Talk:Next to Me (Emeli Sandé song)

Comments
Can the line about the track sampling a track from Toto stop being deleted? It's sourced and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.100.8 (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

 * 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. 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: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Next to Me (Emeli Sandé song) → Next to Me (song) – Only one song Bob Mono (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are three songs on the disambiguation page Next to Me so should remain disambiguated, since the other songs are part of their album articles. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support No reason to do this (as the IP says). There is a song with this title, if the other songs are notables, where are they articles? @IP user, please understand Wikipedia's MoS, this is not the first time you !vote with a vague argument. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  06:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, of the pages this is the most notable and would most likely be the one that is being searched for. Yes there are a number of topics of a similar name but only one other has a page. That could be mentioned with a hat note and then the songs that dont have a page could be listed at Next to Me. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  11:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. "Use only as much additional detail as necessary," per WP:NATURAL. Kauffner (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2013 (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.

Edit request on 28 February 2013
Emeli Sande's "Next To Me" debuted @ # 89 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 on the issue date of Thursday, February 28th, 2013.

Source: http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100?page=8

74.223.162.130 (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * , it has been added to the chart section. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  17:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Glee
Next to Me was performed by the cast of Glee (Lea Michele and Idina Menzel) in Season 4 Episode 19 which aired on April 18 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredhuet (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 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 to Next to Me (Emeli Sandé song). There is a consensus that this song is not the primary topic for "Next to Me", which means that it needs full disambiguation. Again though, I will just say it would be lovely it some people who are perennially would stop using NCM as an argument against primary topics – pop music subjects can be a primary topic just like any other. Jenks24 (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

– The Emeli Sandé song was a huge hit worldwide, with sales of around 2 million; the album is only known in Belgium and Holland, and the Otto Knows song only charted in a few countries in Europe and low down on two dance charts in the U.S. and UK. If anything, the Otto Knows song should be benefitting the most from recentism, but it was viewed less than 500 times last month, the album less than 200 times and the Emeli Sandé song 1,595 times. Unreal7 (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Next to Me (song) → Next to Me
 * Next to Me → Next to Me (disambiguation)
 * Move back to Next to Me (Emeli Sandé song) per WP:NCM, and again this isn't Top of Pops where we need to pick a winner. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What? "This isn't Top of Pops where we need to pick a winner"? Did you even read what I said? You're one of these users who opposes primary topics solely on the grounds that you dislike the idea of primary topics. Unreal7 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't "dislike" for subjects which pass both of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tests. I do oppose these RMs where there is no evidence that the topic passes both texts. The main problem with this RM however is WP:Naming conventions (music); unless they are mega songs by artists like the Beach Boys or Beatles who have real encyclopaedic significance. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * . ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 21:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't even think the Beatles or the Beach Boys are relevant. It must be the song which is notable, and these two bands aren't really known by our younger readers. There has been a revolution, but not the one we expected. LOL. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure they are known by younger readers, the Beatles anyway. By the way IIO, remember this bit of opposition at "Talk:Thinking Out Loud"? You opposed removing "(Ed Sheeran song)" purely because you had "barely heard of this singer". Unreal7 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This was an off-the-cuff comment to IIO and in no way represents the contents of WP:NOTINHERITED. Removing (artist song) from most articles is a pointless exercise as the history of this article proves. If the song was only associated with Sheeran, why bother removing? The end result is as useful as a chocolate teapot. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment per WP:NCM this article is misnamed, because of Next to Me (Otto Knows song) ; so this article will necessarily need to be renamed, at the very least, it would need to move to Next to Me (Emeli Sandé song) with the current title redirecting to the disambiguation page -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Move back to Next to Me (Emeli Sandé song) per WP:NCM, I do hope that the nominator isn't suggesting that 1500 WP views is either notable or proof of "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Bit like looking for blue whales in a rock pool. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm suggesting at all. Did you read it? I also said that this song was the far bigger commercial success and is thus far more well known. Unreal7 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Move back to Next to Me (Emeli Sandé song). It doesn't seem all that exceptionally notable or historically significant, partial disambiguation is generally a bad idea, the popularity of songs is generally volatile, and the page view ratio (a factor of three over Next to Me (Otto Knows song), which is probably inflated by its current "(song)" WP:PDAB position) is not dominant. There are also about 15 other songs (and an album) with the same name identified on the dab page. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:36, 23 January 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.

Closing Comments
. Your closing comments were contrary to the spirit of discussion above. To be a primary topic, the song must have long-term education significance to a substantial number of readers. At no point could or did anybody argue this song meets that criteria. You could, as some people like to do, say this has more G'hits or more WP page views this week. Neither of which suggests enduring significance. That is why WP:NCM says what it says, so although I do concede there are "pop" songs that meet the requirements of Primary Topic, the general application of Primary Topic over NCM is a mess that leads to more ambiguity and less usefulness to WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I didn't phrase it well, but my point is this: if someone nominates a song or album for a move using primary topic as a rationale, do not use NCM as an argument to rebut their proposal. (Or rather, you can of course do that if you want, but it will have no bearing on a closer assessing the consensus and if that is your only argument then you may as well have not voted at all.) I agree here there was a consensus that this song is not the primary topic, which is why I closed as I did, but the reason it was not a completely straightforward close is because some of the oppose voters frankly missed the mark. Lastly, I'm not sure why you always deliberately omit the usage criterion whenever you're writing about primary topic – if you disagree with its existence, individual RMs like this are not the right place to fight that battle. Take it up at WT:D and if you get it removed from the guideline then I will stop giving anyone appealing to it any weight. Until then, arguments about page view stats predominance in Google results are valid. Jenks24 (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Um. Three of the opposers quite clearly opined the song didn't meet primary topic and - therefore, to apply NCM. A fine result, thank you. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)