Talk:You Owe Me (Nas song)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Hip hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WP:RMT Discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a discussion that was moved from WP:RM/TR (Permalink) when the page You Owe Me (The Chainsmokers song) was located here.

You Owe Me → You Owe Me (The Chainsmokers song) – There are two songs with this title that have an article (You Owe Me (Nas song) and there is not a primary topic. The Chainsmokers' song just came out, so it can hardly be the primary. This song cannot already be more important than Nas' song that already HAS an article. This is against music page name policy (WP:NCMDAB), disregarded by the user who moved the Nas song and created it. Ss112 09:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawl, Ss112, Ad Orientem, NeilN, and Ammarpad: Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Chainsmokers' song is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the Nas song was unsourced before I added some refs. Since the Chainsmokers have a history of chart-topping singles, it's very likely this new song will be historically more significant than the Nas song in the near future and the current title is what readers would look for, when searching for this song by the Chainsmokers. — Za wl 09:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In no way can topics be primary if the topic is only a few days old. Your talk of assumed historical significance is irrelevant. That's against WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RECENTism. We're talking about the here and now, and you have no proof what readers are searching for. It is policy to disambiguate two songs of the same name per WP:NCMDAB. Your "objection" should be disregarded by any page mover reading this. Regardless, I will ask an admin to move it if it isn't moved by someone patrolling this page. You deliberately disregarded the fact that the Nas song had an article and moved it out of the way so you didn't have to create content at Hayman30's redirect. Doesn't matter that it didn't have refs, you added them. You made it (more) notable, so should have made You Owe Me into a dab page. Ss112 09:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: @Ad Orientem: @Anthony Appleyard: Zawl, who has a history of engaging in underhanded page move tactics, is objecting to an article being moved into a disambiguated space when this is policy (WP:NCMDAB), because more than one song exists of the same title. Can an admin please sort this out and move it? You Owe Me (Nas song) already exists and primary topic assertions don't apply for recent topics. Thanks. Ss112 10:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My title selection is based on WP:COMMONSENSE, as this song will eventually become the primary topic. It's just a matter of time. I oppose the move at this time and recommend starting a move discussion. I also think that a disambiguation page is unnecessary (for now) since there are only two articles and a hatnote would better aid readers instead of making them to go through the dab page with a super short list. — Za wl 10:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, future assertions of importance are still against WP:CRYSTALBALL. It is policy per WP:NCMDAB. WP:COMMONSENSE is not a policy or a guideline; it's a supplement and it still doesn't apply because your assertions are speculation. I've contacted admins based on your history, and I think you have a conflict of interest of sorts here, having move rights and objecting to a page you created being moved when you were well aware of what you were doing when you moved the Nas song out of the way so you could avoid creating content at Haymna's redirect. A move discussion would only end in users agreeing that there are two songs of the same name with articles and neither is the primary. It happens all the time. It would be a speedy decision. Ss112 10:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've contacted admins based on my history? Way to losing your cool. We're just two editors disagreeing about moving this page and you had to bring up our previous disputes just to gain an upper hand here. Me having page mover rights has nothing to do with this and it doesn't mean I'm not allowed to make WP:BOLD moves. Your assumption that editors would agree on no primary topic is just an opinion. — Za wl 10:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a fair assumption, if you've paid attention to any music page moves. You probably should if you have page move rights. You should familiarise with the policies I linked to, otherwise I don't think you should have page move rights. This is not just "two editors disagreeing"; you have a history of doing this and it's just continuing. Regardless, my pointing out of page name policies are not assumptions; they're things you should have followed but refused to. Even if this goes to a move discussion (which it shouldn't), you're going to see that editors generally agree with moving articles of the same name to disambiguated spaces and it's not not going to be done even if you argue with everyone who comments. That's the power of consensus. It will be a waste of time for all involved, and so I hope the admins I have pinged here see that and don't want to waste anyone else's time. Ss112 10:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From way back long before Wikipedia started, I have seen very many pop music songs become briefly a top notable favorite, and then float away down the river of time and be forgotten. If several pop music songs have the same or very similar names, the "top spot" should be the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Zawl:, the page that you moved (and used PM permission to suppress redirect to give way for your new article) will be restored as it was. Please start move discussion to establish how your page is primary topic. Also remember #Conduct expectations don't use PM permission to the detriment of other editors to win your article the base name. I will also advise to to remember this piece of advice –Ammarpad (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: I recommend this be left to an admin to sort out. — Za wl 10:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's because you used entrusted permission and grabbed article title. Undiscussed move can be reverted by any one with the ability not admin. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I did not suppress any redirects to make way for new article. Like how any editors could move pages, I did the same. My move of the Nas song to another title is per WP:BOLD that it is not the primary topic. — Za wl 10:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so your BOLD move is now contested, therefore controversial. You can start MR to establish that song deserves the base title. Also FYI, it doesn't matter whether you suppress redirect that's just technicality. What is germane here is you did unilateral move which cannot be reversed by non-PM, and non-Admin editor, that's using PM permission, whether redirect is left or not. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This right should never be used to gain an upper hand in page move disputes - I did not use this right to gain an upper hand in this dispute. Whether or not a non-PM can reverse the move is out of topic, since they can't reverse most moves without coming here. Like a non-PM, I used my regular editor right to move a page. Since there's a discussion here and you've been asked to leave this to an administrator, you failed to do so and thus, conducted a wheel war with another page mover. An admin should review this. — Za wl 10:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it what you like. You did unilateral undiscussed move. Another editor disagreed, and ask for it to be reversed on RMT. His request is valid and I executed it, if you disagree you're required to start RM. It doesn't matter whether the one who moved the page undiscussed is a page mover or not. It was undiscussed and challenged. You can ask for clarification. Ammarpad (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move 17 February 2018[edit]

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: consensus to move the pages, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You Owe Me → You Owe Me (Nas song)
You Owe Me (disambiguation) → You Owe Me

– No primary topic (for now). — Za wl 15:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, you might want to consider !voting down here, since it appears the above was not a formal RM. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom - no primary topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support In ictu oculi (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per previous two supporting reasons. JE98 (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Hayman30 (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agathoclea (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.