Talk:New Rules/Archive 1

Requested move 22 July 2017

 * 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. While pageviews evidence for the song is strong, opposers also noted the existence of other notable topics under this title, and it was also noted that the song, being this summer's hit, is too new to fulfill WP:SUSTAINED. No such user (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

New Rules (song) → New Rules – This is the only page on the dab page that has an article. The dab page should be removed and should be replaced with a note on top of this article. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:2DC9:63F9:6391:2DD (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.   Dr Strauss   talk   17:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * But is the Dua Lipa song dominant over the other meanings listed on page New Rules? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – Well the dab page is fairly short, and none of the other subjects have an article. In fact, the other subject aren't even notable, so this song should have "(song)" removed. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:818D:A6DB:D4B4:E7ED (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This is the only topic of this name on Wikipedia. The dab page should move to New Rules (disambiguation), if it's even necessary.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added another use to the dab page, New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer. However, this book makes barely a scrape on the page views, the song receives 97.5% of them.|New_Rules_(EP)|New_Rules:_Polite_Musings_from_a_Timid_Observer--Cúchullain t/ c 20:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the nomination per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The question of whether a topic is currently the subject of a standalone article is never a deciding issue in assessing whether it is the primary topic. In some cases it is irrelevant.
 * The primacy or otherwise of any topic should be assessed by the properties of the topic itself, rather than of how Wikipedia currently covers the topic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Based on the page views, I am inclined to agree this is likely the primary topic. Nothing else really challenges it for significance, either. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per arguments made by, and IP user, . (137.147.153.182 (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Support per page views, and being the only article with the title. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the title as it stands perfectly represents the aims of precision and consistency, whether or not there is another page of the same title - 'New Rules' is such a generic phrase that it is immediately helpful to have '(song)' appended to confirm the topic, and is not unnecessary verbosity. It is also very helpful to users seeking information on song titles to maintain a consistent approach of appending '(song)' to articles named after song titles, even where it may not be strictly necessary for disambiguation. 92.26.253.68 (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Since it is the only article with the title. Paparazzzi (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It does not make sense now that the book's title has been changed.Paparazzzi (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral I can't decide whether to oppose or support this move. I know that the title of the article of the book has been changed, but it is true that people are searching more the song than the book. Besides the stats provided by this user, "new rules dua lipa" in Google provides over 3 million results, while "bill maher new rules" provides less than one million. The song has not even reached its peak on the charts yet, so it is very probably that it would get more views in the months to come.Paparazzzi (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer should be titled "New Rules" or "New Rules (book)" per WP:SUBTITLE. There is no demonstration in the move request that the song is more notable, or more likely to be searched for, than the book. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 17:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , : I mentioned the book in my post. Regardless of the title, the book receives barely a fraction of the page views. The song is still getting over 97% of the views.|New_Rules_(EP)|New_Rules:_Polite_Musings_from_a_Timid_Observer


 * Oppose the rationale of the proposal evaporated when New Rules (book) was correctly retitled. The song is in the airwaves right now, July-August 2017, but the 2005 segment on Bill Maher's show (and his book) have more encyclopedic value. And so probably do the five New Rules episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Ten. (song) is a helpful part of the title, just as (book) is a helpful part of the book title. No benefit to mobile users in removing it. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support A book and a song. The difference is clear. --U990467 (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose One may not have heard of the song but have only heard of the book (or vice versa). ⍟ R2  me2  ⍟ 14:35, 19 August 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.

Tweaks, reverted
Hello. I don't really agree with your edits here. Some of your "tweaks" don't change much of the content; the "citation needed" template is invalid since the sentence is referenced in the commercial performance section; and you also claim that the track was certified Gold in the UK, when that's not true yet. I forgot to mention that I was reverting because of your "tweaks" as well, but it seems that you haven't removed the "citation needed" template, so I'm going to feel free to revert. Regards and have a nice day, --Paparazzzi (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't really agree that "I don't really agree with your edits" is a good way to explain the blanket reversion of many changes, or that such a reversion is an efficient way to go about improving an article. Moreover, you seem to miss the point of "'tweaks' that don't change much of the content." For example, changing "Talking about the song, the artist explained that, "'New Rules' is quite different..." to "Lipa said, "'New Rules' is quite different..." not only eliminated windy verbiage, it fixed a grammar mistake (the incorrect use of a comma after "that" and before the quotation) that you have now reinserted. Finally, you have somehow misread the edit history in alleging that my edit created the "certified Gold in the UK" error. I suppose I could have made each of these small changes in separate edits, but I really didn't expect them to be controversial, nor that another editor might revert all of them in an attempt to fix an unrelated error. Cheers. PRRfan (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverts
It is considered polite to leave an edit summary of a talk page discussion when you revert somebody's good faith copyedit (which tightened the prose the bit) for no reason at all. Yes, I get fed up with people putting Chris Thomas as producer in The Beatles all the time, but I still give a reason for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2020

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed per consensus. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

– New Rules (book) is the only other topic at the dab page that has an article. If |New_Rules_(book) page views and Google Trends are anything to go by, I'd imagine people are more likely to be looking for this hit song. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 06:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * New Rules (song) → New Rules
 * New Rules → New Rules (disambiguation)
 * Support. Page views show a clear primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This should've been obvious last time. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Thank you for this. The last time this thread was opened somebody opined that a book is "more relevant" than a song. "New Rules" was still climbing on the charts at the time and I kind of forgot about this later. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as this seems like the primary topic. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2020 (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.

Nothing to do with the article or its subject, but...
...what's up with the text on this page? Why is it so tiny? I've never seen a talk page like this before, and I'm not seeing any markup that could be causing this.--ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 06:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see it in normal size. --Paparazzzi (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym fixed it. It was just the result of an unclosed tag in the above RM.Nohomersryan (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)