Talk:Love?/Archive 1

New single "Good Hit"
According to Def Pen Radio, who was first to confirm Rihanna's new single Only Girl. This could be either true or false, but keeping in mind that both Rihanna and J.Lo are on the same label. They also played a snippet of the song on their radio. This is what they had to say: Def Pen Radio has exclusively learned Jennifer Lopez is set to drop her new single entitled Good Hit which will appear on her seventh studio album Love?. The track itself is an R&B dance track in which J-Lo uses some auto-tune. You’ll be able to hear a preview of the song right here on Def Pen Radio stay tuned.

Not saying this should be added right now. But I just thought it's worth a mention. And also according to the radio, the album isn't coming out until next year. ~ ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. Def Pen Radio is not a reliable source. Also snippets of songs leak all the time. Per WP:V all information must be confirmed from WP:reliable sources. We can't say that Def Pen Radio is reliable because they've not proven to be reliable about Rihanna yet. Until the song(s) are officially confirmed by the artist themselves or the artist's record label they won't even be mentioned. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually. The song by Rihanna has since been confirmed by her management via Twitter. I know that isn't valid for Wikipedia, but it's a fact. And as I said before, didn't say it should be added, just wanted to take note. —ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well funnily enough reports are now emerging that Rihanna is going to release a song called "Cheers" instead. Like I said, it might be considered fact by fans but on wikipedia NOTHING is fact until it is confirmed by a record label, artist or other reliable source. Note reliability aside, credibility is also significant. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  15:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said I commend you're effort but just hold fire for the time being. You might also like to know that just because a single is announced it does not automatically recieve its own article. Please read WP:NSONGS thoroughly. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Those reports were quickly shut down my SRP, and it's now confirmed the song will be called "Only Girl (In the World)", and ironically enough, the page was just deleted. But anyways, regardless, I'll say it again, just wanted to make note of it. —ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Videostatic.com reported that videoclips for "Good Hit" and "Take Care" were shot. So either both of them will be the first single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.62.42.234 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Album Title and Concept
On Thursday, December 09, 2010, ABC-TV featured Jennifer Lopez on Barbara Walter's The 10 Most Fascinating People of 2010. On Walter's 18th annual special, Lopez elaborated on the title and concept of her album coming out next year in 2011: "Love? came from my questions about love and life.  And I think the babies had a lot to do with that.  When the babies were born and I felt that love and that unconditional love, I was like, this is what it's supposed to be."

The 10 Most Fascinating People of 2010 hosted by Barbara Walters, ABC-TV, 12/09/10

Shawntbrady (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Shawn T. Brady

Out of date?
I've kind of let this article fall into disrepair as the album got pushed back more and more. But I think its time to revamp. Over the next couple of days I'm going to rewrite the article and hopefully restructure it. Some of the sources have gone dead so some of the information has unfortunately been lost. I will try and retrieve/fix whatever I can but I can't promise miracles. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  03:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Release date
The release date of Love? has been pushed back a few more weeks to April 19. http://www.rap-up.com/2011/03/02/jennifer-lopezs-love-coming-in-april/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.109.152 (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

final date is may 3rd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.172.239 (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source so we can add that date? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The final release date is May 3. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlofan (talk • contribs) 15:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Recording
The lyrics of the songs for the album were most written in 2007 and 2008, but the album was recorded between 2009 and 2011, so I don't know why the article said the recordings began in 2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.62.11 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OR... &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  18:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No need for sources, it is all written in the article! There is just a contradiction by saying the recordings began in 2007 when it is written in the beginning of the article that they began in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.62.11 (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources from MTv say Lopez began work on the album in late 2007/early 2008 during the preganancy of her twins. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  21:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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 to Love?. Jafeluv (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Love? (album) → Love? — relisting ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC) --This article is definitely the PRIMARYTOPIC. A disam page for only two articles on Wikipedia is quite pointless. ℥nding · start 22:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Love? → Love? (disambiguation)


 * Oppose I think Love? should be merged into Love (disambiguation) and redirect there. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * note, Lopez's official website (see here) calls the album LOVE?. Should we name this page as such? &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so. Allmusic labels it that way as well. ℥nding · start 23:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose We do not use stylized forms in article titles. It can certainly be mentioned 'right up front' in the LEAD though that it is 'shown stylized as LOVE?'.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This merge is talking about moving it to just Love?. Me and Unique talked briefly about it being in caps, but agreed that it shouldn't be. ℥nding · start 01:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, guess I didn't really understand 'merge'. I was thinking the article was going to be re-titled LOVE?.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that is not going to happen. The question here is, what should live at Love?? Should it be this article about JLO's album? The disambig page there now? redir to Love (disambiguation)? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Move Love? (album) to Love?, hatnote to the second page, and kill the DAB page. per WP:TWODABS  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Move to Love? with hatnotes. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  00:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support removal of disambig per WP:TWODABS. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  01:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We now seem to have three entries on the dab page - does that change anyone's opinion?--Kotniski (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, looking at it, put me down as a support. The JLo album has got to be the primary topic, even if more items are found to put on the dab page. Happy to merge the dab page with that for plain unpunctuated "Love".--Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2011 (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.

"I'm Into You"
Who will make an article for I'm Into You?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared martinez gwapo (talk • contribs) 00:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An article has been created but it is not yet visible because the song is not yet notable per WP:NSONGS. Without charting, and still pending a full release "I'm Into You" cannot be made. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hypnotico
Will there be any reference made in the prose that Hypnotico was originally recorded and performed by Tami Chynn? Rain the 1  BAM 02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Anyone there to answer? Rain the 1  BAM 17:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The song you're referring to by Tammy Chin is legally registered at BMI under the title "Silly Heartbreakers" however when it leaked it was uploaded to YouTube as "Hypnotico." I'm in no doubt that it is the same song Lopez has recorded but presently there is not a reliable source to confirm this, thus although Tammy recorded the song for her 'then' sophmore album, it could be claimed she's simply the demo artist. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  00:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh right. Tami Chynn performed the song at a number of live shows and even said "this is Hypnotico" .. and on her official channel. Lady GaGa and RedOne were behind it - like the one on JLO's. I hope there is a source upon release. I guess we do not know if there is any major changes to the lyrics etc at present. Rain the 1  BAM 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After finally hearing J-Lo's version it is exactly the same sounded and lyrically as Tami's. I'll be on the look out for a reliable source now. Let me know if you come across one too Lilunique. Rain the 1  BAM 01:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As we suspected lol. Not to worry Rain, I have the album on pre-order. Soon as I get it I'll add the full credits from the booklet. :D :D :D &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  01:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong release date
"LOVE?" is coming out on May 3rd in USA, not April 29th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saremp (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source so we can add that date? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See the "Release history" section. It DOES show May 3 as the US date. However in the LEAD and infobox the earliest date is to be mentioned, no matter where it might be.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Album booklet shows "Hypnotico" as one of the 'Bonus Tracks', but...
...Amazon includes it? So what is the right way to show it?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. (bonus track) was listed on it before, but I guess someone sneaky removed it. ℥nding · start 10:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a kind of bonus track like Radar on Circus? -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  12:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see that it has been 'corrected'.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nuyorican Productions listed as a 'Record label'?
I think of Nuyorican Productions as an artist management, and perhaps licensing company that adds their logo to the product. I don't believe that these type of companies qualify as a "Record label" however. They could 'employ' the 'named' record company for distribution only perhaps. If these are to be called 'record labels', then probably most albums will have additional (basically unknown companies) added to the "(Record) Label" infobox field.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some discussions here and here have taken place about this... &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  01:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed some of that. Re-reading it ALL now. I thought it better to bring it here now, so that it won't continue to be split to different places.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Upon review of the prior material, it still seems to be unclear. The wiki article Nuyorican Productions has no sources either. So IMO, it is not encyclopedically (new word?) verifiable to claim it is a record label. So it should not appear in the infobox unless comfirmed as a label. It could be stated in the article text as being a copyright holder along with Island as it specifically says that. Island is known and recognized as a Record label, but I don't believe that Nuyorican Productions is. However, I shall not edit it away again myself - not wanting to edit war - but I truly don't believe it should be there until confirmed as a label.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't exactly any sources for Nuyorican Productions, so we really don't know anything about it. I've been on the hunt for some information about it. I say it's fine for now, since it is labelled on the back of the album and the singles. ℥nding · start 02:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess my question is...Does just appearing there make it a label? Or should it be verified as such?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The copyright to the album is actually with The Island Def Jam Music Group as that's where the C logo appears. Both Island and Nuyorican appear next to each other seperate from IDJMG. It would be an assumption on our behalf to presume that the copyrights were held with Nuyorican Productions when the cover shows that the copyrights belong to IDJMG. I question whether Nuyorican is acting as a production label or as the record label purely releasing Lopez material, and no other artists, but being distributed and under-written by Island. In the mean time until the situation is clarified... I'd prefer to leave Nuyorican in the infobox. Much in the same way Kon Live Distribution and Stream Line Records appear alongside Interscope for Lady Gaga. (I'm aware that both Kon Live and Stream Line are explicity labels and Nuyorican has not been proven so yet) &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  03:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the prior material you quoted (with the copyright symbol shown), "2011 © Nuyorican, Island, under license to The Island Def Jam Music Group". So I guess that Nuyorican & Island are co-copyright holders? Anyway, an artist specific (their own) publishing company, production company etc.; IMO is a way for the artist to get paid more. They receive payments under each of these portions or 'umbrellas' of the project. If Nuyorican has not been proven to be a label, doesn't that mean it is unverified?...and so does not qualify to appear? "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable".—Iknow23 (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Unique on this. Since it IS listed next to IDJMG, it should be included here. I don't necessary think that it is in need of being proved--at anything--it would need to be disproved, and since we barely know anything about the production company (the page on Wikipedia is completely sourceless), I say it's fine for the time being. ℥nding · start 14:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So, that means an answer of "yes" to my question of "Does just appearing there make it a label? I do not understand that "since we barely know anything about the production company", how can we verifiably call it a record label? The limited material that I can find on the internet search like HERE is only about "Motion Picture and Video Tape Production". Obviously it has gone beyond this somewhat to some involvement in Music, but does it constitute being a label? Does it appear on any other artist songs/albums?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Nuyorican has to be removed on the basic that reliable third party sources only refer Lopez as being signed to Island records... there's no mention of her own production company being involved. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  02:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shall you have the honour [< special spelling for you ;)] of removing it?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL OMG you actually recognised that I'm a British English-language editor!! yes feel free and cite this discussion in your edit summary please. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  20:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I recall that you explained UK Radio1 to me :D —Iknow23 (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * However...if someone wants to add to the article text something like "Lopez's company, Nuyorican Productions is shown to have been involved with the album as can be seen in the liner notes." ...I would not oppose that as it is supported by the liner notes and we are not indicating what exactly the involvement is (unless we can find reliable sources to state such).—Iknow23 (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fresh Out The Oven and Louboutins are no longer part of this album's track listing?
I heard from someone that Louboutins has been removed from Love? album. I went to iTunes to check if it is still there and it seems that it has been removed along with Fresh Out The Oven. The two singles that J.Lo released before 2011 has been removed from the album's original tracklisting before the release. Does anyone know why? Blueknightex (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Most artist prefer not to speak of flopped songs, so I'm assuming the JLO or the record company requested them be taken down because they did so badly. "Fresh Out The Oven" was a demo track that probably just didn't make the final cut onto the album for whatever reason. Samlikeswiki (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Both songs were recorded when JLO was under a different record label, and she decided not to put them on LOVE? The album was pretty much completely reworked. And correction, "Fresh Out the Oven" was only a "buzz" track, and was never be included on the album. ℥nding · start 07:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for answering my question guys. So J.Lo didn't really talk about it but just re-did the tracklisting. Hmm Blueknightex (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Album charts
Should the Australian Urban Albums Chart be used when the main chart is there too?--z33k (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * yes it can be listed. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  20:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 187.6.198.201, 6 June 2011
In the Personnel section, Lady Gaga is listed as "Steffani" Germanotta. I assume that is a typo, since her name is Stefani, with a single f. Could someone fix that?

187.6.198.201 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC) ✅ Angel  talk to me 22:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Charts
For Lopez' previous albums, we always used the Oricon chart for her Japanese charting performance, so this should be done this time, too! I read somewhere its peak position was No. 10, but perhaps someone has got a link/source therefore! --79.199.52.239 (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

stylized as JLOVE?
I added the words "stylized as JLOVE?" because it appears on the album cover and I just followed the examples from these other pages:

MSNBC (stylized as msnbc)

Toys "R" Us (stylized as Toys "Я" Us)

Pandora (jewelry) (stylized as PANDORA)

Fox Sports Detroit (stylized as FS DETROIT)

iPod Nano (stylized as iPod nano)

and so on.

Yours faithfully, Kotak  kasut. 04:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sales updates
Various IPs update the sales figures regularly, but don't update the sources at the same time. To encourage providing sources, the page is now "protected". Any future updates may be requested through the editprotected system. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Year-End-Chart
Love? is No. 31 in Switzerland http://hitparade.ch/year.asp?key=2011 Please add that! --93.229.107.150 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Love? is No. 94 in Germany http://www.mtv.de/charts/Album_Jahrescharts_2011 --79.199.51.26 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done and Yes check.svg Done. Thanks! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (2)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. No convincing argument made that the technical URL issue presents such a barrier to potential readers that we need to parenthetically disambiguate an unambiguous title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Love? → Love (Jennifer Lopez album) – Per WP:NC-SLASH "There is no reason why titles should not include ?". However, "with such titles, attention is required when typing URLs into the address bar of a browser. Here ? is interpreted as beginning a query string, and a + in a query string is interpreted as a space. When typing in URLs, ? should be replaced by its corresponding escape codes %3F". To simply, when you go to go for the article "Love?" it shows up as "Love". For this reason, I am requesting that this article be removed to Love (Jennifer Lopez album). I was going to just move it myself (as there's nothing stopping me), but I'm not 100% sure that the page needs to be moved or not; so let's get discussing! <font face="Arial" size="2em"><span style="color: #000; text-shadow: silver 0px 0px 9px; cursor: help;" title="Status is a member of the English Wikipedia">Statυs ( talk ) 09:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm not really sure what the point is you're making here. If you type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love? into the address bar, yes, you will be taken to the page Love. But I don't think many people do that. If you type "Love?" in the search box and hit enter, you get taken straight here. If you follow a link to Love?, you also get taken straight here. Do we really need to move the article to an incorrect title just because somebody might type the URL in directly? Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 14:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose - not sure that the argument is coherent. Along with the sentiments above. The album is called Love? which has a different meaning to if the album was called Love. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  21:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support "?" is a problematic character for URLs. -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per the comments above. — Tomica   (talk)  10:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The URL seems an odd issue to focus on. Does adding 22 characters really make a URL easier to type? Kauffner (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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. ghsssssssssssssssssghddd

Critical reception
Reviews very pretty much mixed to negative (not to say mostly bad), still it's written they were "mixed to positive". 46/100 (Metacritic) it's not mixed to positive. If 50/100 is considered mixed, 46 is rather poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.96.247 (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (3)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Love? → Love (Jennifer Lopez album) – The average reader probably wouldn't know that the Jennifer Lopez album is stylized with the question mark, and since this article is certainly not the primary topic for the plain term "Love", adding the disambiguator would make it easier to find the article. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the album is not stylized with a question mark. The actual album is called Love?, as in asking Love? as a question. Also, its widely listed and referred to in printed media as Love with a question mark. I think its incredibly easy to find the album in its current format.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  20:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - this RM was closed at this point by User:Born2cycle, a non admin, as "Bold close" before all time zones could see the RM, I have undone that "bold close" per WP:BRD and per WP:RM instructions about who can close and when and why. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have a habit of reverting my SNOW closes without basis, to no avail (except to waste everyone's time with frivolous RM proposals). --B2C 00:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't do this because you did it, you did this because you did it. I saw the broken tail of the close at WP:RM, and would revert any non-admin closing a 1:1 discussion as "WP:SNOW" 61 minutes after the RM proposal counter clear WP:RM instructions. User:WikiRedactor does not make "frivolous" proposals, and you could compare his/her contributions with your own before making such comments. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Nothing changed since previous RM, and no new argument is presented here. The name of the album is Love?  That's the title of this article.  There is no better title.  It's the WP:COMMONNAME.  There is no conflict with other uses.  There is no problem.  I won't SNOW/Speedy close this again, but I urge someone else to do it, the sooner the better.   --B2C 00:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The album is called Love?; love with a question mark. There's no problem here. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 00:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Status, you're aware that Love? (song) was the Ireland's entry in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005, and that this article was previously at Love? (album) to distinguish it? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And? I was the one who proposed the original move to its current state. WP:TWODABS, remember? I don't know where the original hatnote went about the song, but I have restored it. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 02:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I couldn't see that, since in original RM1 you signed yourself ℥nding·start. But in any case WP:TWODABS isn't the problem here, WP:CRITERIA is. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support a move similar to this, though since the album title includes a question mark, the article title probably should too. Omnedon (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain what reasons you believe there might be, ideally based in policy, for making such a move? --B2C 04:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * An article title should convey what the article is about. "Love?" conveys very little by itself. Omnedon (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't the purpose of an article title just to convey the name of the thing the article is about? We only throw in "(...)" when we need to distinguish two articles with the same name. For example, T-34 conveys very little by itself, but it was the name of a Soviet tank. Since there's no other "T-34" article out there, we don't need to add "(...)" to the title. Doesn't the same concept apply here? Dohn joe (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From the opening paragraph of WP:AT, "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." I feel the title "Love?" doesn't sufficiently indicate what the article is about. As for the T-34 tank, I'd say the same about that title. Omnedon (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Love?" indicates that the article is about something called "Love?", just like "Pyongyang" indicates that that article is about something called "Pyongyang". I think what you're describing is more like a subtitle. Subtitles add context or explanations to titles. WP articles do not generally include subtitles - any context or explanation comes from the article itself. Your idea goes against general WP practice, and it seems to me that it goes against how reference works generally do things as well. There's nothing inherently wrong with a scheme that calls for universal subtitles - we could certainly go with Pyongyang (capital of North Korea) - but it's not WP's scheme. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I am not talking about subtitles. I'm talking about the principle that a title should be at least minimally descriptive in cases where the topic is not immediately obvious, and to me this is an example of just that. Only someone who already knew of the album would recognized this title, and that group is surely much smaller than those who have heard of "Pyongyang". But I'm glad, in any case, that this discussion is happening, given that it was hastily closed (and thankfully re-opened). Omnedon (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Question what about "Love? (album)"? I say Omnedon has a good idea. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pointless disambiguation, per WP:TWODABS. Unless you'd like to argue Love? (song), a song that placed 14th in the semi-finals of the 2005 Eurovision Song Contest is as notable or more notable than the album? — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 02:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as first choice Love? (Jennifer Lopez album) per Omnedon, second as nom Love (Jennifer Lopez album), third back to Love? (album) where the article was (all of which to redirect to album), and last current state. "?" evidently fails WP:CRITERIA for recognizability, as ? is not enough to indicate "(Jennifer Lopez album)" to many readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unnecessary and unethical.  → Call me  Hahc  21  03:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose We obviously cannot change the name of an album. If the "average reader" doesn't know that this title has a question mark in it, that's all the more reason to tell him. I do not understand why anyone would think that dropping a question mark, or adding a parenthetical, for that matter, would make an album easier to find. Does everyone realize that these titles do not appear disembodied, but are instead attached to, you know, articles? Put the haggis on the fire (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner‎
 * Support either per nom or per IIO. the current title would go to the disambiguation page. The question mark is technically problematic as the possible URL presenting it can be used to mean the page Love if one were to try and type it into a URL box without encoding the symbol first; so I'd prefer to avoid the "?" because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love? does not work -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In what context would that matter? Love? works: Love?  --B2C 06:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Links in an autolink context like in emails where punctuation marks are placed outside the clickable link. See recent discussion in Jimbo's page Agathoclea (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 7 May 2014
 * Oppose. Per the arguments of Status and Lil-unique. — <font color="#2861B2">Tomíca <font color="#2861B2">(T2ME) 08:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As User:Put the haggis on the fire notes, the album title includes the question mark, so the proposed title is inaccurate. As for disambiguation, this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Love?", as it got 7,500 views in April, versus 251 views for Love? (song). Readers seem to be able to find the article under the current title. I would suggest making the proposed title a redirect, however. Dohn joe (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support move to Love? (Jennifer Lopez album). Coreyemotela (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Support move to Love? (Jennifer Lopez album) Agathoclea (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The album's called Love? - not Love. Unreal7 (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2014‎
 * Comment The guidelines against excessive stylisation exist because if they didn't, we'd have titles with every possible Unicode character imaginable, including Kampuchean wingdings. They are not meant to facilitate a rigid categorising scheme where every entry has to be of the standard title (artist album) form when just title is not possible because already taken. In other words not all holes are square, some happen to be are ?-shaped. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 21:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion
per WP:TWODABS, would people support moving Love? to Love? (album) and then Love? would become a disambiguation page for Love? (song) and Love? (album). It can also link to the dab page for Love.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  11:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would we need a separate disambiguation page from Love (disambiguation) ? It would be a R from partial disambiguation if you redirect it to the "Love" disambiguation page, instead of a short disambig page. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything that would get the question mark from the end of the title would do. The problem here is that we cannot redirect from the title without the question mark as it is obviously the primarytopic. Currently we have a technical restriction in passing links in an autolink setting (email, twitter ect) where people would be send to the wrong article. Agathoclea (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Love?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120412173429/http://promusicae.es/files/listasanuales/albumes/Top%2050%20ALBUMES%202011.pdf to http://www.promusicae.es/files/listasanuales/albumes/Top%2050%20ALBUMES%202011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 12:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)