Talk:Forever & Always

Requested move

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: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Forever & Always → Forever and Always (Taylor Swift song) – This album track is up for AFD, but with or without, it is not the only subject, nor more notable than all other Forever and Always topics combined. The "&" doesn't predominate in Google Books, most Taylor Swift bios use "and". Forever and Always (Lefty Frizzell song) 1952 is currently a redirect, but clearly the most notable long term (song) topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. It does appear reliable sources use "and" and not an ampersand. -- Calidum 03:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per above. The ampersand title should point to the disambiguation page -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Ampersands, commas and other speech marks are pretty useless to identify articles at the best of times. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, and agree with 67.70.35.44 on redir to DAB.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously. An ampersand is not a distinguisher. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Just a reminder that this request should not be closed as a move while AfD is in process. Dekimasuよ! 05:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support and agree with IP and SMcCandlish re redir to DAB. Agree also with Dekimasu re AfD, it seems likely to fail (and should) but best to let it close first. Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Andrewa yes it closed as keep. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:34, 25 November 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.

Requested move 29 October 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: move to Forever & Always (Taylor Swift song). (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Forever and Always (Taylor Swift song) → Forever & Always (Taylor Swift song) – The consensus in the 2014 discussion was that the ampersand was not sufficient disambiguation for the article to simply be titled Forever & Always. That does not indicate consensus for Wikipedia to change the name of the song as it appears on Swift's album, or as it is reported in reliable sources. Chase (talk | contributions) 03:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Odd how this was overlooked. Carbrera (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support I agree. Musicedit98 (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support? I do have one issue with this - the 2014 RM indicated that reliable sources at that time often spelled out "and" - but the current common name appears to use the ampersand.  ONR  (talk)  04:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• To be honest, the list of items at Forever and Always is just a bunch of non-links -- the Swift song is the only one with an article, regardless if and or the ampersand is used in the title. Why disambiguate at all? Calidum ¤ 05:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Move to Forever & Always (song). Per RFC consensus. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 09:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support it's useless to separately mention that it was sold with an ampersand since the song was released with an ampersand in it. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - I would say keep "and" and in the lead say "stylized as forver & always". And then create a page using "&" that redirects to "and". Think about it like a dictionary - if you don't know how to spell a word, how are to look it up to see how to spell it? WP is the same. If you are not a fan, but you hear people talking about the album and you want to look up some information on it, you aren't going to know to use "&" vs "and". With the redirected page, anyone that knows to use "&" will end up at the same place as those who do not.
  
  ALSO, I oppose dropping the parentheses at the end of the title. With millions of pages available on WP, many common phrases need distinguished. Kellymoat (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ampersands are not "stylizations"; not to mention WP:COMMONNAME trumps guidelines (which are just that, not de facto rules). And our titling policy isn't meant to teach readers how to spell, otherwise we'd be having a hell of a time with Prince's catalogue. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:38, 5 November 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.

Suggestion

User:HĐ The first half of the paragraph you wrote into Composition and Reception..{ In "Forever & Always", Swift sings about her relationship with a boyfriend, who still "hasn't called" despite the fact that at an earlier point in their relationship, he had declared that they would be together "forever and always". } seems to deem better fit in the ‘Background & recording’ section of the article to me. Let me know your thoughts! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it fits better in the "Composition" section because it discusses the lyrical content. Regardless, you could just edit the article if you find something needing to be addressed without having to ask me :) HĐ (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:HĐ  Self-trout My apologies for bothering you, I thought that was the best way to go about revising an edit from a Veteran such as yourself! Take care! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries--even veterans make mistakes (though I do not identify as one), so just be bold and do what you think is right. Best, HĐ (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Why?

@Doomsdayer520: I realise that you were only doing a TR, and that Tree Critter shouldn't have made a TR counter a historical RM result above, but were there any other factors in implementing the TR which mean the above RM result no longer stands? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

curprev 16:59, 26 May 2021‎ Doomsdayer520 talk contribs‎ m 10,255 bytes 0‎ Doomsdayer520 moved page Talk:Forever & Always (song) to Talk:Forever & Always without leaving a redirect: request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests undothank

curprev 15:54, 26 May 2021‎ Tree Critter talk contribs‎ m 10,255 bytes 0‎ Tree Critter moved page Talk:Forever & Always (Taylor Swift song) to Talk:Forever & Always (song): The only article for a song with this title, per WP:SONGDAB undothank

@In ictu oculi: - You already asked me this exact same question nine months ago at multiple talk pages, and my response is the same this time. I handled a page move request for someone who made the request with certain reasoning, and I made a determination about that stupid ampersand based on evidence I could see at the time. Evidence: The title includes the ampersand at Billboard [1], on the back cover of the associated album [2], and the official Taylor Swift website [3]. The "and" is often used mistakenly in commentary by fans and journalists. Or just change the page title back yourself if you think there's reason to do so, and see if anyone objects. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)