yes, exactly. That's not to say any of the derivative uses couldn't eclipse this one, and given time any or all of them (together or individually) may, but at present they haven't. Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

If this RM succeeds then it's irrelevant, but if it fails (as I hope) then the target Child of the Universe (undisambiguated) should redirect either to the DAB or perhaps even to Desiderata (Les Crane album), with an appropriate hatnote at the target in the latter case. Andrewa (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2014 (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.