Talk:Run for Cover (Sugababes song)

Remix lengths?

Does anyone know the track lengths for these remixes: "Run for Cover" (J-Walk mix) & "Overload" (Nick Faber remix)? -- Underneath-it-All 17:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (2012)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. A consensus has not been reached on whether the additional disambiguation is helpful or not in this case. Aervanath (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Run for Cover (Sugababes song) → Run for Cover (song) – There is no other article about a song with the title "Run for Cover". Till I Go Home (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Run for Cover (song) currently redirects to the DAB page Run for Cover, where At the DAB page Run for Cover we find that there are at least ten other songs called "Run for Cover" mentioned in Wikipedia articles. It is hard to see any advantage to anyone, if the precision in the present title were stripped away.

[Added when I corrected details above:] Run for Cover (song) should redirect to the DAB page Run for Cover. Noetica^Tea? 03:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Am I missing something or does Run for Cover (song) redirect to Run for Cover (Sugababes song)? Jenks24 (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! My mistake. Fixed now (see above). Noetica^Tea? 00:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Who cares. Disambiguation is just a resolution when there is more than one existing article with the same name. The ten other songs don't even have their own articles. There is no other article for a song called "Run for Cover". Till I Go Home (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? I care. Do you? Please present your demonstrations that these points don't matter on Wikipedia: 1. The current situation is most helpful to readers. 2. It is hard to see any advantage to anyone, if the precision in the present title were stripped away. Noetica^Tea? 05:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC) ☺♫!

How is it more helpful to readers if there is not another song article with the title "Run for Cover"? It just doesn't make sense. This is the only article about a song with the name 'Run for Cover', thus the Sugababes bit is unnecessary. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. For one thing, other songs with the same very common-sounding title are referenced on Wikipedia, as the DAB page shows. For another thing, even if they were not so referenced, remember that readers live in the real world. Unlike us! They may be looking for something for which there is not yet any presence on Wikipedia. If guidelines or policies ignore that, they ought to be treated with good sense in the interest of those real readers with their real needs. There, I have answered your question. Have you answered my requests for explanations? ☺♫♪? Noetica^Tea? 08:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some of the other songs may have articles written on them in the future, and the current situation would allow them to be integrated more easily and with no confusion. INeverCry 08:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for the future. Currently, the article in question is the only one about a song with the name "Run for Cover". Till I Go Home (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Only notable song of this title, redirecting Run for Cover (song) to Run for Cover (Sugababes song), rather than vice versa, is completely pointless. If one of the songs listed on the dab page does get created, then we should disambiguate – we don't disambiguate preemptively. Jenks24 (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

But Jenks, that is just to appeal to principles that are not demonstrated to work in the interests of readers. I have often demonstrated that at RM discussions. It is uncomfortable to deal with such complex issues, and increasingly (for "political" reasons, and because of threats made against those who try) confronting them at more central locations is not feasible. Why do you not consider seriously these questions, which are perfectly reasonable and relevant at RM discussions: What actually works to meet readers' real needs? Why treat readers as if they were tightly confined within the Wikipedia world, and did not come with all the expectations and uncertainties from usage in the larger world? That's where they live, even if we don't (or persistently pretend that we don't, rather). Noetica^Tea? 00:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Making readers who search for "Run for Cover (song)" go to a dab page where only one notable song is listed does not improve the reader experience, it simply makes readers click through more articles. I am vaguely following the discussions at the policy/guideline pages and I don't think your proposals are being opposed for "political" reasons, but simply because most people do not support them (though I do understand it is difficult to get consensus for anything at pages like that). As for "living in the real world", if we are completely honest, most readers come to Wikipedia articles through Google, not our internal search system. So if the article is titled "Run for Cover (song)" they still get to see " 'Run for Cover' is a song performed by English girl group the Sugababes. The 'Babes, Jony Lipsey, Cameron McVey and Paul Simm all co-wrote the song for ..." before deciding if they want to click through and read the article. Jenks24 (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Jenks, no one is making anyone go to a DAB page, under the present arrangement. As the full pageview stats show (see below), only a small minority of readers involved in this discussion go to a DAB page. There is no reason to think that a substantial proportion of those who do so are looking for the Sugababes song. Why would they go to the DAB page, when searching on Wikipedia or with Google they get the opportunity to select a prominently displayed link to Run for Cover (Sugababes song)? Some might be looking for something else: including (and this is important for you to note) things for which there is at present no coverage on Wikipedia. Some may well be looking for a summary of usages for the common expression "run for cover"; these readers will be completely satisfied with an adequate DAB page, and not in any sense have come to a dead end in their enquiry.

Now, if it is true that readers come through Google (and I agree with you that most almost certainly do), then we should attend to how Google treats the current Wikipedia titles. In the first 100 hits for a search on "run for cover" (at least from my computer), just 2 results are from Wikipedia: "Run for Cover (album)" (ranked at 5th position) and "Run for Cover (Sugababes song)" (ranked at 6th position). In the last 90 days these articles have had 7847 hits and 1538 pageviews respectively. I cannot see how we could get Google to serve Wikipedia and its readers any better. Can you? To fill things out, the DAB page Run for Cover got 799 pageviews; and the page Run for Cover (song) (a redirect to Run for Cover (Sugababes song)) got 65 pageviews. Run for Cover (film) got 1029 pageviews.[Last sentence added after Neotarf's comment.–N]
Please explain how (in the aggregate) readers would be better served under the proposed arrangement than under the present arrangement.
♫♪? Noetica^Tea? 10:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No one will see the DAB page, at least as things stand now. I would not have known it existed at all except for the link in this talk page.

I appreciate the thoroughness of the pageview stats, but I think in this case no one is making a claim for a primary topic. Also I suspect this is primarily an Oz topic -- I have never heard of this song myself. Aussies seem to be dominating the current discussion (although a reason for that might suggest itself if you look at the academic calendar for the northern hemisphere).

Yes, the usual political issues are in play here, the "precision" thing, the intimidation thing, and an aversion to parentheses in titles that you don't find, for example, on the German wiki. There are Noetica's tiring explanations, and there are search engine issues that are not resolved. I for one would like to see the continued discussion of all of these issues on the RMs, as I don't think you can make a good judgment without seeing how policy works with actual articles. But for now, wiki-politics aside, this article, or group of articles, is not working, and the task at hand should not be neglected for the side issues. Neotarf (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf, how can you claim that that "no one will see the DAB page, at least as things stand now"? The DAB page is Run for Cover. It comes up first in the suggestions, when one has typed "run for cover" into the Wikipedia search box. It is followed by three other suggestions (Sugababes song; album; film). As for the DAB page on Google, under no proposed arrangement would it be found among the early hits in the search I presented above. But people can find it readily with a search on "run for cover" Wikipedia. The top four results, in order: DAB page; album; Sugababes song; film. In fact, even omitting the quote marks the search gives the DAB page at the top of the list. What could be better?

On other points of yours:

• I do not know whether anyone is making a claim concerning primary topic, in this discussion. For myself, I am working from the idea that Wikipedia should help its readers find what they are looking for: most equitably, and most efficiently. And I show by consideration of Google and Wikipedia searching how things work admirably under the present arrangement. I am waiting for someone to show how they would work better under the proposed arrangement. So far no one has done so, including you.
• I do not know what you mean about the "intimidation thing".
• I am Australian, but I had no idea that the Sugababes existed, let alone that they had any special relevance to Australians. Why think that they do?
• If you find my explanations tiring, you might try reading them with a view to answering their content rather than adding to the volume with irrelevancies. If I respond to reiterated mantras that do not engage with the demonstrable facts of the case, I prefer to do that in short form. If the facts are then ignored, I fill in the details. If the straight facts and their immediate consequences are still ignored, the failing is not mine.
• I have given the search engine facts bearing on this case; you have not responded to those facts. What is "not resolved" with search engines, for this case?
• You say "wiki-politics aside, this article, or group of articles, is not working". How is it not working? How would the proposed arrangement make things work better? Why see me as engaged in politics, in this RM discussion? I have present facts and arguments, to serve the readers optimally. I am waiting for a detailed response from Jenks, and from others.

♫♪? Noetica^Tea? 00:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, my comments were not all addressed to you per se, some of them were more or less generic comments in the spirit of the above thread. There seems to be general agreement that Google is the litmus test for search engines, yet your DAB page remarks are geared to the internal Wikipedia search function. When I google "run for cover" I get "Run for Cover (album)" on the first page and nothing on the second page. Also, I have never seen a DAB page come up in a google search. I've read somewhere that hardly anyone clicks past the first two pages of a search -- that certainly describes my google habits -- so I did not see any point in looking through, say, the first 100 entries. As for the rest of your laundry list, in order: 1) From what I have seen of the process so far, page hits are usually invoked when something is being claimed as a primary topic. I thought at first no such claims were made here, but now I see Jenks is talking about a "notable song" in this thread above, so it seems such a thing is being proposed after all. I am not showing "how things would work better in the proposed arrangement" because I oppose the move. 2) This is more or less corroboration of your remark about threats at more central locations. I have left those more central locations completely at this point because I found I was spending 95% of my energy fielding complaints that I had acted inappropriately by disagreeing with someone, and only 5% on wikipedia matters. Here in the back pages, I still have had to spend a lot of energy dealing with accusations that I "voted like Noetica", even if I voted otherwise or was absent from a thread. I'm not easily intimidated by virtual nastiness, but it is a time sink and it eats into the finite amount of time I wish to spend here. (Just for the record, Noetica is NOT my sock.) I fully expect blowback for voting the same as you in this instance. 3) Looking at the chart in the Sugababe article, Australia is listed first, looks like their single did all right there. 4) When I find your explanations tiring, Noetica, I stop reading and let someone else decide the RM, because I know your explanations will contain some bit of information that will come back to embarrass me later if I vote without giving them a close reading. Let's face it, they don't pass the New York taxi driver test. But I'm not saying you shouldn't write it, or that I don't ever go back and read it later. Not everything in this world should be dumbed down. 5) How search engines work is not known and probably can not be known, as the information is proprietary. Mostly I see only one topic when I google a subject, even if there are several articles differentiated only with parenthesis. Occasionally I see two Wikipedia articles with parenthesis come up in a search, which is more ideal, since it gives the reader a better chance of finding the information. But how to write titles that will come up in a search? 6) This group of articles doesn't work because no matter what you are looking for -- the song, the movie, or whatever -- you always get shunted to the Sugababes as if that was the primary topic. As I said before, I oppose the move. 7) You are perhaps not "engaging" in politics, but are "engaged" nonetheless, in the sense that "everything is political" and "politics is local". I don't fully understand the factions yet, but I do see that there are words (like "precision") that stand in for complex ideas -- everyone seems to understand the special meanings and use the words in the same way, then decide where a particular RM falls in the spectrum and divide themselves into inflexible camps. I'm not sure how fluid it all is, or who all is involved, but I do see the process at work. I don't see the content of what you post as particularly controversial in itself, the ideas are interesting and worthy of consideration; my remarks were meant in a more generic way, that the issue should be the content and not the editor. As I said before, I have been accused more than once of voting "with" you (not voting "for" a particular issue) and I fully expect to be challenged again. That is enough for now, your list has made me tired, but there is more going on,... oh, and there is another redirect page too. And what about albums and songs--is there a standard format for them, or is it all seat-of-the-pants? Neotarf (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom and Jenks24. JDDJS (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Run for Cover (song) should redirect to the dab page instead of Run for Cover (Sugababes). There are twelve other songs with this title, including one by Gary Moore with its own article. The reader who is looking for another song will only be directed to the Sugababes song and will be completely lost for further information. Neotarf (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The Gary Moore song does not have its own article. As to "completely lost for further information", that's what hatnotes are for. Jenks24 (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Not quite, the DAB page lists "Run for Cover (album), a 1985 album by Gary Moore, or the title song". Could be worded a little better though. I was not happy about the hatnotes for "and yet it moves". There were I think three people pasting hatnotes all over everything, and I pasted some myself, but I think we still missed some, plus IMHO they don't look clean. These RMs are often decided superficially and quickly by people with no knowledge of the subject, so I think that all around, hatnotes are not an optimal solution. In the time you would spend fooling with hatnotes, you could already have fixed both articles with parenthetical titles. Neotarf (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Support changing the "(song)" redirect to the dab page as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. The others are only dab mentions, true, but the WP:NCM guidelines, while vague, seem to support such dabbing when the songs/albums exist, not necessarily when the articles exist. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Use of 'Sugababes' in the title is superfluous when there are no other articles named Run for Cover (artistname song). Zarcadia (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2013)

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: Move. Rough consensus that the current parenthetical is unnecessarily detailed to distinguish it from other existing articles. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Run for Cover (Sugababes song) → Run for Cover (song) – The article should occupy the title "Run for Cover (song)" because it is the only article about a song with this name. If necessary, a hatnote can be added to the top of the article to redirect readers to the DAB page (Run for Cover) which provides them with the full list of songs called "Run for Cover". Till 09:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry Scientific evidence suggests the existence of a reality outside Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

...Hence the hatnote. Till 09:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

...but the hatnote isn't visible in RH top box, nor Google searches. The current title immediately lets the User know this is an article about the Sugababes song, nothing to be ashamed of, why remove it? One way or another there is already a disambiguator "(specific something)", all this move achieves is "(ambiguous something)", what's the point? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Fails WP:PRECISE. We may not have articles on the other songs yet, but they are certainly out there. Possibly a case for primary topic, but would need convincing. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, none of the other songs are notable at all, they are merely album tracks that probably no one will be looking for. This was a hit single from 2001. A simple hatnote in this context would be more than sufficient for readers to view other songs with the title. Till 02:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I think it's safe to say that if the songs were notable, they'd have an article, but they don't.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per the 2012 requested move -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There is nothing unambiguous in the present title. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support: See "Chasing the Sun" and "Under the Sun" as other examples. Unreal7 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support As long as this is the only song by this title with an article, the disambiguation is unnecessarily detailed. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support, my opinion hasn't changed since last year. I fail to see a compelling reason for why this article should be an outlier to standard Wikipedia practice. Jenks24 (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is the only song with an article, per BDD, if another song has an article, the dab link should be restored. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 15:13, 10 March 2013 (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 3

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: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Run for Cover (song) → Run for Cover (Sugababes song) – Per WP:NCM. Run for Cover (Lee Perry song) created since the last RM (though that shouldn't matter according to WP:DAB since the other 8 songs at Run for Cover are mentioned in en.wp articles), a new August 2013 single Run for Cover by Blitz Kids (rock band) is coming up first on Google at the moment. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Including the name of the artist is helpful to readers, there are several other songs with this name that are covered on Wikipedia, and this article doesn't have much depth or any indication of exceptional noteworthiness. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support by not per nom, simply because there's no evidence of primary versus Run for Cover (Lee Perry song). --BDD (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. References to primary when discussing song titles is not helpful. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2013 (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.