Talk:Set You Free (N-Trance song)

18:54, 12 September 2008‎

This article is the most notable Set You Free and should be moved to that page because it redirects to "Set You Free (disambiguation)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beej2k6 (talk • contribs)

Not convinced it's the primary use, but since it's the only one that has an article, I'll go along with it for now. Dekimasuよ! 05:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 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: no consensus. A pretty even split between supports and opposes isn't exactly a consensus, and I'm not about to relist a discussion for a third time. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

---

• Set You Free (N-Trance song) → Set You Free
• Set You Free → Set You Free (disambiguation)

– The earliest released of all three of the three subjects, yet still gets more traffic than the album, Black Keys song and dab page combined.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 02:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. User:Bradv (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose let readers choose what they want to read Set You Free (Gary Allan album), 2013 "Set You Free" (The Black Keys song), 2003 "Set You Free" (N-Trance song), 1995 In ictu oculi (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

They have chosen what the want to read: this article. Unreal7 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Readers have chosen - and they chose this topic. Dohn joe (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to all readers. i.e. the all including the 33 of 94 who will be messed up by this. Yes it may not affect the 61 of 94 much. Although they seem to be getting to the N-Trance song anyway, and they aren't going to get to it quicker if it is ambiguated by removing the one thing they are looking for which identifies the article, i.e. "(N-Trance song)". As it is only 2 of 94 are heading for the dab list. It is working. Why mess it up? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

If you disagree with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, just say so. It clearly meets the criteria there. This move will benefit readers and editors as a whole, which is the whole reason for primarytopics. Dohn joe (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the second half of Primary Topic being ignored. This move will not benefit anyone. Neither the 33 looking for something else, nor the 61 already finding what they are looking for. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No, IIO, please don't speak on behalf of every other user. You use that same excuse of "this won't benefit anyone" to oppose every single move request I make. Unreal7 (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

But the problem is that I honestly think 9 of any dozen of your move requests will not benefit anyone. Wikipedia isn't Top of the Pops where we are obliged to pick one song or album as the article people should be sent to. And removing the artist name: Set You Free (The Black Keys song) benefits no one. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course not, because this is not about the Black Keys song... Unreal7 (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - While the stats say the N-Trance song has more hits than anything else, the base title itself looks very vague to associate with N-Trance. Average daily views are under 100, not 1,000 or something. Article quality should be improved for the articles of the same name, but even improved quality wouldn't make one topic more primary than the other. The N-Trance song was charted in European and Australian music charts, while the Gary Allan album was charted in North America. Also, neither topic meets WP:CRITERIA to occupy "Set You Free". Also, stats of the artists themselves tell the different story. N-Trance is lesser known than Gary Allen, who is not as popular as The Black Keys. George Ho (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You could say that Sweet Nothing is pretty generic too, but when it's necessary, it's necessary. Unreal7 (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, Sweet Nothing (film) is underdeveloped. There is Sweet Nothings. George Ho (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Consistently receiving 65.1% of the page views[2] - roughly 2/3 of all traffic - plus greater long-term significance makes this the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Cuchullain.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Cuchullain as well as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. –Davey2010^Talk 03:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per the second prong of PRIMARYTOPIC being ignored, as In ictu oculi pointed out. There's been a rash of RMs like this, and they're all a bad idea. When multiple notable works (often of the same kind, e.g. songs) all share the same title and we have articles already on a bunch of them, then the most reader-helpful thing to do is to continue to disambiguate. If the incoming pageviews are something like 90% for one thing, then sure, it's the PRIMARY.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because they all have some kind of notability does not mean they all have equal notability. Unreal7 (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Relisting comment: While this song may have more views than other similarly-named songs, does that mean there is a consensus that it should displace the disambiguation page? Bradv 02:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Yes, it's the primary topic.--Cúchullain t/c 02:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Note: Cúchullain already !voted earlier.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Note: SMcCandlish already !voted earlier, not that this needs to be pointed out every time someone makes an additional, non-!vote comment.--Cúchullain t/c 15:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC) I disagree as per George Ho,  SMcCandlish ☺ Alázhlis (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC) That's right. 4 supports and 3 opposes: consensus. Unreal7 (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC) I'm not sure what Bradv is driving at exactly, but they are essentially just restating the question. It's up to the closer to determine whether there's a consensus here or not. Dohn joe (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Correct. It seems it's just confusing things.--Cúchullain t/c 15:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: Nine topics on the dab page, not an overwhelming predominance of views, article is basically unsourced WP:Original research (possible copyvio?). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2017 (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.