Talk:Side to Side

Requested move 02 September 2016

The following discussion 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.

---

Side to Side (song) → Side to Side – Side to Side currently redirects to Dangerous Woman (album). There are no other songs named Side to Side. – —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• OPPOSE. There are at least 5 variations of Side to Side. At least 3 of them have been voted on. It was decided to redirect all of the pages to the album Dangerous Woman because the song does not meet the requirements. Kellymoat (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• These pages, that I have found, are:-
  1. Side to Side /* long article, 29 August 2016‎
  2. Side to Side (song) /* long article, 13:12, 5 July 2016 to 03:19, 2 September 2016
  3. Side To Side (song) /* longish article, only 2 text edits, 1 September 2016‎
  4. Side to Side (Ariana Grande song) /* only a redirect, 03:19, 2 September 2016‎
  5. Side To Side (Ariana Grande Song) /* short article, 7 to 8 August 2016‎
  6. Side To Side (Ariana Grande song) /* short article, 27 August 2016‎
  • They all now redirect to Dangerous Woman (album). @SomeoneNamedDerek and Kellymoat: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
    • • • Oops: add Side To Side. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
    • And some those pages have been admin-blocked for one year. The latest vote came just a few days ago (after its release). It is not notable, and all of the information is already contained within the lengthy (and still growing) album article. If things change, and it becomes a "smash hit", I would be willing to change my vote to allow Side to Side (Ariana Grande song) become an article. But as of now, I voted to delete but the consensus was reached - Redirect to Dangerous Woman (album).Kellymoat (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Oppose – This move request is pointless now. Side to Side and Side To Side have already been fully protected to prevent recreation, and all attempts at recreation have failed to actually establish notability. The two articles I mentioned were already history-merged once, but at this point it's not possible to merge their histories because they are parellel histories. All of them should be fully protected, the shorter ones may be deleted and then possibly recreated as a redirect as pointless duplication with no value. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Notability has been established for the topic as soon as the song was released on August 30. There was no reason to blank the contents of the article that I recreated. As per WP:NSONG, the song has already reached 2 of the 3 criteria, being

1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.

3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

Therefore, the song establishes notability. From the article I have recreated, there were 27 reliable sources that were referenced adequately throughout the article. It might not have been notable a few months ago, but it sure is notable enough to warrant an article now. Therefore, this article can be moved to Side to Side as that is currently a redirect to the parent album. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Your argument against the previously voted consensus would be logical if we had voted in March. But the most recent vote (that I know of) happened AFTER the song was released. We also voted earlier on the song, before it was released but after it was announced that it was going to be released. We're even voting (again) right now. The latest decision to redirect is less than a week old. The song did not become notable over night. That is why those pages are admin-blocked for a year. Everyone needs to chill. Give the song time to actually become notable. Not every song requires a page. I have a Grammy and don't even have a Wikipedia page. A three day old single is most likely not going to be notable. But I am open to revisiting the idea of notability in the future. Tomorrow is not the future, next week is not the future. If I have to discuss this song in September, my vote will most likely be against it - because it was already decided what to do with it.

As to the message you left on my talk page, asking why I "blanked" the page. I will discuss it here for everyone to see instead of just the people who visit my take page --- My edit summary says "If you are going to ask for yet another vote on this song, at least wait for the results!" The previous vote was to redirect. You undid the redirect, and then asked for a vote which was then sent back to the talk page for an open discussion (again). It makes total sense to me, if you want a discussion as to why the song should be included in an encyclopedia, you should wait until the discussion is had before you make changes to it.

The post-it note on the top of the page says that the (another) final decision will come in a few day. Changing the redirect while another vote is taking place would be like putting Donald Trump in the White House today and then removing him if Clinton wins. Obama stays in office until the vote has concluded, the same as the page remains redirected. Kellymoat (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

To the point concerning why you blanked this page, I was unaware that a vote took place about redirection recently. Initially, I marked this page to be redirected to Side to Side as an uncontroversial technical request, until an admin remarked the request as controversial. The page itself does NOT need to blanked. This discussion is for moving the page to Side to Side. It's not an marked as an AfD. Regardless, once again I have to reiterate that this page is NOW notable, as there are clearly enough reliable independent sources that support the article's notability. It has been charted in multiple national charts, which further solidifies the article's notability. The release of the music video and the single itself allowed for further notability, as the song is becoming increasingly popular in terms of streams and iTunes downloads. There is no reason to blank the page again - this discussion only pertains to moving this page to Side to Side. I don't see a problem why this page cannot be moved to Side to Side, as that page currently is being redirected to the Dangerous Woman album page (which further shows that this is the only notable song named Side to Side). Please recheck WP:NSONG and tell me why this song does not warrant an article given the minimum criteria, because I'm still confused why it's hard for everyone. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

So, you thought that it was just a coincidence that all of those pages were redirected with edit summaries saying "consensus is to redirect"?

In fairness, I haven't checked any of those pages lately. I don't know if their edit summaries still exist. So, maybe you have a reason to have not known. Either way, I and the other voter, have stated that the vote happened, and it was decided to redirect. If you continue to put the information up on the page, this one will probably be blocked for a year like the others. If you really want the page to exist, you probably don't want to wait a year.

The song did not become notable from the time we last voted to redirect. Like I said, the song was already released as a single when it was voted to be redirected. And the song is less than a week old.

And as far as I am concerned, the vote isn't about renaming anything - because we already voted to redirect the song to the album. A vote to rename the page is simply a vote to send a song under a different name to the album page. That is silly to me. Let the vote be about whether or not to even have an article before we worry about renaming it.

Kellymoat (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging users involved in article recreation @U990467, Cloverboy19, Virajshankar, and Anthony Appleyard:. Okay, then we can have a discussion on whether this article should be created. This song is notable, as I stated plenty of times before, because it already meets the criteria mentioned in WP:NSONG. It is true that this article does not HAVE to be created, but I have recreated this article not only because it's notable per WP:NSONG, but it's also because I wanted to simply contribute to the encyclopedia in good faith. Let's take a look at the criteria mentioned in WP:NSONG, for the third time. This song is "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label," as clearly seen through the 20 or so reliable sources in the article that I recreated (this edit). There's actually about 262,000 news results that show up on Google News with the search query "Side to Side Ariana Grande ft. Nicki Minaj" Also, because this song is now a single as of August 30, (Archived Source) it has become more widely known than when the song was only part of the album in May. A music video has been released on August 29 that has since almost received over 18 million streams on YouTube. This song was performed at the 2016 MTV Video Music Awards for the first televised time on August 28. An extremely vital factor of why this article should be recreated is because the single "has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." (WP:NSONG). The song has charted in Canada, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and was #1 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles. In fact, just recently the song has charted at #1 on the New Zealand Heatseekers Chart for the week of September 5. (Chart here) Why isn't the topic notable for an article, now that we know the song is recharting in multiple countries because of the single release? I've created some lesser-known songs' articles where there were only about 2-5 charts that the song has charted on, and I know that's enough to warrant a new article (Some articles include You & Me (Marc E. Bassy song), Alarm (Anne-Marie song), Hurts So Good (Astrid S song), among others). Once again, there is NO need to blank an article on a topic that's very much notable as of today, maybe not in May. By blanking the article, you're only hurting the WP:POPMUSIC project. I will not recreate the article again at this moment (just to avoid WP:3RR and to allow further discussion), but I hope you understand why this topic NOW meets WP:NSONG. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The song also recharted in the United Kingdom at position 72, for the week of September 2. (Chart). —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

HA. Of the 4 names you listed, I already know that 2 of them are going to be in favor of posting it. I don't know the other 2. Why not "ping" the people who voted to redirect. Why not just copy and paste the previous votes so they can be included. Why not ask the guy that blocked the page from editing to voice an opinion. Cherry picking the people to cast votes is hardly an honest way to come to a consensus. Besides, I am done discussing it. I've already said "it was recently voted on" and that I could be willing to change my vote in the future if the situation changes. But as of just a few days ago, the consensus was to redirect the page.

Kellymoat (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You replying on who I ping to discuss the topic isn't going to go anywhere. Are you aware of the WP:NSONG criteria that allows this song to become an article? The situation has already changed since the song has already been recharting in multiple countries (even 30 in Scotland). Please, read through what I said entirely before making a response to just my first sentence. I'm allowing more people to engage in this discussion. Anthony Appleyard was involved with moving the articles as an admin. You can also ping people too; I'm not going to complain about having a more diverse discussion instead of just us two. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand that there was a vote several days ago and that several of the namespaces related to the song are protected, but I really feel this is just fighting the inevitable. Full disclosure, I was pinged by SomeoneNamedDerek, but if the song were not notable enough to warrant its own article (and many songs aren't, so I am not automatically in favour of these types of things), I would be able to see the argument for why not. As there is no other notable song under Side to Side, it should be moved there, and it is already notable enough for the reasons SomeoneNamedDerek has pointed out. It's a full single release now, it has charted and continues to re-enter in multiple countries, it was performed at an awards show, it has a music video that's received millions of views, etc. Surely another vote now would be in favour of creation. Of course, there were other editors (and IPs, I think?) restoring dubious content before its single release that was again redirected—that's understandable. However, its status has changed and it seems an oversight to not have an article for it already. Ss112 02:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Support I believe this page should be redirected to Side to Side because there is no page on Wikipedia that uses this title. (120.144.32.162 (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC))

Requested move 02 September 2016: part 2

• Comments: "Side to Side" is now notable enough to have its own page. And the page should be moved to "Side to Side" per WP: MOS. U990467 (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support and merge the histories of all duplicate articles. This song is definitely notable; there has been significant media coverage related to it in the past few weeks. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: yes I voted to redirect at the last vote, but the situation has changed now, even in the space of a few days, and the song is now unquestionably notable, just as a few days ago it was unquestionably not notable. So yes, it should have its own article, and the title should be "Side to Side" as no disambiguator is needed. This is what happens when editors create pages with WP:CRYSTALBALL – they get put up for AfD and then shortly afterwards they need to be recreated. Richard3120 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support, and I'm astonished that opposition uses RM as a notability vehicle. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• "merge the histories of all duplicate articles" :: some of those articles are WP:Parallel histories, and/or were started independently and not by complete cut-and-paste. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support The song is notable based on all notability criteria of a music article. Bluesatellite (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – It looks like it may be notable now, but RM is not the right venue for this, it should be taken to WP:DRV. I suggest a procedural close, I posted at ANI. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note As per the closing at AFD, I have redirected the article given in that close. This is done in an administrative capacity, I have no interest in the article content itself. This article is substantially identical to the AFD, enough to qualify for speedy delete, actually. A consensus on this page can NOT override that AFD, as the AFD is a global decision and this discussion is a local discussion, so it is a waste of time. WP:DRV is the right place, even though it was not formally deleted. Then if it is notable, it will be handled per policy. This takes a few more days but is the right way and if it is restored, will make it less likely there are future problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for directing this to the right place. I have started the deletion review here, for those interested in supporting/opposing article recreation. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 7 September 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: moved as proposed; consensus at this RM and the previous RM which was closed early clearly support a move. SSTflyer 09:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Side to Side (song) → Side to Side – Side to Side currently redirects to this article. There is only one "topic" on Wikipedia that covers the query "Side to Side", that being Ariana Grande's song. One may argue that someone might be looking for the side-to-side idiom instead of this song, but we could use {{See wt}} on Side to Side if necessary. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support – No need for disambiguation, per nom. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support. It was established at DRV that circumstances have changed and an article may be recreated. It looks like the notability threshold has been met, since the song has charted. But for all the prior creations and deletions, I'd say this is a slam-dunk and do it now; even though WP is a bureaucracy, I'm inclined to give an opportunity for opposing viewpoints. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support -U990467 (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support (121.214.164.7 (talk) 10:10, 8 September 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.

Song

Unfortunately, this song is about so much cant walk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.90.188.110 (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)