Talk:Dumpweed
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move[edit]
Requesting a move, as a disambiguation is not needed. The subject of the article is the song "Dumpweed". Chubbles (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I did not mean to make a disambiguation for it; I was just moving the page to it's appropriate title because actually, it is the live version of the song that the article is talking about. When I moved the page, I showed an example of another article that is similar. In this case, that is "Lunacy Fringe (acoustic version)", a song by The Used. It originally appeared off of their studio album In Love and Death, and was later released as a digital download off of iTunes, but as an acoustic version, meaning it's a different version of the song, and that's why it is labeled as such and that's why it hasn't been moved to just "Lunacy Fringe". Besides, that page has been around for over a year. Why hasn't anyone changed that yet if it's wrong? The studio version of "Dumpweed" from Enema of the State was never a single, but the live version from The Mark, Tom, and Travis Show (The Enema Strikes Back!) was. That's why in the list of singles on the Blink-182 template it appears AFTER "Man Overboard" (also from The Mark, Tom, and Travis Show), instead of it being grouped with the Enema singles. Also, if you go to the article for "Dumpweed", it states that it is the page for the live version, not the studio version that appears on Enema. This was the same discussion that I had added to the template. --- Fantasy Dragon (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the utility of making the subject of the article a single version of a song. The subject should refer to an artistic work, not merely one of its manifestations. Chubbles (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Then every other article for a single should be changed to an article for just the song and then mentioned as a single, right? If the page is just for the song in general, I don't think "Dumpweed" alone is notable enough for an article, but the single version, which was the live version, should be. I believe the article could be confusing for some readers. When you read the first sentence, it says "Dumpweed is a single...", but it is not. I did have Dumpweed (Live version) there, but it was removed, which doesn't really make sense because the article is misleading without it. Fantasy Dragon (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know of any other articles that are named specifically after single versions of the songs. All singles are songs, anyway. The topic of the article, properly put, is a song by Blink-182, not a live performance of that song; its release as a single may be what makes it notable, but it's still the song that is the notable thing. This whole argument seems to be a little Procrustean; we should take care not to let the rules lead us to bizarre ends. Chubbles (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Then every other article for a single should be changed to an article for just the song and then mentioned as a single, right? If the page is just for the song in general, I don't think "Dumpweed" alone is notable enough for an article, but the single version, which was the live version, should be. I believe the article could be confusing for some readers. When you read the first sentence, it says "Dumpweed is a single...", but it is not. I did have Dumpweed (Live version) there, but it was removed, which doesn't really make sense because the article is misleading without it. Fantasy Dragon (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the utility of making the subject of the article a single version of a song. The subject should refer to an artistic work, not merely one of its manifestations. Chubbles (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
i agree