Talk:Twin Flames (song)

On 14 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Twin Flames (song). The result of the discussion was Moved first, second not moved.

Requested move 14 December 2023[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 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 first, second not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Flames → Twin Flames (song)
Twin Flame → Twin Flames

– Even if we ignore the dramatic recent spike in popularity of the "Universe" (which we shouldn't), this song is not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Twin Flames". The band gets more than twice the number of page views and has won various awards and a recognition by UNESCO, and there are other subjects as well. All identified topics where the term is used in the article title are using the plural form, and thus the proposal to move the disambiguation page as well. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1st, Oppose 2nd About half the disambiguated things appear to be singular, not plural. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see only two singular topics out of seven listed, which is less than a third, not close to half, and neither of those has a dedicated article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st, weak oppose 2nd. The song has 499 views but the band has 451 and Twin Flames Universe has 209,187[[1]]. In terms of the DAB move yes the topics with their own article are all in the plural form but I do believe that using the simpler form for DAB pages unless all of the uses use the more complicated former makes sense per WP:DABNAME. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support first, oppose second. There is a clear absence of a primary topic for the term. With respect to the disambiguation page, "Twin Flames" is just a plural instance of a "Twin Flame", even though the latter always implies the former. I see nothing broken with the current disambig title. Compare Sock (disambiguation). BD2412 T 03:08, 17 December 2023 (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.