Talk:Shut Up and Drive

R&B?!
This is not an R&B song!! It´s true that it was nominated for a Grammy in this style, but the song is pop rock! For example, "Rehab" of Amy Winehouse won "Best Female Pop Vocal Perfomance" and it is a soul/jazz song...So it doesn´t mean anything!
 * If it won an award for an R&B song,it is R&B. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Rehab" is a pop song?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.52.39 (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was released to the mainstream,then yes. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen songs that have been awarded R&B and they have been pop rock songs, rap songs, R&B songs, etc. Just because the artist has released R&B songs in the past. Nah, you judge a song by its genre, not by the awards it gets. Awards are given by public voters, and if there's enough stupid people out there to vote it, then it will win an R&B award. Simple as that. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What's True
You posted Sept. 3, 2007 as due for the release of Shut Up And Drive in UK which you credited this defjam site: http://www.defjam.co.uk/. Pertaining to that, it can be a realiable source however, some links claimed that it will be on 20th of August: http://www.newuksinglereleases.co.uk/. The latters info cant be a false one because the site has been used by many editors and credited many times. BritandBeyonce 12:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sample question
The guitar line in this song far more closely resembles Orgy's remake of "Blue Monday" than it does the original. Do the liner notes cite a sample? Chubbles 01:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that too, but it may well be just a third-party that has played it. violet/riga (t) 17:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Where Is It?
I was just wondering if where Shut Up And Drive cover had been? Lost?BritandBeyonce 09:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh there is it. Genuine pic? BritandBeyonce 08:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Umbrella obstructed this?
I thought came to me the other day. This single never really got heard of hear in the UK until Umbrella was eventually knocked off by Timbaland's The Way I Are. Could it be justifiable to say Umbrella actually prevented any media attention to this song, thus causing to fail to achieve its maximum potential? 84.69.64.35 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Ginger_Warrior
 * Who knows? Regardless of the answer, Wikipedia is not the place for such speculation without reliable secondary sources that say so.  17Drew 21:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely it was just pushed back in the UK because of Umbrella's success - it's getting significant airplay now. violet/riga (t) 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, speculation like this does not belong on Wikipedia. If you can find a source, then add it to the article; if there are no sources, then the discussion is irrelevant and does not belong on the talk page.  17Drew 23:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? It is relevant and does belong here.  violet/riga (t) 07:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not without a source. 17Drew 07:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I said here. violet/riga (t) 08:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are only for discussing articles. If you're not discussing adding this to the article, then your discussion belongs somewhere else.  Try a fan site or forum.  17Drew 08:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what talk pages are for and this is perfectly fine. It's discussing an aspect of the article.  Now please stop with this pointless threat of removing the discussion - it's a waste of both our time.  violet/riga (t) 08:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So what if Umbrella caused the song to fail in some charts? That's not our problem and it's absolutely a pointless talk. Has it something to do with the page for it to expand? Why? You would stress there that the song due to the presence of Umbrella didn't reach its maximum potential? That's a mere weasel words. Cite source that says so. Thanks.BritandBeyonce 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As was said before, this talk page is for discussing the article and its content, not for discussing the article's subject. I'll ask again that you please cease or you will begin receiving warnings and these discussions will be removed. Spigot  Map  11:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Charts
Should the "Chart Performance" section of the article be expanded; in other words to put more information into that section. Or should it be left the way it is, to prevent what happened to articles such as "Big girls don't cry (Song)" and "Beautiful liar"? 220.101.48.181 8:23, September 21, 2007 (UTC)


 * Let this page be expanded but if the page runs through same fate with the songs you refered to, then it is the better time to control such thing not to happen. BritandBeyonce 11:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that in most articles the "#" is removed before chart positions; example #3 has been changed to just 3? Or #3 has been changed to "number 3/ number-three". Its just stupid. 220.101.48.181 4:23, October 8, 2007 (UTC)


 * Please go to this page. This would be very helpful to you. Not 3 only but *3. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ShutUpAndDriveVideo.jpg
Image:ShutUpAndDriveVideo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Current?
I think it isn't a CUrrent anymore because it is #40 now

Current?
I think it isn't a CUrrent anymore because it is #40 now


 * If it's still on the charts it's current. Spigot  Map  18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Classifying Song as R&B
This is a subject that has been raised several times, but in fairness and accordance with Wikipedia policies, I'll open it again here.

Shut Up and Drive won a People Choice Award in 2007 for "Best R&B Song." While it does not fit in the traditional description of R&B, it is not our place as Wikipedians to make that distinction and refuse to recognize an R&B genre tag in the info box, in addition to the seemingly more accurate Pop Rock tag. Charmed36 and I had a rather heated debate (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Charmed36#Shut_Up_and_Drive_2) on this very subject not even one week ago as of the date of this post. An administrator intervened and suggested that my classification of this song as an R&B record in addition to Pop Rock was accurate.

However, as I said, I don't see any harm in opening the question up for more discussion. Please leave your comments here, not my talk page. In the meantime, I would request that the R&B tag not be removed until a consensus can be reached that might suggest it necessary.


 * Since the song won that award, I'd say, you're definitely correct. Either is was only nominated or won, it was recognized as R&B. Also, we have no proper sourcing of genres and that one is a very good source. --Efe (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just added a template for R&B projects. I believe we're correct. --Efe (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not R&B... Charmed36 (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Opinion noted. But, as it's already been established, the song does qualify for an R&B tag, per the above mentioned reasoning.    --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I stated many times. High and mighty users think they are right. Charmed36 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said to you before, I am backed by facts. Specifically, "Shut Up and Drive" was nominated for and won a People's Choice Award in 2007 for Best R&B song.  Therefore, under Wikipedia policy, the R&B tag is appropriate despite not fitting into the "traditional" definition of R&B, which I have conceded to you several times.  Now, for the final time, I'd appreciate it if you'd review WP:CIVIL and remember it when you comment on discussions such as this.  You disagree with my opinions, that's fine.  You attack me, we have a problem, particularly when I have facts to back up what you're trying to revert.  I'm pretty easy to deal with, most of the time, but I suppose I can come across as "high and mighty" on occasion because I deal with things pretty much straight up and without some of the sugarcoating that I see from many users around the encyclopedia.  I guess what I'm saying to you, Charmed36, is that if you can source the "fact" that the song is not R&B, then feel free to remove the tag.  If you can't definitively source that statement, then my tag as R&B must be allowed to stand, as supported.  --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooops! This is not good. Above comments are against WP:CIVIL. I think the nomination is a concrete source that this song also falls under R&B genre. Nowadays, its hard to judge whether a song falls under that certain genre becuase they've kinda mixed, with so many influences. --Efe (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I expanded my comment above to better reflect my intention, which was not to violate WP:CIVIL. My apologies.  --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry too for being vague. That comment was for Charmed36's statement: "High and mighty users think they are right." This statement is really really really bad. I think Charmed can only do is to back her claim with a reliable source. --Efe (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen guys the fact that Rihanna won an award for R&B shows that she is an R&B singer. Her voice has a definite contemporary R&B tone--her voice sounds very urban and if I had my way, I'd label all of her songs R&B!--Seán Travers (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers

Someone explain me something
Shut up and drive's peak in UWC was at #11, then why in this page is listed with a #7? Another thing: this single sold only 2 million copies, not 3,2. Look on UWC site. So it's impossible to have that amazing sales of 3.2 million copies worldwide and a further 200,000 through clubs. 1,18 million copies in the US? The single got Platinum in US? there are too many errors on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.4.229 (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

R&B
I don't want this to turn into an edit war,so I'm gonna start a debate about this. We've already had a discussion which ended in allowing the R&B tag,but now we're having a different discussion: Should R&B be listed as the 1st genre? I think it should,for this reason: According to this, only the 1st genre gets capitalized. However,in proper English,R&B is always supposed to have "R" and "B" as capital letters. Therefore,I think that R&B should go 1st to prevent unnecessary capitalization of other genres (pop rock,in this case). Big T.V. Fan (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason R&B is there because the song won an award in the wrong category. It's not R&B. It failed to chart on the Rhythmic Top 40 and was never and would never be solicited to urban radio.  Someone is trying hard to prove an unecessary point.  Charmed36 (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually,after listening to it several times,there are urban elements in the beat,but not a lot. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I listen to it all the time. It's pop rock and dance-pop. Charmed36 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources to expand

 * http://www.rap-up.com/2007/10/05/video-rihanna-performs-on-letterman/
 * http://www.rap-up.com/2007/09/10/2007-mtv-video-music-awards/
 * http://www.rap-up.com/2007/07/08/video-live-earth-performances/#more-3010
 * http://www.rap-up.com/2007/06/19/video-rihanna-shut-up-and-drive/
 * http://www.rap-up.com/2007/05/21/rihanna-at-bbc-radio-1s-big-weekend/
 * http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1569254/vma-night-belongs-rihanna-justin-timberlake.jhtml
 * http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1603914/rihanna-fall-out-boy-kick-off-super-bowl-weekend.jhtml
 * http://buzzworthy.mtv.com/2011/07/25/rihanna-mohegan-sun-concert-review/
 * http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/music/reviews/rihanna-keeps-fans-waiting-for-90-minutes-16057054.html
 * http://entertainment.stv.tv/music/274160-rihanna-finds-love-in-glasgow/

Where else was this used?
I feel like I've heard this in a commercial or something… gujamin (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This was featured in Disney's recent movie Wreck-It Ralph... Probably deserves a mention. Etcetera (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Source for Ferrari?
You are mean't to provide a source when listing a brand name. Calvin  &bull; Watch n'  Learn 14:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Where
is a release history table? You mention the radio and purchasable dates but there is no table for them? Calvin  &bull; Watch n'  Learn 15:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a REVIEW OF THE ARTICLE. If you want to review it, feel free. In other way stop with the tips. And thanks I will create it. — Tomica1111  &bull;  Question Existing?  15:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is there a review page? No on has started reviewing it. And no, I won't, I'm on the Wikiproject. You don't want tips on improving it? I would take this advice Tomica, as you have submitted for GAN when the article is under prepared. Have you even noticed this?: "June 12, 2007 and was physically released on August 27, 2008" The song was made available to buy 14 months after it was sent to radio??  Calvin  &bull; Watch  n'  Learn 15:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That can happen to anybody who works. And as I said, the person who will be reviewing the article will note that and with his/her's help I will fix it. See now, release history there.— Tomica1111  &bull;  Question Existing?  15:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was only helping, but once again, you have taken it the wrong way. There is a GAN backlog drive starting in two days, and people will either pass or fail articles, and even just by having prose issues and not having a release history table like you didn't have may have been a fail in some reviewers eyes. Calvin  &bull; Watch  n'  Learn 15:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Tomica, you need to add these.
Calvin  &bull; Watch n'  Learn 16:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Germany release
 * UK release
 * France release
 * Canada Maxi Single release
 * Canada release
 * Canada 12 inch vinyl
 * I will! — Tomica1111  &bull;  Question Existing?  16:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Calvin  &bull; Watch  n'  Learn 16:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't anyone actually getting the lyrics??
I was just wondering if anyone (older than 18) actually read the lyrics and understand that the entire song hasn't anything to do with cars or actual driving? In case you didn't, the song is all about sex.

The article states: "Lyrically, "Shut Up and Drive", as the title suggests, is about Rihanna looking for a driver, who will drive her around in her new car and take control over it."

This entire sentence is complete bullshit, as anyone who actually listened to the song or read the lyrics (and again, is at least old enough to understand sex references) can figure out it's all about sex... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.15.16 (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it is about sex ("Get you where you wanna go, if you know what I mean ... If you can, baby boy, then we can go all night), but that comment was written by a BBC editor. Blame the external links not Wikipedia. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  05:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

BPM
What is the BPM? Novalia (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested moves

 * 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: not moved. I'm sure that it was unintentional, but there's been a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS that has irreversibly skewed this RM. It's a shame really because otherwise this would have almost certainly resulted in a move to the primary topic. I see below that it's been suggested there should be a wait of six months until the next RM – I won't go that far, but will impose a wait of two months until the next RM (an arbitrary time period I know, but so would any I could pick) in the hope that by then the canvassing will have been diluted. In the meantime the article can stay at the current title, which I know will frustrate a few editors, but waiting a few months won't kill anyone and it's not like the current title is inaccurate. Jenks24 (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song) → Shut Up and Drive – I'm pretty sure the majority of people are looking for Rihanna's song when they type in "Shut Up and Drive" - no need for the disambig page, a hatnote should suffice. Unreal7 (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - primary topic is intended for the likes of Paris vs Paris, Texas not for arguing that a 2007 hit single needs a recognizable title less than a 1997 hit single Shut Up and Drive (Chely Wright song). This is a (Rihanna song) and that is nothing to be ashamed of. Let the article declare that it is a Rihanna song as the CD cover does. In fact the cover says "RIHANNA" in letters 3x the size of the title. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is a ratio of 47:3 not enough for you?? 75.151.57.113 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No it isn't enough, due to WP:RECENT. In any context a highly notable 1997 media product will be overshadowed by a 2006 media product in terms of views. But it is the 1997 song which appears more long term notable in printed books. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Recent? It's been 7 years. Unreal7 (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - That's not the point. Two songs exist with the same name. It doesn't make the other less important because Rihanna is more famous. —  ₳aron  14:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SONGDAB - by far the most practical solution for songs and albums. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:TWODABS. The policy says, 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 means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.) Clearly here we have that situation. Let me also give some statistics, Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song) was viewed 2216 times this month, while Shut Up and Drive (Chely Wright song) only has 109 views for this month. The disambiguation page has 125 views and is clearly unimportant. The real winner? Well, obviously, Rihanna's song, which is a primary topic. — Tomíca (T2ME) 15:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Shut Up and Drive (Chely Wright song) has 6% of the page views of Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song); Stand by Me (Oasis song) has 10% of the page views of Stand by Me (song), and that's probably an accurate way of determining overall notability in cases such as these, so for consistency this should at least be moved to Shut Up and Drive (song). Unfortunately these discussions are decided by a small number of editors and the variation indicates lack of overall consensus, instead being determined first by which editors participate in the discussion, then reinforced by the watchlist effect. If consistency cannot be achieved, it would save time and effort to have a bot decide randomly. Peter James (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support because obviously there's a clear primary topic if you look at page views. 75.151.57.113 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:TWODABS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That way, of the searchers typing in "Shut Up and Drive", only those looking for the Chely Wright song need to click again. In the current situation, everyone needs to click through to the page they want. Adabow (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:TWODABS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think Adabow above worded it best. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 01:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Tomica's WP:TWODABS referencing comment and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  prism  △ 09:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support WP:TWODABS strongly applies here I'm afraid. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 10:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment for closing admin. Tomica has been canvassing Prism IndianBio, User talk:WikiRedactor and Lil-unique1, 4 like-minded editors which calls into dispute the value of the !support votes above. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Added two more editor's names. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not canvassing them. I just ask them if they can weight their opinion in, since they are also editors of music articles. And I made that per the comment that wrote. —  Tomíca (T2ME) 13:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So it would be alright for me to copy exactly your wording and paste it on userpages I selected then? Just checking. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Copying my words? Is it so hard for you to write some sentences? (Just asking!) And yeah, you can ask people for opinion. — Tomíca (T2ME) 13:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tomíca, that is actually a textbook example of what WP:CANVASS is about. It's okay to be a Rihanna fan, but not okay to solicit votes in this manner. Other editors citing WP:TWODABS please check to see what WP:TWODABS actually says. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, per the argument made by Adabow. In regards to this alleged "canvassing", I would like to note that the only message Tomica left on my talk page very plainly and without bias said "Hey Wiki, can you weight your opinion on this discussion? Thanks!" WikiRedactor (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at the messages Tomica left for Prism, WikiRedactor, Lil-unique, and IndianBio, and yes- simply informing someone of an ongoing discussion isn't canvassing. If Tomica on the other hand asked "please vote to ____ here", THAT would be canvassing. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends if asking people you are friendly with and who are likely to side with you is also classed as canvassing? (Just posing the question, I'm not saying either way). —  ₳aron  14:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If so, I guess one could "balance it out" by also informing those who are likely to disagree with him/her. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately in practice that's pretty well impossible to do. The majority of en.wp editors are not going to be interested in the subject. If Tomíca really wants to move this song over the 1997 song (and 3 other album songs) the way forward now would perhaps be to start a RFC where a RFC bot randomly notifies neutral users. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Seven supports and three opposes - seems clear enough. Unreal7 (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To quoute you "If Tomíca really wants to move this song over the 1997 song (and 3 other album songs)". First, as you can see I didn't propose the move, Unreal did that. Second, I only asked for opinion (whether that opinion is support, oppose, neutral or whatever) music editors which work on articles similar to this one. Third, I gave statistics how much of the viewers take a look at that 1997 song (which I believe even the singer itself forgot it exists) and the album songs which ofc do not have articles on Wikipedia. What is bothering you with the title more? — Tomíca (T2ME) 12:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What is bothering me is WP:CANVASS, as above. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Request an admin close to curtail this mess as invalid, everything after 15:18, 20 May 2014 has simply become a !vote gathering exercise, and that is more of an issue than whether WP:SONGDAB should be followed or not, which is trivial. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you f**king understand there was no canvass only a comment/opinion-ask-favor? Canvass is different. And I am okay with it, go on, close it, I will propose a new move. Then with cool heads we will see who will win. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Regardless of the potential (and evidently pretty mild) violation of WP:CANVASS, this appears to be easily the primary topic of the term "Shut Up and Drive". "Shut Up and Drive" Rihanna returns 4210 Google Books hits, compared to 167 for "Shut Up and Drive" "Chely Wright" and 3 irrelevant hits for "Shut Up and Drive" "Widespread Panic". The Rihanna song was viewed 10,792 times in the last 90 days, compared to 631 for the Chely Wright song and 1564 for Dirty Side Down the Widespread Panic album that contains their barely mentioned song "Shut Up and Drive". Seems pretty open and shut to me.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How mild a transgression would it have been if you hadn't agreed with the comments from those who were canvassed? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2014 (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.

Requested move "2"

 * 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: Closed as improvidently opened. Red Slash 04:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song) → Shut Up and Drive – Let's start again. Unreal7 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:TWODABS. The policy says, 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 means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.) Clearly here we have that situation. Let me also give some statistics, Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song) was viewed 2216 times this month, while Shut Up and Drive (Chely Wright song) only has 109 views for this month. The disambiguation page has 125 views and is clearly unimportant. The real winner? Well, obviously, Rihanna's song, which is a primary topic. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, again. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 16:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Unreal 7, withdrawing a RM does not mean delete it and start again after a heavy session of canvassing (not by you, by Tomica), withdrawing means withdraw it. Pull it back. This article should stay at the stable title - not because of the 5 other songs, but because of the more important issue of not canvassing and gaming. This is only a song title, it really doesn't matter at all. But a certain amount of respect for a collegiate editing environment does matter. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment only for closing admin. This RM is totally flawed per this edit. There is no place for rewarding disruptive editing at WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see has deleted the previous move (above) to simply avoid being opposed .... Well tough shit I oppose as there's more than one more song! ... If the previous move was opposed it's common sense not to retry!.  →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  17:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What? In ictu oculi demanded that Unreal7 withdraw the RM because of a supposed canvassing problem, so he decided to restart it from scratch. This comment is absurd. He didn't have to do jack shit. Maybe you should refresh your memory on this. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 17:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But there was no need to delete the discussion - Just to simply close it hence that comment - If I'm wrong I apologize!, →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  17:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. It shouldn't have been restarted in the first place. This quite frankly has gone way out of control. At this point, I suggest that the RMs just be closed and wait a week or two to try again. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 18:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, I think the editor meant well but just too soon retrying, →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  18:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've reinstated the above discussion since it shouldn't of been removed in the first place. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  17:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 6 month wait before next RM. I think it's evident from "we will see who will win (italicized)" that whatever is happening on this page is not in line with healthy editing environment, but a "win". This is not a chart contest or Eurovision where it is our job to pick a No.1 song. WP:SONGDAB makes it clear that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not expected to apply to media products such as songs and albums when there are multiple articles, or in the case of this title multiple articles plus multiple other songs in albums. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "6 month wait before next RM": I don't know who you think made you in charge of RMs... that is not your call to make. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 00:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a request to the closing admin. It's a normal request to make in cases where RM discussions have become counter productive. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't fool around me ictu, because I am serious this time. Your comments have been sarcastic enough. I wrote comment upwards as you can see there is also another policy called WP:TWODABS, which you even didn't bother to open and read it. Of course you are here to shit about my "canvassing" and not about what is right about the title of the article. Wooow, see who criticized me above about not having appropriate behavior for the community. I would think about that twice ;). And that win was italicized for a reason, it's not actual win, but well some people need explanation so... — Tomíca (T2ME) 08:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment - what happens now, close the RM? Unreal7 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You could close & just say you've withdraw ?, You might want to close and the top one too :). →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  14:44, 1 June 2014 (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.

Requested moves 3

 * 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 not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 17:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

– The person who closed the last RM said wait two months before proposing another one - it's been three so I just figured it was time to try again. Unreal7 (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song) → Shut Up and Drive
 * Shut Up and Drive → Shut Up and Drive (disambiguation)
 * Oppose - 3 songs, 2 articles WP:Naming conventions (music) says that a full title is required. WP:AT/WP:PRECISION says the same thing. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SONGDAB. Anybody looking for the Rihanna song will find it easily where it is, and, anybody looking for another song by the same name will not be disadvantaged. This is why WP:NCM says what it does.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by any measure. In fact, this is essentially a WP:TWODABS situation between this and Shut Up and Drive (Chely Wright song), and this topic is much more prominent. "Shut Up and Drive" Rihanna returns 4,130 Google Books hits, compared to 148 for "Shut Up and Drive" Chely Wright, and one relevant hit for the Widespread Panic song. Rihanna's song also gets many times the page views; this article was viewed 10,344 times in the last 90 days, compared to 650 for the Chely Wright song. The Widespread Panic album doesn't have an article, but the album it's on received 1908 views in the same period. No need to throw obstacles between readers and the information they're looking for.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above - There's more than one song and I don't see any harm in it being a disambiguation page. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  13:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per RichHoncho -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per In ictu oculi and Richhoncho. I also don't really think that this article fits WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; it doesn't seem to have the long-term significance of the other articles mentioned in the guideline. It is best to stick to the SONGDAB, I believe. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is the title of three songs, two with direct articles and one recorded several years before the Rihanna song. ExRat (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's another song called "All I Want for Christmas Is You" that was released several years before the much more well known Mariah Carey song - and yet the Mariah Carey song has no brackets.
 * Per WP:SONGDAB: "When necessary, disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)". Simply because another page didn't follow Wiki convention -- most likely because the Mariah Carey song page was created first (1 May 2005) and the Vince Vance & The Valiants song page was created afterwards (23 December 2008‎), and the original editor of the Vince Vance & the Valiants didn't contest the issue -- doesn't really set a precedent. Also, please sign your name after posting. You can do this by simply typing four tildes (~) at the end of your post. ExRat (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The key phrase is "when necessary". It's not necessary to disambiguate a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - in fact, it shouldn't be disambiguated, and there's no real evidence challeging this songs status as primary topic among the one or two obscure other uses.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "When necessary" means when there are two or more songs with the same name. Obviously if there is only one song with the name it is not necessary to disambiguate. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "When necessary" means when it's "necessary" to disambiguate the title, which isn't the case if it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You could only be correct if there was compunction attached to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as there is not, then WP:AT is applied - which devolves down to WP:NCM which contains WP:SONGDAB which you are so insistent to misread. Primarytopic/beauty contests do not work for songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but primary topic is specifically addressed in several places at the article titles policy. WP:AT trumps sub-guidelines like WP:SONGDAB, which at any rate doesn't say all song articles must be disambiguated when it's not necessary.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC reads Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. (my bold). As I have already said, no compunction in there. Compare it to WP:SONGDAB which says "when necesary...". And compare it to the reducing few who must apply it everytime there is a songdab. Compare this RM 6 supports, 3 opposes (one of which applies songdab when it suits). Let's get real... You are wasting your time and mine! --Richhoncho (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't like it when people reply to you, you're free to stop making direct responses to their comments.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Cúchullain. I do like people responding to me. However it is clear to anybody reading our exchanges here they will see you make point a, I rebut point a, so you move on to point b, which I then rebut. Etc. You never actually respond to what I have said, so any conversation is totally one-sided and pointless. You are not even bothering to attempt to change my mind. Such a shame because you are a good editor in other areas. It is because this attitude (from other editors, too) that I have ceased to be a supporter of pt - if it can't be applied with commonsense then it is problematic and should be removed from the guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't argue against the point that most conversations with you are pointless ;). The point stands that the evidence clearly shows this article is the thing the vast majority of people seek under the title "Shut Up and Drive" (several times the page views of other topics combined; several times the Books hits of other topics combined). The standard practice and policy is to send readers to the information they're seeking. The argument that songs are so unique a topic that we should send hundreds of readers to a dead end disambiguation page as a matter of course doesn't hold water.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cúchullain wrote, "I won't argue the against the point..." which pretty much sums up all his responses. Each time I rebut a point he comes up with a new point which he think wins the argument, the latest and for the first time is the fallacy that I want to send hundred of readers to the wrong place. OK. Let's rebut this slowly.
 * There are 3 songs on WP with the same name and I want them disambiguated "song (artist name)", so for explanation reasons we'll call them,
 * XXX (country music artist song)
 * XXX (heavy metal artists song)
 * XXX (2014 pop artist song)


 * Now Cuchullain comes along and says that the 2014 pop artist gets more ghits, and doesn't need to be disambiguated because it is primary topic. Contrary to what is actually happening at song RMs, Cuchullain wins the argument so now we have:-
 * XXX (country music artist song)
 * XXX (heavy metal artists song)
 * XXX


 * Now we can see see who is disadvantaged by primary topic, the country music and heavy metal fans who know that their band/song is the most notable (and therefore the whole world) and go to the pop artist song first. That is the reality. Removing artists names disadvantages hundreds of readers. Primary topic is not relevant.--Richhoncho (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is the same, you just insist on dancing around it. In the current setup, hundreds of readers are getting sent to the dead end dab page, even though all evidence shows the Rihanna song is what the vast majority of people mean by "Shut Up and Drive". If we follow standard practice and policy and put this song at its actual title, we remove an unnecessary hurdle for the majority of readers searching for the term. And the handful of people looking for the other uses would be just as well served by a hat note at the Rihanna song as a dab page, which is a dead end for everyone.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cúchullain, not only have you managed to reply to my point but also to raise a valid query to it. I actually had to think about what had you said and that is never a bad thing! How about we support leaving Rihanna where it is, but moving the redirect to (disambiguation)? We could enhance this by having "Shut Up and Drive" deleted (and salted) as a redirect because it is, as you quite rightly say, misleading and could lead 100s of readers astray? This way nobody is lead a stray. What we could call a win-win situation, or have I missed something? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am all in favor of identifying DAB pages with a "(disambiguation)" tag. As far as salting the lemma goes, the songs are not children. We don't have to throw the toy away because people are fighting over it. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner
 * I wouldn't support moving the disambiguation page unless this article were taking the base name "Shut Up and Drive", and I certainly wouldn't support deleting the base name.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I take it from this that a) you are only interested in turning PT into a compulsory policy and b) you do not believe all your verbiage above about caring not to "send readers to dead ends." Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I support our policies when they'd get the greatest number of readers to the information they want in the quickest fashion, as they do in this case. All evidence shows that this song is what the vast majority of people mean with the title "Shut Up and Drive".--Cúchullain t/ c 20:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You selectively support guidelines and you have no interest in getting ALL readers to the information they want, have no concern for transitory notability, nor the policy WP:CONSENSUS. I suggest you read again what YOU have written. I offered a compromise (with a caveat that it was still open for discussion), it was rejected out of hand - let other editors/readers make their mind up. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice dodge, but the evidence clearly shows this song is what most readers mean by this phrase, and our policies are clear we shouldn't throw unnecessary hurdles in their way.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Primary topic? For how long? A week? A month? A couple of years? That's why WP:NCM eschews primary topic. That's no dodge, that's fact. FWIW, I am now finding it too hard to assume good faith so unless you want to review what's on offer, to find some common ground, there's nothing else to be discussed. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Primary topic according to the only evidence that's been presented or seems forthcoming. If you don't want to continue the discussion, well, don't.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. The lemma should lead directly to the article readers are most likely to be looking for, not make them work for it. When I Googled, nine of the top ten results are for this subject, the other is a partial: . Update: I read WP:SONGDAB, but I don't see anything relevant to this RM. It just explains how to do parentheticals. There is no suggestion that it is intended to override WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner
 * Yes, very true. There's also been no argument countering the pretty substantial evidence that this song is the primary topic.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cúchullain is being disengenious. The arguments have been rolled out a hundred times before, but here goes again. Here is the contra argument. Songs are transistory, "notability" will relate to the age of the reader, what type of music the listener likes, where the reader lives and probably another half a dozen reasons. Support for the move is based on an "everyman reader" who does not exist. There is no reason in the world why another song is not released called "Shut Up and Drive" tomorrow which becomes more notable than this particular song. Furthermore there really isn't an example in primarytopic of something astransitory as songs generally are. This is why WP:SONGDAB says what it does and should be applied. Otherwise we finish up having a beauty contest to see which is the primary song and, quite frankly, it is counter-productive (my song gets one more ghit than your song, boo-hoo) and not what the reader wants. Why disadvantage readers who are not looking for the Rihanna song by removing Rihanna from the title? Why disadvantage readers who are not sure of the precise name they are looking for? "Rihanna" will help them find it.
 * And here is the real rub, one of those supporting the move here has actually moved another song on the strength of WP:SONGDAB with the edit "XXX song of the same name." I do hope that person appreciated the irony of the thanks I sent for the move!  --Richhoncho (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Disingenuous"? Please. The evidence speaks for itself.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I swear that I have never heard of any of these songs outside of this RM! My vote is based strictly on dominance in the Google rankings. This dispute is not driven by fans of different songs voting for their favorites, as anyone who reads the discussion above can see. There is ideological opposition to the idea of applying the primary topic concept to pop culture subjects. To tell readers that pop culture is unworthy of their attention is a snooty attitude. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Clodhopper Deluxe If that was aimed at me I can assure you I *do* think pop culture is important and 99.9999% of all my edits at WP are music/song related. However a degree of perspective is also needed which ignoring the music guideline in favor of a generic guideline does not provide.
 * PS. Your comment that you had never heard of these songs should be conclusive proof that none of them are "primary topic" in the first place. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The music guideline says to used parenthetical disambiguation "when necessary," which I interpret to mean "when a titling conflict can't be resolved using the primary topic guideline." This phrase appears at the very beginning of the section, which suggests that it is a critical qualifier. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner
 * The reference to primarytopic was deliberately and specifically removed from WP:NCM some time ago, why must people people imagine it is still there? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked the page history, but I don't see anything anything like what you are claiming. Perhaps you could link to the discussion? WP:PDAB suggests that you can have subprimary songs. To allow a subprimary but not a full primary would be most illogical. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)  Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner
 * Clodhopper Deluxe. My fullest apologies, another editor, whom I trust(ed), said it had been changed a year ago and I assumed good faith. I wouldn't have quoted if I had known it was wrong. Anyway you have no proven that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has never been referred to from WP:SONGDAB - which must tell you something. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I was hoping for "speedy close", but two supports prevent me from doing so. Rihanna may be more prominent singer than the American country one, but making the Rihanna song the primary topic overshadows the obscure country song, which might have more potential to be more historic. Also, the quality of the Rihanna song doesn't make the song itself more primary than the other. Listen to it again in the next five, ten, or twenty years, and you may consider whether it deserves to scrap out the disambiguation. --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2014 (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.

Requested move 4 October 2015

 * 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. A clear majority of the participants here support the move and their arguments are well backed by the primary topic guideline. Those in support have clearly demonstrated that the Rihanna song meets the usage criterion and this was not countered by those opposing. The point of contention as it were was the long-term significance criterion – this is generally a tough area for closers to adjudicate because it is quite subjective, but in this case I found the opposing arguments to be fairly weak. Primary topic does not exclude pop culture topics, nor does it say that a higher bar should be set for them – if people want that to change, they will have to take it up at the guideline talk page. Other opposing comments were either not even attempting to base themselves in policy/guideline ("pure Rihannaism") or effectively countered (charts argument). Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

– First of all, let me say that previous RMs "" and "" are not to be considered during this RM. During the first someone, somehow canvassed other users. The second one did nothing in favor of any option as it was closed for being opened "too soon". Basing me on comments given during and new evidence I give below I will try to prove why Rihanna's song is the primary topic for any topic sharing the title. ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 05:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song) → Shut Up and Drive
 * Shut Up and Drive → Shut Up and Drive (disambiguation)

Background
First of all, during Requested moves 3 the users divided into what can be summarized as "Support, because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" and "Oppose, because of WP:NCM". While both sides can be correct, I support the supporters' argument due to the text given in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is:


 * "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."
 * " 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."

And how a primary topic can be determined: Incoming wikilinks, Wikipedia article traffic statistics, and Usage in English reliable sources.

Another reason to move the page would be WP:THREEDABS, in which it says:


 * "If there is a primary topic located at the base name, then the question arises whether to create a disambiguation page, or merely to link to all the other meanings from a hatnote on the primary topic article." ... " If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text [...] then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that."

Meanwhile in WP:NCM it is stated "When necessary, disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)"". As I said multiple times before, the main problem with this specific part of NCM is that it is badly written. I have found multiple editors using, for and against others' arguments, the line "When necessary" (which is defined by Wikipedia as "An action somebody may feel they must do"--key word "may"). It is an oxymoron if we consider a guideline page should be written clear and with low possibilities of being misunderstood. Also using the argument by an editor (later blocked and tagged as a sock) "I don't see anything [in NCM] relevant to this RM. It just explains how to do parentheticals. There is no suggestion that it is intended to override WP:PRIMARYTOPIC", which is true, it never states why songs cannot be primary topics. Probably it is not said because songs can be primary topics (one simple and more populated example Crazy in Love vs Crazy in Love (disambiguation) (RM)).

Evidence
Moving to the evidence required at "how a primary topic can be determined", here there it is:

Incoming wikilinks
No Chely Wright/Rihanna/Widespread Panic related-links (in other words, their Wikipedia pages about their own releases) will be included. Also in-Wikipedia space links (i.e. Talk pages, userpages, files or "Wikipedia:XYX" pages) are excluded, solely main space articles are listed.

Although Wright or Widespread songs can be underlinked, it is unlikely they can reach this quantity of links. With this is proven that Rihanna's is the primary topic regarding incoming wikilinks. Those links also prove that Rihanna's has now impacted popular culture, because it has been featured in films, tv realities, video games, it has influenced other artists, and it has its own covers. It also debunk the arguments given by other editors about Wright's popularity in : "it doesn't seem to have the long-term significance of the other articles mentioned in the guideline", or "the obscure country song, which might have more potential to be more historic.", or "Anybody looking for the Rihanna song will find it easily where it is" (untrue, as readers and writers have to link or click more than they need to). During "" Wright's "notability" was mentioned more, but never justified.

Wikipedia article traffic statistics
Multiple editors don't trust page view statistics because they only prove readers reach a page, but not from where. Due to this I created the pages " Shut Up and Drive (Chely Wright song) (redirect)", "Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song) (redirect)", and "Shut Up and Drive (Widespread Panic song) (redirect)", they were added and ordered alphabetically with no other detail. These links were added to the disambiguation page Shut Up and Drive on July 3, 2015, and unfortunately they were removed on August 30. My main intention was to test page views until today (October 3/4). I assume the period will be helpful to understand what readers want when they type "Shut Up and Drive" (I haven't checked them as I write this). Due to I and Usual gave more views for adding/removing these links, July 3 and August 30 will be excluded (for example I gave 16 views to Chely due to typographical mistakes and refreshes).

With this evidence, the dab page "Shut Up and Drive" was visited 284 times from July 4 to August 29. During the same period Wright's was clicked 21 times, Rihanna's was clicked 130 times, and Widespread's 12 times for a total of 160 of clicks to the "(redirect)" redirects. Presented with percentages, people who arrived to "Shut Up and Drive" (284 views/100%) 21/7.39% of the people went to Wright's song; 130/45.77% of the people went to Rihanna's song; and 12/4.22% of the people went to Widespread's song. Similarly to the "Incoming wikilinks", Rihanna's song is what readers tend to search the most. During some users gave arguments about Rihanna's recentism. In term of years, Wright's song was released 26 years, 357 days ago (single release), 17 years, 34 days ago (album release) / 17 years, 22 days ago (single release), and Widespread's 14 years, 39 days ago (album release). As of today, none of these song is "recent", by any mean, so being "recent" is not a justification for getting more page views--using that argument Widespread's is the primary topic as it is the "most recent".

Usage in English reliable sources
This is harder because linking all "reliable" sources will be a hell, and for non-printable sources difficult, rather I will use the Ghits method in all places recommended by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: Google web, news, scholar, and books.

In all 4 search pages Rihanna's is the song that gets more links, a tendency given by an editor in RM3.

Summary (TL;DR)
Given all the tangible evidence presented here, I'm proposing "Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song)" to be moved to "Shut Up and Drive", as this only demostrate that most readers want, have readen, have listened to/about Rihanna's song and less about Chely Wright or Widespread Panic. If such evidence is incorrect, it has to be contested with tangible evidence as well, and not solely by personal ideas or bureaucratically-written comments. ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 05:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Support I was convinced before reading your eloquent argument. I think it's fair enough to give a hit song some time to embed and prove itself no flash in the pan and this time is well past for the Rihanna song. I see songs like I Will Always Love You as primary topics and this is clearly of that ilk. Btljs (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Hat tip to Tbhotch for putting together such a thorough, well thought out argument that proves this song is the primary topic for the term. The existence of other songs with the same name does not mean this one cannot be the primary topic.  Calidum   12:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as the proposer of all three of the previous requested moves. Unreal7 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Before I vote, I must search further more of sources that significantly cover either song. I must exclude sources that trivially mention this song and fictional sources, like this one. Rihanna song: Houston Press, unauthorized bio, another unauth. bio magazine. Cheryl Wright: (inaccessible)(inaccessible) this book. George Ho (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. From the stats above, only 57 percent of disambiguation page readers are continuing on to the articles (11+73+9+10+57+3)/(142+142). When at least 43 percent of our readers aren't into the whole disambiguation page concept, it's time to rethink the idea of orienting navigation toward this type of page. Gulangyu (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support solid evidence that this is the primary topic. Kudos for such a comprehensive rationale, too. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Per the thorough research and the users' comments above. — Tom (T2ME) 11:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Piling on, but this article is clearly far more significant than other songs of the same name. sst✈ 16:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose pure Rihannaism. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Popular culture items NEVER meet the long-term requirement of primary, it's all about which is the more famous artist/who has the biggest marketing budget. There is no disadvantage in the present title, save that it offends some people. As for WP:NCM not being well-written, if every change wasn't opposed by some of the supporters here, it would be much clearer for those that don't like it's guidance. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see little point in having the same debate in two places, so please see Talk:Thinking Out Loud (Ed Sheeran song) as you seem to have a general objection to recent popular songs becoming primary topics due to their popularity (apologies if this is not the case). Btljs (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that all articles at the disambiguation page are songs, so the long-term significance should deteriorate at a similar rate. I can't see how this article would stop being the primary topic in the future. sst✈ 11:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A new book, film, song, album or other popular culture item called, "Shut Up and Drive" in the future, will mean that this article gets moved back to Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song), which defeats the whole object of this RM. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't because WP:CRYSTALBALL. Look at the history of the Mamma Mia pages - things happen and Wikipedia changes. Btljs (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Mild oppose on the basis that the underlying presumption that undisambiguated titles are better, and that subjects compete for an undisambiguated title, is really weird, and is not at all motivated by assisting readers to find the popular subject. "Shut Up and Drive (Rihanna song)" is less recognizable than "Shut Up and Drive".  No one looking for this song is disadvantaged by the "(Rihanna song)" suffix.  Agree with Richhoncho, that commercial products and recent popular culture should face a higher bar in achieving this weird epitaph of "PrimaryTopic", however, there are no other different sort of subjects here.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We have music topics here, none most significant. Rihanna song is most popular due to... Rihanna. I would lean to oppose, but I can't be clairvoyant and wait for future topics. Giving the song the triumph would make opposition futile. Still, pop music has been given attention more than it deserved. George Ho (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Many of the opposition arguments here come under the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC heading "Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons)" Please read this and also the section below titled "Not "what first comes to (your) mind". This is not a competition for prominence or importance or long term notability, it is intended to 1. help the maximum number of users find what they are looking for with the minimum amount of reading and clicks; and 2. reduce overhead on WP servers due to 1. Rihanna hasn't "won a race" if this article is the primary topic, rather the vast majority of readers have won because (it's not about being more recognizable, SmokeyJoe) when they type "Shut Up and Drive" they don't have to read a list and click again to get the page they wanted in the first place. The Chely Wright song would be in a hatnote. Btljs (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. By all evidence and any measure, this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of this title. When a wide majority of readers are seeking one topic, there's no benefit to sending them to a dead end.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per noms evidence which actually proves this song's the primary topic here, No point in sending everyone to the disam if they want this actual article, No idea why the hell I opposed in the previous ones but whatever . – Davey 2010 Talk 18:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Wright song charted at No. 14, putting it high enough on the notability list to stop the Rihanna song from being the prime topic. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * US Country songs chart number 14. As opposed to 23 different national charts for Rihanna. Btljs (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The epitome of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It's disappointing to see any opposition, however it's primarily from the the same old names who just don't like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Notice that they don't dispute that this topic is primary, they simply don't care. One word, friends: WP:CONSENSUS.  Get some.  --В²C ☎ 08:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no compunction to apply primary topic, the guideline itself tells us that - as Btljs has confirmed. When it takes multiple attempts to move a pop culture item to "primary position" you know damn well that primary topic is not working. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is only a compunction to apply primary topic when it is so blatant. The nominator couldn't have made it any clearer and yet you continue to deny crystal clear facts. Unreal7 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about blatant, it's about "long-term significance" as the nominator mentioned above. Popular culture does not have longterm significance. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The main reason I said "If such evidence is incorrect, it has to be contested with tangible evidence as well" is because neither you or IIO or the RM IP editor would be happy with it, as always. The main problem with your logic here, is that you are saying "pop culture NEVER [sic] is primary". Certainly you can't prove that. Pop culture topics like The Beatles, The Times, Dell, Anne Hathaway, Bieber, I Kissed a Girl, E.T. or Michael Jackson (just to cite a few) are pop culture primary topics. What neither of you three want to understand is that you three do not decide what readers want, and ergo, how the world revolves around a pop culture topic. I gave touchable evidence, and what's the best argument IIO can give? "[The world] is Rihannist". Or you, "PTOPIC doesn't apply here". If this is the 4th RM is simply because 1 and 2 were improper, and 3 wasn't performed with a good explanation why it would be moved. Smokey and Binks' arguments are more solid that these nonsense, for real. The problem is that Binks is weak because notability through charts has been contested due to those AFDs, and Smokey's because PTOPIC doesn't discriminate what can be primary and how or why (certainly being Rihanna's gives more points for that, but just because Diamonds (Rihanna song) is featured no one will attempt to move it to Diamonds). Really guys, if you don't like "pop culture" topics, move to other stuff.  And if you are not going to give good arguments to a discussion for consensus, simply stay back.  ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 03:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm all for pop culture articles (eg Pop rock), but articles on individual pop songs is pushing it, I see them sullied as part commercial promotion. I may be partial to their being some minimum absolute threshold for establishing PrimaryTopic, and I question whether removing the artist's name from the song article title improves anything for any reader, but those questions aside, the nominator has abundantly made the case that on relative merit, in this three horse race, one leaves the other two way behind.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2015 (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.

WP:NCM How did the above move happen?
How did a No.15 hit song get moved to an artist-less title above a No.14 hit song? Shut Up and Drive (Chely Wright song) In ictu oculi (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's the clear cut primary topic.Cúchullain t/ c 16:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)