Talk:Loreen

(Redirected from Talk:Loreen (singer))
Latest comment: 1 year ago by ClydeFranklin in topic Requested move 13 May 2023

pronunciation of name

edit

The article says

Lorine Zineb Noka Talhaoui (Swedish pronunciation: [lɔˈreːn ˈsiːnɛb noːˈra talˈhavi]

Is the ⟨k⟩ in "Noka" really pronounced [r]? She "was born… to Moroccan Berber immigrant parents", so I suppose the name needn't follow normal Swedish orthography, but this seems strange. --Thnidu (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Birth name

edit

Her registered name is "Lorine Zineb Noka Talhaoui", listed on Upplysning.se and Ratsit.se,[1] among others. However, in a video interview with German TV channel Bravo, she claims that the "Noka" in her registered name is a misspelling and that "Nora"[2] (Arabic: لورين زينب نورا طلحاوي)[3] is the correct name. Ecacheiro (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ "Lorine Talhaoui (38 år) Stockholm". www.ratsit.se (in Swedish). Retrieved 2022-07-14.
  2. ^ "Deutsche Bravo Interview with Loreen". Retrieved 2022-07-14.
  3. ^ "حوار مع النجمة المغربية لورين عن الفيديو الموسيقى الجديد لأغنيتها Ride". Vogue Arabia (in Arabic). 2017-12-26. Retrieved 2022-07-14.

Requested move 13 May 2023

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: rough consensus to move. This is a complicated RM, one which I mulled over closing as no consensus, however I do overall find the supporting arguments stronger than the opposing ones. Detailed analysis:


Those in opposition stated that this is recentism, while the supporters countered that despite the recentism, she still was and has been over the threshold for being the PTOPIC. The opposition also stated that Loreen is a name with multiple others, which was countered by WP:TITLEPTM since no other Loreens are known mononymously as such, and that all of the Loreens get low pageviews. Finally, the opposition argued WP:NWFCTM, however the supporters argued that even if NWFCTM applies, it still gets the bulk of views and clickthroughs, which I admittedly don't think is a good rebuttal, but I still overall find supporting arguments stronger.


I'd like to finish this close as a reminder that nothing is set in stone. After a reasonable time period, we can revisit this. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 02:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply


– As only the second person to win the Eurovision Song Contest twice, she is now the primary topic. PatGallacher (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose - I don't think there is enough popularity for the songs, as seen on Loreen_discography for this to be well known to be the primary topic to be honest, which includes the UK where just one entry charted to date. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. The singer seems to be the prevalent topic. --Brunnaiz (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Wait I feel this should be closed without prejudice, to be reopened when the documented spike in popularity is over. The name is obscure and the singer is clearly the most notable person with it (and, to be sure, who is known exclusively by it; see Shakira), but whether this discussion is influenced by RECENT or not, we won't know until after the fact, so waiting seems best. Kingsif (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I second this idea. Any decision on this matter should wait until the momentary media hullabaloo is over. That way a decision can be made with any parties is more-or-less neutral positions. Stevenisinatree (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. "Loreen is a name" is not an argument. All the other name-holders get 20-50 page views a month, which is extremely low. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support - certain primary topic. Tad bit RECENT but I doubt that there's enough recentism here to change any !votes. estar8806 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is similar to my thinking. Yes, there is an obvious RECENTISM boost here, but the other BLPs all not being mononyms (therefore being NATURALly disambiguated via their additional names), the singer having a large amount of cited sources, and Loreen (name) being a redlink all added up to tip it for me to accept the singer as the primary topic per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC) And obviously we would place a hatnote on the singer's article directing people interested in the other Loreens to the DAB page. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose The disambig should suffice. There are several other WP articles on women with that first name. No need to single this one out just because she chooses not to use her surname. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
WP:TITLEPTM is part of our guideline on primary topic, and it directly disagrees with you. Red Slash 17:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support, she is clearly the primary topic, seemingly none of the other people listed on the disambiguation page go by Loreen mononymously either and are all quite obscure, whereas Loreen (singer) has won a very high profile international event twice and had multiple hits across Europe. Mountaincirquetalk 09:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - To some people this Loreen is the primary topic. But to many she isn’t, especially people who don’t have experience with the Eurovision Song Contest. So it would be best to keep the original title so other pages with Loreen in the title can be found more easily. Tescomealdeal1 (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
WP:TITLEPTM disagrees with you Red Slash 17:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
You may be giving undue weight. (WP:YESPOV) Unless it is provable that there is another Loreen that has any comparable notability to the singer, there is no reason to oppose this move on grounds of not being the primary topic. Zorblin (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Wait This person is currently in a media frenzy, so making long term decisions about the position and title of their article is a bad idea. Wait until they are back to the amount of fame they enjoy when not participating in Eurovision. At that point, we will have a better gauge of her fame and whether or not this move is needed. Stevenisinatree (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Tentatively Support the person in question is not only very notable as the only woman to win Eurovision twice, but also seems to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC-compliant. Others have pointed out that the only other article that is titled simply as Loreen is Loreen (song), and that Loreen (name) is a redirect to Loreen (disambiguation). Either way, care should be taken as this is also a decision that could be subject to WP:RECENT due to recency bias. Zorblin (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support as per WP:PTOPIC. I don't think WP:RECENTISM applies here as she is the only woman to have ever won Eurovision twice, which is always going to be notable. -ASHEIOU (THEY/THEM • TALK) 00:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support, clearly the primary topic and I'd argue has been for years, so the recency argument doesn't really hold for to me. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Wait Media attention on her is naturally high, and, while she might likely become the primary topic, it's better to see if it holds up in the long run. Chaotic Enby (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
[1] How muich longer do we need to wait? The singer has been the PRIMARY based off of pageviews ever since the tool was made. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose on this definitive example of WP:RECENTISM. Jmg38 (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
    [2] Pageviews going back to the start of recording show very clearly otherwise. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support The sourcing indicates that this person is the primary topic. The other people mentioned in Loreen are nowhere as notable as this person and most likely have long-term significance. Carpimaps (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Why aren't they nowhere near as notable, can you provide some information other than the assertion? --Joy (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment I respectfully suggest caution here. Guideline "A topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people (for example, as the name of a local place, or software), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience." Also WP:NWFCTM. This woman is known only to her fans, which are not in a major percentage of readers here. We are at risk that (1) the other articles on women named Loreen (with surnames) are unfairly out-classed, that (2) the first name itself is given low importance and (3) that fans unduly push this through. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I disagree -- I did not watch Eurovision, nor have I ever listened to her songs. However I support the move since it is clearly WP:PTOPIC. This seems like the whole Twice debacle, but the other articles under the DAB page have way lower view counts. Loreen is also not the most common name, especially with its usage split between spellings such as Laureen. 160 million people watched ESC this year, and that puts it up there in terms of relevance. Zorblin (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Hundreds of millions watch every ESC, though, and this doesn't implicitly translate into long-term significance of every ESC-related topic. Can we say that all or most of these people when they read the encyclopedia have an expectation that they'll navigate to ESC-related topics first? --Joy (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Stop generalizing here. We are not talking about ESC in general, We are talking about articles that are linked to by the page Loreen (disambiguation). In terms of these articles, nothing else comes close in pageviews and article length. Zorblin (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Wikipedia navigation is meant to serve the average English reader, not just the average ESC fan. If you're unwilling to even try to answer such a question from the perspective of the ESC fans who are part of those page views, I don't think this is a very productive discussion. --Joy (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
    To be honest, I agree now. the DAB page is fine as it is, it does not astonish. Zorblin (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I am by no means a ESC fan (I pretty much only know of Lordi lol). Going into this RM, my initial thought was that this probably didn't need to happen (ie, my preconception was to lean oppose). But look at all of the facts. First, that WP:NATURAL applies here due to the other BLPs having surnames in their article titles. Second, the only case where disambiguation is needed, Loreen (song) (which happens to be a clear 2nd place for pageviews) has far fewer RSs and wikilinks. Third, the singer consistently has more pageviews than the other articles put together, even when discounting the spikes that will happen every time a music artist puts out a release.
    We are not "unfairly out-class[ing]" the other articles like what SergeWoodzing fears. No one, no one, here has argued in favour of another PRIMARY. By the same token that you say ESC fans are navigating to Loreen (singer) just fine, fans of the other subjects can navigate to those articles just fine. Or, to put it another, more blunt way, the average Wikipedia reader is and has been navigating to the singer's article, which is why it should be moved. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, and that's because of the relatively fresh popularity of the topic that causes the average ESC fan to be the average reader. Nevertheless, in the grand scheme of things this is still comparably as niche as is the given name or whatever other meanings, and an average reader who is not an ESC fan might well be slightly astonished to see the short-circuiting. IOW I think that we tend to apply WP:PTOPIC too liberally in general. --Joy (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Loreen is clearly the primary topic here. — Tom(T2ME) 14:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose the current situation it's already the best solution. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support: She's by far the most popular Loreen - she has the most pageviews out of any other page in the disambiguation and considerably more wikilinks. Also (this may be a Eurovision fan thing) she's the only Loreen I've heard of. Wasabi OS (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.