Talk:London Boy (mixtape)

Requested move 29 September 2019

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved London Boy → London Boy (mixtape) and London Boys (disambiguation) → London Boy, left London Boys as no consensus for changing from primary topic for that title. If the Swift song is the primary topic for the singular, that would be another request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

---

• London Boy → London Boy (mixtape)
• London Boys → London Boys (pop duo)
• London Boys (disambiguation) → London Boy

– Please see the various topics listed at London Boys (disambiguation). None of these topics seem all that dominant. Is the recent mixtape that much more important than the David Bowie album and the Taylor Swift song? Is the pop duo that much more important than the four similarly-named songs that are all by very well known artists? Are the plurals and the use of "The" sufficiently distinctive? Personally, I didn't remember to look for "The" and a plural when I was reminded by Taylor Swift of Bowie's memorable and formative 1966 song. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1st and 2nd moves per nom (no clear primary topic), and Support 3rd move (but I'm fine either way whether the dab page is hosted at "London Boys" or "London Boy"). Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • MOS:SINGULAR might tend to make us prefer the singular. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support all improvements. But London Boy (album) better. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah London Boy (David Bowie album) so London Boy (Chip album) In ictu oculi (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• • No objection to London Boy (album). I forgot the outcome of the previous "mixtape" conversations, but I'm pretty sure IIO has not, so I defer on that. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support I think mixtape is better since there is an official Bowie album with the same name (it has been professionally reviewed so it could have an article). Alternatively, London Boy (Chip album) could work too. Neodop (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1st move because the Taylor Swift song has now become the primary topic and probably will be for the foreseeable future[1] unless it's redirected to her album after the current discussion there, in which case there'll be no reason to move this article. Oppose 2nd and 3rd moves because London Boys are by far the primary topic for that title[2] and either the Swift song will remain primary topic for London Boy or the Chip mixtape will remain the only article needing the title. Station1 (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Move London Boy to London Boy (Chip album) - the term "mixtape" is ambiguous (it could also mean an amateur tape made at home), and not that recognizable, whereas ultimately this is just an album and we just need to disambiguate it from the Bowie album. Oppose the other two per Station1 - London Boys is a primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral on any, but oppose "London Boy (Chip album)", sources call it a mixtape, and as requested by WP:NCM use mixtape. "it could also mean an amateur tape made at home" would make sense if there was another mixtape called London Boy, not before it even exists. Tbsock (Tbhotch away) (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

We really need to undo that edit to WP:NCM, a very tiny local consensus there. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: An RFC that lasted 2 months in the talk page of said page and that was promoted in multiple pages is now local consensus? No. This is your typical "I don't like it" comment. Next time better say "pure rfcism", it goes straight to the point. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 13:52, 9 October 2019 (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.