Talk:Keep On Dancing (The Gentrys song)

Requested move

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: Moved. Red Slash 02:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on Dancing (1960s song) → Keep on Dancing (The Gentrys song) – Guidelines suggest that songs should be disambiguated by the first artist to record which was The Gentrys, Generally disambiguation by years is frowned up and I don't think I have ever seen by decade before; to undo recent and unnecessary move from Keep on Dancing (The Gentrys song). Happy to provide examples of previous discussions if required. Richhoncho (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)--Richhoncho (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a tricky one. The original recording artist was apparently a very obscure group called the Avantis in 1963, not the 1965 version by The Gentrys. The Avantis have no Wikipedia page and very little of relevance shows up in a Google search: http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/the_avantis

So what should we title it?Hoops gza (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Changed)
- Comment "With qualifications" Obscure or not, the Avantis were there first. But the Gentrys' version is better known. It can't be titled "pop song" since it's a common title. Why is the use of a date frowned upon? How does "hit song" work? It's recognized as such by BMI.Tapered (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on Change The song is best know as the Gentrys' hit, so for informative purposes, "Gentrys Hit" is IMO, the best disambiguation title--NOT because of an unexplained dictat @ WP:SONGS. Tapered (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I vote, if necessary, for "Hit Song/Single," because it's a fact and referenced as such by BMI. Tapered (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hit song" does not do the job because there are other hit songs with the same title, as can be seen at Keep on Dancing. Using the date of 1963 as in "Keep on Dancing (1963 song)" works pretty well...Hoops gza (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I vote to stay with "1960s song." That differentiates it from the other hit songs and includes the Avantis and the hit version by the Gentrys. Tapered (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Whether the proposed title or Keep on Dancing (The Avantis song), which would appear to be more in line with guidelines, either would improve upon the current title. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response (as nominator). I would not object to Keep on Dancing (The Avantis song). --Richhoncho (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm won over by your spirit of Wikipedianism. I'm OK with "Gentry's Hit" because it's the song is most often associated with the Gentrys--the article will get more views and since the Avantis are recognized as the original artists early in the Lead, justice is done. Tapered (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that the Gentrys were the original artists is demonstrably incorrect. That reason for change is defunct. I've just gone over the following pages: Wikipedia:Disambiguation Help:Disambiguation Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts

I can't find any reference to disambiguation by year or decade. Can you please direct readers and editors to editing reference that discourages these classifications? Is there a way to include the Gentrys and Avantis? Tapered (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRITERIA says titles should be consistent with those of other articles. We normally disambiguate songs by the first recording artist, although in the spirit of WP:IAR it would probably be fine to use a better known artist if the first one isn't notable enough for an article (The Avantis—see?). But songs don't use years by disambiguation. If you can find any other examples of such, they're probably in error also. --BDD (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR could also apply to the conventions of song designation! Tapered (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR doesn't trump WP:COMMONSENSE. There are some older songs disambiguated by year, but somebody usually comes along and moves them - as they certainly would "hit song","60s song" and some other variations that have been suggested here. I understand the argument for Avantis - and the reasons to object. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Designation as "1960s Song" disseminates no false information. It's easy to understand. And it stays out of any Avantis vs Gentrys attribution problems. So, what's non-common sense about that? "It's always been done that way," isn't Common Sense. I've conceded on designating it "Gentrys Song," but for a Common Sense reason--not "It's always been done that way."Tapered (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The naming section of WP:SONGS is worth reading at this point. If you want Gentrys song, then you should strike your objection above. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2013 (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.