Im Never Gonna Gonna Dance Again

	Never Gonna Dance Over again (Sugababes song) was 1 of the Music proficient manufactures , but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. One time these bug have been addressed, the commodity can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Procedure Result June 18, 2012 Good article nominee Listed March 18, 2013 Good article reassessment Delisted
	A fact from this commodity appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" cavalcade on June 7, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that critics compared the Sugababes' 2007 song "Never Gonna Dance Again" to "Devil-may-care Whisper" past George Michael?
Current status: Delisted good article

WikiProject Songs	(Rated Redirect-class)
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to better the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project folio, where you tin join the discussion and see a list of open up tasks. Songs Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs song articles  Redirect This redirect does non require a rating on the quality scale.

WikiProject Pop music

(Rated Redirect-course)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative attempt to improve the coverage of manufactures related to pop music on Wikipedia. If yous would like to participate, please visit the projection page, where you tin join the word and see a list of open tasks. Pop music Wikipedia:WikiProject Pop music Pop music articles  Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on the projection's quality calibration.

Something nearly that articel is simply wrong imo. Information technology says that this song was written for the anthology Change, but the source for this merits is the Wikipedia commodity near Alter (which is the kickoff thing that is very incorrect - I always thought y'all should prove everything with a reliable source, and Wikipedia pages are commonly not actually reliable or rather non suitable as a source). What makes me suspicious is the following sentence (taken from the Wikipedia page of Alter): "Although, it was Amelle's kickoff production, many of the songs from the anthology were tracks that did not announced on Taller In More Ways." I've heard that very often and I also think that this is true, but practice you have a reliable proof for this? I remember information technology's a fact that some of the tracks on Change are leftovers from Taller. I heard rumors that at that place would be a version of Never Gonna Trip the light fantastic Over again with Mutyas vocals on it. And then basically I recollect all tracks written solely by Keisha and Heidi are leftovers from Taller and it's wrong to say that this vocal was written for the album Change (because obviously it was written for some other album). Could someone please proof this, or delete information technology if you don't detect a reliable source (for both articles)?--Martina2504 (talk) xviii:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC) PS: Sorry for my bad english, I'1000 a german Sugababes fan ;)! [answer]

The following is a airtight discussion of a requested move. Please do non alter information technology. 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 farther edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move asking was: procedural close. This article is to be merged into its anthology (non-admin closure). f eminist 08:17, one Feb 2017 (UTC) [reply]

---

Never Gonna Dance Again (song) → Never Gonna Trip the light fantastic toe Again – Is anyone seriously gonna mistake this for Careless Whisper? Unreal7 (talk) 21:03, 12 Jan 2017 (UTC) -- Relisting. Andrewa (talk) xx:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• Back up, and delete the disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. That said, the nominator's rationale is bogus. I certainly thought it was "Careless Whisper", and surely many other people will, also. Not everyone memorizes pop song names, and when a line in one is better known than its actual title, disambiguation is in society. However, per TWODABS, the hatnotes are entirely sufficient in this instance, and the title of this article does not demand "(song)" in information technology, since information technology does not assistance disambiguate from another song but just confuses the matter further.  —SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
• Meet also Talk:'Tis the Season#Requested move 26 December 2016: Essentially the exact same case, except that TWODABS is not a factor.  —SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC) [answer]
• Question I'm just wondering why this album rails has an article when it wasn't released every bit a single. What is the special notability of it beingness a standalone item? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 13 Jan 2017 (UTC) [reply]
• Support - Using Nothing's Gonna Stop Usa and Cipher's Gonna Stop The states Now equally precedent to this. If the pair is not plenty, how about Dear Volition Save the Day and You Gotta Be? George Ho (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@Andrewa: I realize that consistency with other pages isn't enough reason to support. Therefore, I would say that the titles are precise and concise enough to distinguish the ii songs. We must do what's best for readers. As well much disambiguation would annoy readers. Likewise, the hatnote is sufficient to assistance readers surf to either page. Would that suffice? --George Ho (talk) 04:fifty, 21 Jan 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Must rescind my vote. I can't re-vote while the merger is ongoing with ii supports. --George Ho (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC) [respond]

• Support. Only article with this title; the differently titled George Michael song is already distinguished with a hat note. There's likewise the matter that "(song)" doesn't actually distinguish the subject field from Devil-may-care Whisper, which is also a vocal.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
• Oppose and relisting. Target should be a master redirect to Careless Whisper. Merely agree that current disambiguation is inadequate. Andrewa (talk) 21:10, twenty January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
• Oppose while I hold with SMcCandlish that the DAB is needless per WP:TWODABS, I also agree with Andrewa that "Never Gonna Trip the light fantastic Over again" should be a primary redirect to George Michael'southward "Careless Whisper". This song honestly doesn't run across WP:NSONGS (no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources outside of album reviews) and should just redirect to its album article. Whether this was released as a single or not is irrelevant. Even if this did warrant an article, people much more than oftentimes call back of the George Michael vocal when they hear this phrase. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC) [answer]
  • Agree that the DAB is unnecessary, whichever way nosotros go. Information technology's not technically a deletion, we only overwrite the DAB with whatever we determine to put there. Andrewa (talk) 02:thirty, 23 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Discussion [edit]

I almost closed this as stiff consensus to motility.... just it didn't sit correct. Peradventure it's a lost cause, but...

User:SMcCandlish, I as well thought of Careless Whisper, in fact needed to practise a Google to fifty-fifty find mention of the other vocal. Doesn't this advise at to the lowest degree consider a chief redirect? Deck the Halls doesn't seem a close parallel.

User:In ictu oculi, good question which nobody took upwardly.

User:George Ho, again, are these really parallels?

User:Cuchullain, adept points, simply how almost a primary redirect? And further disambiguate this song?

Y'all four are an awesome jury on RMs, so I'g walking into a lion'southward den. Just desire to throw in this possibility. Andrewa (talk) 21:10, 20 Jan 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks, Andrewa. I just don't run into much evidence that Careless Whisper is a practiced WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT candidate. The real lyric is "I'thou Never Gonna Dance Again". Even if "I'm Never Gonna Dance Again" were its actual title, we still would have the Sugababes song as "Never Gonna Dance Again" per WP:SMALLDETAILS, so long equally appropriate hat notes were in place.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:32, 20 Jan 2017 (UTC) [answer]

Well, 200,000 ghits for "never gonna trip the light fantastic toe again" and the kickoff few pages are all about the George Michael vocal, while take out "George Michael" and information technology drops to less than one-half that, so past usage Careless Whisper may just scrape in. Just by significance it's a clearer winner, the Sugababes song didn't chart and had mixed reviews, the George Michael song hit #ane in several countries, and went platinum or better in 5. Andrewa (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Non sure that WP:SMALLDETAILS helps... Certainly I'1000 Never Gonna Dance Once more should redirect to Careless Whisper, but that doesn't tell united states annihilation about where Never Gonna Dance Again should point. Andrewa (talk) 08:44, 21 Jan 2017 (UTC) [reply]

No doubt "Devil-may-care Whisper" is a more than meaning song, but I meet no testify that people are typing in or clicking on the phrase "Never Gonna Dance Again" looking for it, at least non more people than are using that search term looking for this song actually titled "Never Gonna Trip the light fantastic toe Once more". No one would ever have created this as a redirect to "Devil-may-care Whisper" if the Sugababes song didn't accept an commodity; even the actual lyric, "I'm Never Gonna Trip the light fantastic toe Again, didn't exist equally a redirect until 2013). The hatnote will serve anyone who'southward actually dislocated simply equally finer, and in just as few clicks, equally a dab page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:42, 23 Jan 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I recollect it's incommunicable to tell whether people are typing in or clicking on the phrase "Never Gonna Trip the light fantastic Again" looking for it, at least non more people than are using that search term looking for this song really titled "Never Gonna Trip the light fantastic Again". Or even to tell whether No one would ever take created this every bit a redirect to "Careless Whisper" if the Sugababes vocal didn't have an article....

If I heard the GM song for the first fourth dimension and liked it, never gonna dance again is probably exactly what I'd type in to Google. And if, having found information technology in Wikipedia, and listened to it on youtube, (which Google finds easily) I wanted to make information technology easier for others to find, that'southward exactly the redir I might create.

I would accept created 1 recently for Scarlet in the Night (song) or like if we had an commodity for Reddish Sky at Night (The Accent vocal) or even for The Emphasis... come across Talk:Red sky at night. The words Blood-red Heaven don't really appear anywhere in the song, and I recently achieved a personal ambition by finally identifying the vocal, which received a lot of airplay in Aust and was formative for a lot of Australian guitarists, including both famous ones and not-so-famous ones like me. But it was simply a retentiveness, and it has not been piece of cake to rail downwardly.

Anyway, indicate being, shouldn't we go with the long-term significance criterion, which is quite clear-cut? Andrewa (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I don't know anything well-nigh "Reddish in the Nighttime".

Plainly, people searching for a vocal titled "Never Gonna Dance Again" will search for it nether its title. It's an open question whether they search for a song titled "Devil-may-care Whisper" using that phrase. Based on the folio views, it doesn't await like it, nor do they seem to have trouble finding "Careless Whisper" where information technology is (and once again, for anyone who's confused, the hat note gets them there in just as many clicks every bit a ii-entry dab page). As I said "Careless Whisper" is objectively a more than pregnant song, but it's not called "Never Gonna Trip the light fantastic toe Once more". It certainly isn't clear that it's the primary topic of the phrase, as SMcCandlish says. My position remains that moving this commodity and using a chapeau note is the best solution.

In that location's also the affair that the current disambiguation doesn't really distinguish the championship, every bit "Careless Whisper" is also a "(song)".--Cúchullain ^t/c xiv:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I've answered near of this already... agree that the current disambiguation is inadequate (I call up there's articulate consensus on that), agree that by usage (shown by page views, just there's a problem there) the PT is unclear, but by significance the PT is quite clear, Red in the night was just another case of a phrase from a notable song that might be used as a search argument although it's non the song's name (and was, extensively, past me, information technology'south been a personal quest to observe information technology). Andrewa (talk) 06:fifty, 24 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I don't actually have anything else to say here. I don't believe "Devil-may-care Whisper" is a good primary redirect candidate based on the prove, and that hat notes will solve whatever confusion sufficiently.--Cúchullain ^t/c xiv:eighteen, 24 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The usage data is inconclusive, and the significance information is overwhelming. So I'm curious every bit to when the significance criterion would e'er be considered relevant, in your opinion, if non here. Andrewa (talk) nineteen:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC) [answer]

It certainly tin be a relevant factor, and I'd say that the significance of "Careless Whisper" is more than than enough for it to overall qualify every bit primary topic for the term "Never Gonna Dance Again" fifty-fifty if that'southward not the official title of George Michael's song. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

(edit conflict)When the two titles actually disharmonize, or at least when the title of one is a common search term for the other. Otherwise, information technology's apples and oranges.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:25, 24 Jan 2017 (UTC) [reply]

That'southward exactly as I suspected. Logically, that means never. If we're only going to apply significance when the championship of one is a mutual search term for the other, then nosotros're giving usage absolute priority, and might likewise ditch significance. Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

What? In that location are plenty of cases where long-term significance is a deciding factor between ii ambiguously titled topics.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC) [answer]

Pitiful, I don't follow.--Cúchullain ^t/c fifteen:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Oh... didn't look the ping. I brought upward the examples to prove consistency of distinguishing titles. By the way, what exercise you mean "parallels"? --George Ho (talk) 23:25, twenty January 2017 (UTC) [answer]

I mean like enough to this example to be relevant... or in this instance, not. Andrewa (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Partially relevant. I'll add more than in my vote shortly. George Ho (talk) 04:46, 21 Jan 2017 (UTC) [respond]

@Andrewa: I would return to the "per TWODABS, the hatnotes are entirely sufficient in this instance" every bit good enough. The fact that people in our age range think of "Devil-may-care Whisper" when we run into the string "Never Gonna Trip the light fantastic Again" amounts to WP:IKNOWIT, based on personal familiarity; younger people may well think of the Sugababes rails. I don't think the A-B-C assay beneath is necessary, because of TWODABS and because Principal should exist employed only when the "primaryness" of the connectedness is unquestionable, which isn't the case here. Information technology probably is actually the instance that, on average, people know that the name of the George melody is actually "Careless Whisper", and that I didn't because I never was into sugary popular music and don't spend neurons on remembering trivia almost it.  :-)  —SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Agree that the fact that yous and I recall of the GM song isn't a reason to decide it'south the PT, only it'due south reason to exercise some research, and that research confirms our reaction equally reasonable. The GM song was an international striking and still gets significant airplay in Aus (where it did best, absolutely), the SB song did nothing. Andrewa (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Disclosure: I do personally like the GM song a great bargain (every bit did many other Aussies it seems), simply it's the only thing I've heard from George Michael that was worth a heed. Wham! left me cold... then it's fascinating that I have merely learned that Careless Whisper was really written past the duo, Andrew Ridgeley is arguably supporting himself from his royalties equally co-author.

And only BTW, I see that to date CW is the 34th best-selling unmarried of all time in the U.k. [1] if any more show of its PT status by significance is needed. I suspect it might be even higher ranking in Aus, equally nosotros're the only place information technology went double platinum. Andrewa (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC) [respond]

Primary redirects [edit]

Suppose nosotros have two manufactures, on topics A and B. A and B are both unambiguous names for these topics, and A is the mutual name for topic A.

At present suppose there's some other name C which is ambiguous and could refer to either A or B. And further suppose, someone says let's move article B to C, considering the more common proper noun for B is C. Stop of story, right? C isn't wanted equally the proper name for A, and then information technology's available for B. Correct?

Wrong. C tin can be the common name for B but its primary significant may nevertheless be A. So we even so need to ask, what's the primary meaning of C? And if it's A, then C becomes a primary redirect to A, and nosotros need to find another name for article B... peradventure C(D) where D is of course a disambiguator.

And in that location tin can exist several other similar names, E, F, G, and fifty-fifty a longer version of G, GH, all redirecting to A, peculiarly if A is a relatively significant topic. The fact that GH redirects to A doesn't make Grand bachelor as a name for B either. If A is the primary topic of them all, so they all redirect to A. This is most likely when B is a relatively insignificant topic, as here.

Everyone with me on this? Information technology'southward not the only fashion to handle this state of affairs, but it's the right way nether our current policy. Andrewa (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Makes sense, in terms of user-friendliness. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

It makes very good sense indeed. And nearly all of the fourth dimension, our policies and guidelines are right on the money, see wp:correct. Our heated debates near always accept ii things in common: (1) At that place are potent opinions that the rules should be violated in this case (or topic area), and (2) There's no hope of consensus to modify the rules to cater explicitly for this case (or topic area).

But this isn't a heated debate (whew), I think nosotros're all happy to get with consensus either way (and see User:Andrewa/Andrew'south Principle, but ironically, there has sometimes been passionate opposition when I've referred to this in the by). Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC) [answer]

---

The in a higher place discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should exist made in a new section on this talk folio or in a motility review. No further edits should be made to this department.

The following discussion is closed. Delight exercise non modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus for merging. f eminist 08:xv, i February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

---

@Andrewa: I recall the answer to your question above may be that this shouldn't even exist an commodity. I'm struggling to see anywhere in the article where the consequence of notability is addressed. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:09, 21 Jan 2017 (UTC) [answer]

Back up the merge. Merely even if information technology's merged, that withal leaves the question of what to do at both this title Never Gonna Dance Over again (song) and at the proposed RM target Never Gonna Dance Again above. Information technology seems to me that the GM song is master for both, with a hatnote from it to wherever the SB vocal ends up. Andrewa (talk) xx:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• Support merge; it fails WP:NSONGS as it doesn't really become attention outside of album reviews. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC) [respond]
• Support merge but retain hatnote if "Never Gonna Dance Again" is redirected to "Devil-may-care Whisper".  —SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ xx:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Agree 100% nigh the hatnote. Andrewa (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
• Back up merge just an anthology track. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
• Support merger - Let'south speed upward the give-and-take and lessen the content forking. George Ho (talk) 22:56, 30 Jan 2017 (UTC) [answer]

---

The in a higher place discussion is closed. Delight do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

bakergoded1956.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ANever%20Gonna%20Dance%20Again%20%28Sugababes%20song%29%23Requested%20move%2012%20January%202017

Share this post