Talk:Savage (Megan Thee Stallion song)/Archive 1

Requested move 26 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. General consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist #WearAMask😷 07:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Savage (Megan Thee Stallion song) → Savage (song) – Extra disambiguation not needed when no other song has an article of this name per WP:NCMDAB AshMusique (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412  T 03:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems a little premature to assume this should be the title when the previous longstanding redirect (now at Savage (Judas Priest song)) was only just moved out of the way, and back in the way, and out again. Potentially a dab page, but only two obvious targets that I'm aware of.  Lithopsian (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. I should have certainly come here in the first place, before trying to move the page myself - I then realized I couldn't perform a move, because I, as is obvious, don't have page mover rights, and subsequently tried to fix everything, but it just turned into a mess. It was ignorant of me. I'll be more careful next time, knowingly still learning. I don't mean to burden you or anyone else, and probably shouldn't do any other requests of any nature, but if you could restore the redirect to Stained Class, it would be valued, in order to follow the correct route, if the page is moved. If at all possible. AshMusique (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably best just to sit tight for now. I think I'm correct in saying that the only things that are different is that Savage (Megan Thee Stallion song) is effectively a new article and Savage (song) is now a redirect to it instead of to Stained Class?  (And Savage (Judas Priest song) now exists as a redirect to Stained Class - see also RfD at  for Savage (Judad Priest song))  I'm comfortable with that as a position to start discussion.  The redirect could be re-targeted by a simple edit if you think that is desirable.  This (contested) request will likely be turned into a move discussion, possibly ending up with the move being made anyway.  The "revert undiscussed move" you just added looks strange.  It doesn't appear to be reverting an undiscussed move, so you might want to fix it or remove it.  Lithopsian (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, got it. You're correct, yes. Thank you for your input at the RfD discussion. That's basically the scope of things. Considering your response at the RfD discussion and here, I think I'll leave things as they are and let things take their own course - I don't want to perform more redirect fixes that'll lead to extraneous problems(?). Think I misunderstood the purpose of the revert discussion section. Thanks again for your advice. AshMusique (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Background. It may be difficult to follow what has happened, so here goes.  The starting position was that Savage (Megan Thee Stallion song) (a track) was a redirect to Suga (EP) (includes the track) and Savage (song) (a track) was a redirect to Stained Class (an album including the track).  Savage (Megan Thee Stallion song) is now an article, Savage (song) has been re-targeted to it, and Savage (Judas Priest song) is a redirect to Stained Class.  This move request is to replace the Savage (song) redirect with the Savage (Megan Thee Stallion song) article.  It seemed to me that although this was a technical request in the sense that User:AshMusique couldn't perform the move, it was a request which should be discussed first.  I see three most likely options:
 * perform the move: Savage (song) becomes an article about the Megan Three Stallion track, on the basis that it is the primary topic;
 * revert to the previous position: Savage (song) would be a redirect to the Judas Priest album if it is thought to be the primary topic, or just because that has been the target for so long previously;
 * make a dab page, although only two entries so far as I can see (see WP:TWODABS).
 * Lithopsian (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Move: To expand on my initial request: I'd imagine, most people would not be looking/searching for the Judas Priest song, especially since it most likely had little-to-no notability before the Megan Thee Stallion song was released. I realize the (since-moved) Judas Priest redirect is/was a longstanding one, however it really would be a harmless move since the Megan song is currently the primary topic - "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". It has already exceeded the Judas Priest song in chart performance, which seemingly barely did anything,, and was reverted from an article to a redirect, years ago. It has also become popular in a short space of time. If the page is moved to "Savage (song)", then obviously "Savage (MTS song)" will just be redirected to the aforementioned title. Lastly, I wouldn't consider a dab page consisting of two dab titles being necessary, especially since the Judas Priest song has never been included here: Savage. , thank you for your help. AshMusique (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging since they created the article. AshMusique (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - recent release, potentially not notable even under WP:NSONG. Nom has messed up several redirects and page histories in trying to push this - see also Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 26. -- Netoholic @ 01:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Firm support Anyone who's been watching the song's progression online, would notice it carries undeniable notability and is currently gaining momentum. Not to be trivial or biased in the least, but the song is extremely popular online, especially on TikTok, as pointed out in the article; judging by its performance on Apple Music and its song chart, it is bound to take over the chart peaks of the parent EP's actual singles. My knowlegde of 70s music is terribly vague, but the Megan Thee Stallion song is, unquestionably, more notable than the Judas Priest song. This template, Template:Sources exist, would perhaps suffice on the article, for anyone thinking otherwise. The redirects, as I've acknowledged, are messy, but weren't done to "push" it. Those were done in good faith, albeit, as explained above, ignorant. Those redirects can still be, either deleted, revised or moved back to appropriate targets. This probably wouldn't have evolved into a lenghtier discussion, if not for the unneeded redirects, but to objectively state my intial reason for the move, again: Extra disambiguation is not needed when no other (notable) song (not a redirect) has an article of this name per, WP:NCMDAB. AshMusique (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to closer - the above "vote" is also the nom for this move. -- Netoholic @ 10:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that is... obvious? I was just continuing the discussion. AshMusique (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , with regards to your suggestion of a dab page with two titles, and just in general here: per WP:ONEOTHER, "if there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article". This could also work. AshMusique (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm not a fan of two-entry dab pages for the reasons you mention.  However, they do exist and there are times when they are the right solution.  They are an option in this case, and someone may make a compelling case.  Or not.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Netoholic. Also, there are other songs of the same name, like one by Judas Priest. Removing the band's name is not helpful in this case. George Ho (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But is the Judas Priest song notable? No. By this logic, virtually no song would be without parenthesis. Meanwhile, we have articles like Shake It Off, which is a title shared by two *#1* songs, which somehow doesn't have a parenthesis on both of them. Wikipedia needs to seriously develop some consistency with this. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot that there are other songs named "Savage", like one from Eurythmics. I recently added more entries in the dabpage. "Shake It Off" and "Savage" are different from each other. "Savage" is just one word, and I'm not convinced that a notable song of the same name would make disambiguation less necessary. I'm also not convinced that partial disambiguation "(song)" is helpful to readers searching for any other song named "Savage". The Taylor Swift song is now the primary topic of "Shake It Off". It doesn't use either "(song)" or "(Taylor Swift song)", but it's not titled "Savage". I'm not sure how long the Taylor Swift song can be primary. A better example to compare is Something (Beatles song) and other songs seen in Something dabpage. BTW, I don't think an extra guideline for consistency is needed... yet. We have an info page WP:PDAB and a guideline WP:INCDAB. What more is needed? --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I bring up "Shake It Off" (which seems to be moved against all consensus by the way) to show the ridiculous inconsistency that Wikipedia has with song titles (and article titles in general). In "Shake It Off"'s case, yes the Taylor Swift song is the most popular. But hello? There's an entire #1 hit from an all-time superstar with the same name. Not just some obscure album cut from a niche album. And then here, we have the opposite issue. No other song with notability has the same name, and yet we force the artist's name into the article title... Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There was (so-called?) consensus at Talk:Shake It Off (disambiguation). Then I see WP:SONGDAB encouraging partial disambiguation to be used if there are no other articles indicating notable songs of the same name... and then would allow some exceptions for redirect pages. I'm kinda wary about enforcing the guideline just to make the title shorter. WP:GUIDES encourages readers to treat SONGDAB and other guidelines with common sense and would allow some exceptions. As far as I see, my sense tells me that "Savage" is too commonly used in songs, Megan Thee Stallion still has long ways to go to make her song more well known than any other song, and the song itself is too recent to be a primary song of the same name. George Ho (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If "Something" is not convincing enough, what about songs named "Savages"? George Ho (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Virtually every song article should have the artist's name in parenthesis then. But obviously, they don't. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support There is no notable pre-existing song with the title "Savage". Precedent clearly dictates that this should be "Savage (song)". Including the artist's name is redundant. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - no other notable song with this name Spiderone  21:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"Savage ( Thee Stallion song)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Savage ( Thee Stallion song). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)