 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Move?
edit- 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: Move Staying Alive (disambiguation) to Staying Alive and Staying Alive to Staying Alive (1983 film). No consensus for moving Stayin' Alive. This of course does not preclude renominating the song article on its talk page for further discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Staying Alive (disambiguation) → Staying Alive
- Staying Alive → Staying Alive (1983 film)
- Stayin' Alive → Stayin' Alive (Bee Gees song)
– True, WP:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation explains how to distinguish titles by capitalisations, such as red meat and Red Meat. Maybe use of punctuations, such as "Staying Alive" and "Stayin' Alive", are useful. The 1983 sequel to the 1970s film gets 500 or 550 views average per day, and the Bee Gees song is getting good 500-700 hits per day. No other topics are challenging either of them: 2012 film, soundtrack, and the rest. However, numbers prove that two articles are big hits, but I don't think they prove what the readers wanted. Most likely, the sequel has bad reviews and condemning accolades, while the song is more recognizable in many ways. Also, Something Else and Somethin' Else proves that common sense overcomes rules of precisions. -- George Ho (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support and "Stayin' Alive" would redirect to the disambigution page, I assume? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support, except for moving Stayin' Alive; anyone searching for that term with the apostrophe is almost certainly looking for the song. In fact, one could make a reasonable argument that Staying Alive should redirect to the song. Powers T 18:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support all elements of the proposed move.
- How can Powers (see above) presume such a thing? Enquirers will not typically know anything about the difference in significance between Stayin' Alive and Staying Alive. At least, we cannot rely on the unargued assumption that they do. Nor is there any need for us to rely on it, given that it is extremely easy to meet all needs by using appropriate precision. Many enquirers will know vaguely that there is a song with repetition of "stayin[g] alive"; if they heard that, and remembered that, as "stayin' alive", then they might guess that the name of the song is "Stayin' Alive". But they equally might not! Conversion of /ŋ/ to /n/ in the ending "-ing" is a dialectal or idiolectal feature of English that may or may not be reflected in the written form. By no means can it be relied on to make the sorts of distinctions we what.
- Simply call a song a song, a film a film – and an album an album, a band a band, and a spade a spade. Especially when there is zero harm in doing so, and at least the strong likelihood of benefits from doing so. Why anyone would strive to do otherwise is mysterious.
- NoeticaTea? 00:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- If someone goes to the trouble of typing the apostrophe in place of the 'g', it's likely because they're familiar with how the song is traditionally spelled; as you note, the difference between the two is likely too subtle for one unfamiliar with the topic to distinguish. One unfamiliar with the topic is likely, as you state, to look for "Staying Alive", whereupon he or she will (if the move goes through) rightly find him- or herself at the disambiguation page. Powers T 13:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- And your point, in the end? What about the unknown but almost certainly large number of people who, unlike us, have no familiarity with the arcane ways Wikipedia chooses (alas!) to distinguish articles, and also those who do not input a single normal straight quote mark (equivalent to an apostrophe) instead of a g, being unfamiliar with the exact "official" form? How does your suggestion help overall? (Note, for what it is worth, that both Google and the Wikipedia search engine are blind to the single quote mark. Type "stayin a" into the search box and see what suggestions turn up. O, and then try "stayin’", with a non-MOS-recommended curly ’. See the problems that arise? A user might input such a ’, and find nothing. Why and how is this relevant? Well, often users paste selections in when they search, rather than type. Could be from a source that uses ’, not '. Happens all the time.) NoeticaTea? 02:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- "also those who do not input a single normal straight quote mark (equivalent to an apostrophe) instead of a g, being unfamiliar with the exact 'official' form?" They would be completely unaffected by my opposition to moving Stayin' Alive. If they put in the 'g', they'll be sent to the disambiguation page, which is exactly what would happen if all of the proposals pass, as you recommend. That use case does not differ between your preference and mine. I also tried your 'search' recommendation, and I don't see the problem. Both "Stayin A" and "Stayin' A" returned the same results. I agree the lack of response to the curly apostrophe is annoying, but I don't see how moving Stayin' Alive to Stayin' Alive (Bee Gees song) assists that in any way. Powers T 18:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- And your point, in the end? What about the unknown but almost certainly large number of people who, unlike us, have no familiarity with the arcane ways Wikipedia chooses (alas!) to distinguish articles, and also those who do not input a single normal straight quote mark (equivalent to an apostrophe) instead of a g, being unfamiliar with the exact "official" form? How does your suggestion help overall? (Note, for what it is worth, that both Google and the Wikipedia search engine are blind to the single quote mark. Type "stayin a" into the search box and see what suggestions turn up. O, and then try "stayin’", with a non-MOS-recommended curly ’. See the problems that arise? A user might input such a ’, and find nothing. Why and how is this relevant? Well, often users paste selections in when they search, rather than type. Could be from a source that uses ’, not '. Happens all the time.) NoeticaTea? 02:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- If someone goes to the trouble of typing the apostrophe in place of the 'g', it's likely because they're familiar with how the song is traditionally spelled; as you note, the difference between the two is likely too subtle for one unfamiliar with the topic to distinguish. One unfamiliar with the topic is likely, as you state, to look for "Staying Alive", whereupon he or she will (if the move goes through) rightly find him- or herself at the disambiguation page. Powers T 13:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I concur with Powers. The song should remain at "Stayin' Alive". Googling "Stayin' Alive" -wikipedia suggests that the song is primary. The proposed disambiguator is purely explanatory, and it does not address a true titling conflict. Article titles should be the actual name of the subject to the extent that our software allows this. Explanations belong in the opening sentence, not the disambiguator. This type of RM is editor oriented, and motivated by a desire to clarify the relationship among articles. Readers are looking for a particular article, the one that is most specifically about the subject they are interested in. As for the other moves, the film does not have a strong claim to be primary. But I don't see any particular benefit to moving it. It may have gotten terrible reviews, but why would a reader prefer a DAB? If he is seeking the song, that is already in the hat note of the film article. Kauffner (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why would a reader want to read more about the film if he wants to know more about the song? Hatnotes are sometimes ignored. Statistics of the album, the song, and the dab page (after 04-17) of "The End of the Innocence" proved it. No evidence proves that "'Precision' policy" overcomes this proposal, as apostrophes within titles are not addressed there. Even the fact that the song is titled this way does not help prove how readers type these titles. --George Ho (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Its common sense basically Finnegas (talk) 20:58, 21 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.