Talk:Perdido (song)

Untitled
it may just be me, but perdido means I lost 202.168.18.88 (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
move to Perdido (song): let Perdido be the dsambig page. Anthony Appleyard Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Perdido (Juan Tizol song) → Perdido — The song is currently the only article for the search term "perdido" and Perdido already redirects here. Other meanings for the term include Perdido Bay, Perdido Beach, Alabama and Perdido Key, Florida. This article was originally moved from Perdido on the argument that "There's another song with that name". I'm sure there is, but a) we don't have an article for that song yet and b) even if we had, this one would be the primary topic: jazzstandards.com lists the song as #58 on their list of most often recorded standards. Allmusic has 1249 recordings of songs called "Perdido" and everyone can see for themselves how often the song in question is credited to either Tizol or Drake/Ellington/Tizol. — Jafeluv (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.



Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Sorry, "Perdido" being a common enough name, that page should be a disambiguation page, not a redirect to this song. That page should list the song, river, ship, mountain, key, bay, pass, and beach (at least, as a very quick search shows). If you type "perdido" and click the Search button, you get quite a list, suggesting that your thinking that this is the only article for this search term may be misreading the redirect as if it were authoritative. Moving to Perdido (song) over redirect would be the indicated solution, but that requires an admin, and also requires consensus on your view that songs like ¿Dónde Está La Luz? are not as significant and do not need equal weighting. You evidence that sufficiently, which is fine assuming good faith, but I wouldn't have expertise to confirm or deny your evidence. JJB 13:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a convincing argument. Actually, according to page view statistics, Perdido (Juan Tizol song) does get a lot less page views than some of the geographical Perdido articles . I've replaced the redirect with a disambiguation page for now. Let's see how the opinions go about moving this page to Perdido (song) then. Jafeluv (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think you were right the first time. Remember we are disambiguating only article titles, and there's no need to disambiguate a title unless some other article on Wikipedia could otherwise take exactly the same title. Except for the song, none of the articles listed on the dab page could possibly be titled simply "Perdido" (most of them don't even belong there; a dab page is not a search index). In other words, there is no possible ambiguity between article titles; if there might be some possible reader confusion, then a hatnote to a dab page is advisable. Station1 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, we only need to disambiguate things that can be referred to as simply "Perdido". However, I think it's safe to assume that at least Perdido River and Perdido Keys are called just "Perdido" in everyday speech. Jafeluv (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if that's true -- I'm not sure that it is -- neither of those articles would bear the title "Perdido". In fact, their original editors named them Perdido River and Perdido Key, Florida long before Perdido existed. Mississippi is not dab page simply because that's how the Mississippi River is sometimes referred to. There's simply no conflict between actual article titles, so no need for a parenthetical disambiguator in the title. If necessary, reader confusion can be avoided with a hatnote to Perdido (disambiguation). Station1 (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Danzig redirects to Gdánsk even though there are a lot of things called just Danzig (a band, an album, a horse, etc). That's because the city's German name is the primary topic for the term. The same thing with Volga River, which is the primary topic for Volga (and not the car, the financial term or one of the cities). If a reader is likely to search for Perdido Key or Perdido River with the search term "perdido", it should be considered which of the articles is the primary topic, and Perdido should either be an article about that topic or, if the most common name for the topic is something other than "Perdido", a redirect to that article. If there's no primary topic, Perdido should be a dab page. Missisippi is not a dab page because the primary topic for "Missisippi" is the state. Jafeluv (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Danzig and Gdansk are the same thing, just in two different languages, both of which were/are commonly used in English, so I don't think that analogy holds (the city's article could not have any other title and is obviously primary use). The Volga analogy is much closer, at least regarding Volga (automobile), but even there Volga is not a dab page but rather a redirect; the analogy would be to redirect Perdido to Perdido River (which is preferable to making Perdido a dab page). I agree that if a reader were likely to search for (or link to) Perdido Key, Florida or Perdido River using only the search term "Perdido", that would be a consideration, but I consider that highly unlikely. As evidence, all but two of the links to Perdido are intended for the song (the other two are to non-existent articles). And finally, the reason I brought up the Mississippi analogy is because between the river and the state, the state is not primary usage, but that it's irrelevant because they naturally (without parenthetical qualifiers) have two different article titles; for that small handful (if any) looking for the river under "Mississippi", a hatnote will take them to dab page where they can find the river. Station1 (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)