Talk:Dominos (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dominos (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 November 2017[edit]

Dominos (Big Pink song)Dominos (The Big Pink song) – The name of the band is "The Big Pink". Ss112 04:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like for disambiguator "(Beatles song)", "The" is not a great idea here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ss112 and Dicklyon: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to go through this process because I don't even care that much about this article. So never mind, I've moved it back to Dominos (song) because no other article exists with the song name "Dominos", per WP:NCMDAB. Also, we have a disambiguation page for any confusion. I still disagree that "The" should not be included in namespaces. The Beatles' articles are a unique example because they've been through years of back-and-forths and new consensuses. Basically every other acts' articles on Wikipedia use "The". The Big Pink's other articles disambiguate using "The Big Pink", so if this had been kept, it would be inconsistent. Ss112 06:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ss112: If you "don't want to go through this process", you should not be moving articles. WP:RM is the process for handling article renames any time the move could be controversial.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: I meant go through the process of debating whether "The" should be in the namespace. The Rolling Stones' articles do, The Chainsmokers' articles do, and so on. The Beatles are about the only example I can think of where users have decided "the" isn't needed. I should have just reverted the move done earlier this year, which I already did. I didn't think it would be controversial to undo it, because the contested request was to move it to an entirely different namespace. You can continue to ping me here if you really feel it's necessary, but I think that's about all I have to say. Ss112 04:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dominos (song) per WP:CONCISE and WP:DAB (i.e., do not over-disambiguate). If this needs to be further disambiguated later, use Dominos (Big Pink song) per DickLyon (i.e., per WP:THE, WP:CONCISE again, and per normal RM practice of not including "The" in band-name disambiguations when not necessary). [An example of when it would be necessary is when the result without it would itself be intolerably ambiguous, e.g. with the band The The, since a disambiguation that introduced a new ambiguity would be a failure.]  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]