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
This John Lennon-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles articles
Other :Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here.
This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement 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.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
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. Global consensus at the 2019 RfC means I cannot give much weight to generalized opposition to PDABs. While I don't discount opposes arguing that the ratio isn't high enough for a PDAB, I also don't have a policy/guideline basis for overriding the clear majority on that issue. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support If WP:PDABPRIMARY is going to apply, this would be an obvious choice for it. The next most popular song has tremendously fewer views. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The John Lennon song is by far the best known song titled "Imagine". JIP | Talk 07:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a ~11:1 pageview ratio is generally nowhere near enough for a PDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was combined. If you look at the view statistics, it's very one sided, though I don't know the exact ratio. Bandit Heeler (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Crouch knew that was a combined ratio. PDABs are rare, and more typically with much higher ratios unless there are other confounding factors that make a choice of title especially difficult. — BarrelProof (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The first criterion is: "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." There are many people searching for the Ariana Grande song or other songs. Since there are so many significant songs with this name, even though the John Lennon song is continues to be the most popular of them, if a reader just searches for "Imagine song", I think it is most helpful for them to be able to see the list of such songs right away. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can't imagine how anyone can say with a straight face that "Article X (Y song)" is not a primary topic for the term "Article X (song)" when the page views are so one-sided. If you don't like the idea of primary topics, just admit it. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many people, myself included, who fundamentally don't like the idea of partial disambiguation. I'm happy to admit that. And hence oppose, although this will clearly pass. * Pppery *it has begun... 20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per long-term historical significance (the view numbers are not as important as long-term significance, but this one has both in runaways. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The point of disambiguation is to make an article title not ambiguous. Proposed target is still ambiguous as multiple other songs are called "Imagine". WP:PDABPRIMARY is not a guideline, merely an information page pointing out that the issue is controversial. However, the information on that page states that it was concluded in June 2016 that PDABs should sometimes be used for song and album articles when there are no other standalone articles sharing the same song or album name. However that is not the case here. Please also note previous move discussion that cites WP:DABSONG. --woodensuperman 10:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. This is a well-known song, but there are at least 4 articles about other songs with this name and about another 10 songs described in other articles, and the pageview ratio of 11:1 (combined) is lower than for most PDABs. Including the name of the songwriter in the title of an article about their song does not seem like a great imposition. In fact, it seems helpful to the reader. — BarrelProof (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom. We have a similar case with Yesterday (song) (despite there are 23 other songs titled "Yesterday"). Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I agree that this is the primary topic per long-term historical significance and page views. Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An 11:1 pageview ratio is on the low end for PDABs, but it's still a sign of this topic clearly exceeding the pageviews of other songs by its name, and the Lennon song also has a clear lead in long-term significance. I believe a PDAB is justified in this case. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
