Talk:GetItRight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleGetItRight was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 2, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
March 16, 2017Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2021Articles for deletionRedirected
January 22, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Lead[edit]

The correct title of this article is #GetItRight. The substitution or omission of the # is because of technical restrictions.
"#GetItRight" (stylized "#GETITRIGHT")...

Is the three times repeat of this letter-play necessary. The lyrics include "Get it right". We don't follow stylizations in titles, we shouldn't have them 3 times in the lead. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to GetItRight (Miley Cyrus song), per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get It Right (Miley Cyrus song) → GetItRight – In ictu oculi moved the page back to "Get It Right (Miley Cyrus song)" after I previously moved it to "GetItRight". As most of the sources cited in the article show, "#GETITRIGHT" is favored (obviously there can't be a # sign in the title, and the all caps are reduced per MoS). "GetItRight" is CamelCase, which has time after time been deemed acceptable per examples such as LoveGame and FutureSex/LoveSounds and is not merely a vanity stylization.

Furthermore, In ictu oculi's argument that "The lyrics include 'Get it right'" in the above section is rather silly, due to examples such as "Lovesong" or "The Ballad of John and Yoko" where the titles don't even appear in the lyrics, period.

MOS:TM is not an excuse to change every title of every work that does not follow traditional English, and overextension of that guideline (let's not forget that) will lead us down a very slippery slope. What's next, In da Club being moved to In the Club (50 Cent song)? I Would Die 4 U to I Would Die for You (Prince song)?

I would also consider Getitright acceptable - the all-caps in the official title make it unclear which capitalization should be used for a one-word title. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - per MOS:TM particularly in titles, see WP:AT, but as MOS also in leads and article body. Contrary to the claim "not merely a vanity stylization" this appears to be a textbook case of a vanity stylization. User:Chasewc91 you say "most of the sources cited in the article show", yes, which means that the more serious sources don't. The song chorus goes "But we gotta get it right, we can't get it wrong Don't you want to feel this fire before it's gone" - in this case the article doesn't even have artwork substantiating a stylization. And more importantly we have the whole article corpus to consider. We can't have this as #GETITRIGHT when there are equally or more notable topics such as Get It Right (Aretha Franklin song) which judging by Google Books will still be remembered when this WP:RECENT one is long forgotten. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to GetItRight (Miley Cyrus song) - persuaded by User: Yaksar having located quality newsprint sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question but Lovesong (The Cure song) is assisted by having the artist name as a dab. We could move it to Love Song (The Cure song) yes, but it isn't #LoveSong, as extreme as #GetItRight and either way The Cure song would still have (The Cure song). And "lovesong", while not good modern English, does actually exist in older English Google Books as a variant spelling. The issue with the Miley Cyrus song is as you yourself say, sources are split between #GetItRight and Get It Right. So MOS:TM says follow the sources with similar MOS to en.wp. This RM isn't even in the ballpark of a good case for a stylism. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the guideline you link, MOS:TM, specifically includes LittleBigPlanet as a correct example. The situation seems very similar to me. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:08, 24 September 2014
It would be similar if (a) the song was a brand and (b) if there were reliable sources supporting "GetItRight". Otherwise a Google News search on "Get It Right" simply shows that the only newspapers which have mentioned the song are Mexican and spell it normally. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, brands and trademarks are what that page is specifically discussing. And clearly those results coming up in a google news search are not the only reliable sources -- look at what we're actually using in the article!--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Listed without spaces in its official context -- on the album tracklist as seen on iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, etc. Yes the sources are somewhat split, but I don't see how a split means we shouldn't be choosing the official name, as we do with pretty much every song. Forcing grammatical rules onto a song's official title makes about as much sense as forcing Zipcar or Snapchat to include a space in their names.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support while smiling ("#GETITRIGHT" from the album "Bangerz" was released shortly after the infamous twerking incident with Robin Thick).
No great help is given here re: WP:UCRN as shown at ("#GetItRight" OR "GetItRight" OR "Get It Right") AND "miley Cirus". However, WP:OFFICIAL seems to be supported by site:www.mileycyrus.com "#GetItRight" OR "GetItRight" OR "Get It Right".
We use YouTube not You Tube and the similarly stylised X (Ed Sheeran album) without the need to explain it as Multiply (Ed Sheeran album).
Weak support to here My preference it for GetItRight (Miley Cyrus song). Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
page reviewed and !vote edited Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the disambiguation will be needed -- I can't see the title without spaces being a plausible search term for any of the other pages -- if that was the case we'd pretty much have to have a redirect for every single article without spaces.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yaksar, article titling isn't based on whether readers can correctly guess the exact title and get a direct hit, it's based on recognizability of title following any typical searches such as [pharrell williams + miley cyrus]. Currently that particular search produces this song as 5th result but any number of other searches may have it as 20th or 50th. In among those our objective is not to hide the article but to make it easy to find. And it is not surprising or shameful to have (Miley Cyrus song) on a Miley Cyrus song article. I assume no one is trying to hide that it's by Cyrus or we'd be proposing to remove her name from lead and infobox as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how that makes any sense. Article titling is certainly used to make this easier to find, but you're incorrect about how we use disambiguation. We use parenthetical disambiguation to help distinguish the article when other pages are at the same name, not to give more info about the topic. Otherwise, songs like I Want a New Drug, Fight the Power, or View to a Kill would have to have parentheses explaining what they were in case someone searches by their components rather than name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those cases wouldn't be complicated by the most relevant issue here: the WP:SONGDAB requirement for artist name given the existence of all Get It Right (album) 1983 album by Aretha Franklin Get It Right (Aretha Franklin song) Get It Right (Glee cast song) and all the others at Get It Right. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: We should follow MOS:TM / WP:TITLETM and avoid the decorative stylization if the independent most-well-reputed reliable sources are mixed. Moreover, the current title is what was used originally before an undiscussed move. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a trademark, but an creative or artistic work (using artistic in the very broad sense), like LoveGame. whitechocolatespaceegg, or Nothing Compares 2 U.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the creative work that the article discusses is (at least primarily) the song, not the formatting of the title of the song. Second, MOS:TM is not just for formal trademarks. It applies, in its entirety, to the naming of anything produced by organizations and individuals. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean ok, but even then, the articles given as examples on that links with spacing used similar to this article Thirtysomething, LittleBigPlanet, PlayStation, and I guess to some extent even Craigslist all follow the spacing used in the official titles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note -- We've been stating that "sources are split" or mixed or whatever on the usage. However, this is really an overstatement -- if you look at the reliable sources, and more specifically the ones used as sources here, the vast majority of them use the official spelling (all of them, in fact, except an article from PopSugar). A google search for the song in quotes followed by miley cyrus bangerz "to avoid other uses of the phrase" also shows that getting with spaces gets only around 57% of the results as without spaces.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2:1 in favour of #GetItRight in html and blogs would still lead to following normal MOS in article title per MOS:TM, but the real issue is that this song hasn't appeared in reliable book and newspaper sources yet. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When did we stop considering sources like Rolling Stone or The AV Club or Spin Magazine as reliable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you're saying that even if one result is slightly favored we should defer to MOS:TM, but that page specifically describes CamelCase as acceptable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's acceptable if it's unavoidable. But in any case the camelcasing isn't the main objection to this move - the objection is to removing the artist name contrary to WP:SONGDAB - see what I said above. There are other songs "Get It Right". That is the problem, there are other songs "Get It Right". There are other songs "Get It Right" which are not by this artist also called "Get It Right". There would be less opposition to GetItRight (Miley Cyrus song) as per preference of Gregkaye. It is removal of (Miley Cyrus song) which is the main issue here. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Perhaps if that's the issue, after this discussion closes we could have a discussion about just the spacing decision. I'd certainly be ok with GetItRight (Miley Cyrus song) -- I don't think it's ideal, but I wouldn't oppose it by any means. Could you explain what you mean by a lack of reliable sources about the song though? That would certainly be an issue and would probably lead to an AfD, but it doesn't really seem to be the case here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes the artist name is far more important than the stylism. You asked "Could you explain what you mean by a lack of reliable sources about the song though? That would certainly be an issue and would probably lead to an AfD, but it doesn't really seem to be the case here" - no it's not a reliable for notability issue, we can judge (or predict) notability of a media product like a song or film from immediate sources, html. What I mean was reliable for orthography, we cannot predict how Camelcase will appear in books. To take an example, Japanese and Korean songs are often all over the place with crazy excited stylisms, but by the time they appear in sober sources like Continuum or Rough Guide those disappear. English language songs are less crazy on stylisms and consequently perhaps they are more likely to be respected in print. I note however that those Mexican newspapers are still just calling this song "Get It Right", it's likely that English newspapers will to. Just being wary, that's all. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi, fortunately, although google news seems to have trouble with them, we do have a fair amount of mentions in English language newspapers. I don't particularly like the argument that their opinions are more valuable than other forms of music journalism like Spin, but it's irrelevant here, since they seem to agree. The pretty well-regarded New York Times, Boston Globe, USA Today, and the Chicago Tribune all discuss the song using #GetItRight, without spaces (in fact, all of them except the Times use all caps as well). And I would say obviously we can't know anything about books yet, since we can't expect to see a song so recently released in a book yet -- but I'd be wrong, believe it or not! Both use the versions without spaces, but one is just self published. The second book is actually written by a professor though, one that is actually notable enough for us to have a page on! He quotes Sufjan Stevens using #GetItRight, and then after the quote notes himself that the song is "officially titled #GETITRIGHT".--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just performed a manual move of Get It Right (Miley Cyrus song) → GetItRight (Miley Cyrus song). Obviously any further decision made on this page will overrule that move. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to change the disambiguation page: Get It Right as the redirect Get It Right (Miley Cyrus song) still works and also fits in with the flow of the listing. I think that the useful part of the change relates to categories and the way the title will display in internet search listings. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That move was improperly premature. I may revert it. You should wait until the discussion of the requested move has been closed and a consensus has been determined before any move is made. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment! I'd also like to note that I think we've been discussing a misinterpretation of the term "stylized as". A subject like eBay, for example, notes that it is often stylized as ebay. This distinction can be seen from looking at the website -- ebay is used in the logo but in the site's legal info page or as its trademark we can see that it is officially eBay. Time Warner is another example -- the logo calls it TimeWarner but the legal disclaimers and official documents call it Time Warner, indicating its official name. The same can be said about Pepsi (stylized as pepsi and PEPSI) or The CW (stylized in their logo as a lowercase cw. Perhaps the best example is JetBlue. We note that it is stylized as jetBlue, but that JetBlue is it's official and legal name. No one, however, would argue that JetBlue is the name they "stylize as" or that it should instead be written as Jet Blue, even if that's what sources, even reliable ones, sometimes call it.
Turning to creative works, a pretty good example is Seven (film). The wikipedia page notes that it is stylized as Se7en. The case is similar here -- Se7en is used in branding but the work is spelled as Seven in a legal context or an official press release.
In this case, however, we have every indication that the song's official title is #GetItRight, not just a "stylized as" title. The song is listed on its official track list with this name, and there's no plausible indication that this isn't the name it's registered under (Universal Music's copyright database lists numerous songs beginning with #, in all caps, with no spaces, or other similar formatting. Strangely, the rest of this album is listed in that database here but the song in question is excluded -- maybe someone can help me find it somewhere else (or maybe someone is deliberately trying to make our lives difficult over at Universal Music?). But all signs, from the official song track name on the CD, at iTunes and Amazon, or on the billboard list all point to the name without spaces being its official name, not simply a stylized one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I note that the nominator acknowledges that we can't have the correct name here at WP because of the #. So whatever we choose has to be second best to some degree. We then come to an argument whether the words should be joined up and which version is correct - this argument is superfluous, because without that all important # it is not going to be the right name anyway (apparently). Music is an aural tradition, most people looking for this article will be educated enough to type "Get It Right..." But I am happy with either GetItRight (Miley Cyrus song) or Get It Right (Miley Cyrus song) with either being the redirect, but without "Miley Cyrus" in the title, nobody is going to find the article they are looking for. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't think it would be possible based on the direction this discussion was heading, but hey guys, I think we may have actually found a consensus!--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Let's not treat the Twitter naming as historically significant to the title. Standard styling is best useful for future use. --George Ho (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By twitter naming are you referring to the # in the title? Because I think we've all agreed that won't be in the title. If you mean to say that the title's official name is only used on twitter, you'll note that this has been exhaustively discussed above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase: I don't like closing in the words into one word, unless reliable sources discuss the "unique" title itself. Examples? --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately?) our views on how "silly" we think it is or how much we personally like the title don't come into play. If your concern is that the official name is not used in contexts outside of twitter, I can't personally get you the links at the moment on the device I'm currently on, but you'll see in the extensive discussion above that all official sources, as well as the more long term notable sources In ictu oculi requested above, like newspapers and books, use the official title. If you mean that we can only accept nonstandard spelling if sources specifically not only use but actually specifically discuss the official spelling, I'd say that's a fairly absurd statement, but you should note that the book source above does specifically note the official nature of the title's formatting. If you'd like, and if the discussion hasn't closed by then, I can get you the specific links once I'm on a different computer, but if you get the chance it may just be easier to read the discussion above, specifically the content that led to one of the participants changing their !vote.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't like scrapping out the singer's name (don't consider her an artist though). I still don't like closing the words in, but I guess you vote your own picks. I won't convince you the other way. --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Though I don't see the (Miley Cyrus song) dab others have proposed as completely necessary, since it would be the only song with "GetItRight" as one word and a hatnote could easily be added directing readers to other "Get It Right" songs, but I am not opposed to it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've not listened to the song yet. If you did, does Miley treat "Get It Right" as a one-word or a multiple-word phrase when she sings it? Do producers of the song and distributors (non-literally?) treat it as one word? --George Ho (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The producers and distributors treat it as one word-- for discussion of that, see above. Miley also treats the song as one word when she types it, which as far as I can tell is just on twitter. There is unfortunately no officially released lyrics I can find, an given that they are pronounced the same listening to the song does not tell us anything about how she is spelling it. Regardless, however, we're judging the name, not the lyrics. Sexyback and I Would Die 4 U are discussed above as similar examples.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have SexyBack at Sexy Back just because Justin Timberlake sings, "I'm bringin' sexy back", or LoveGame at Love Game because Lady Gaga sings, "Let's play a love game". We have those at their proper titles because those are their actual names and how they are referred to in the press. That argument also fails because of several songs where the title doesn't appear exactly, if at all, in the actual song (the aforementioned "Lovesong" and "John and Yoko", "Knock You Down" (knocks you down), etc.). –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... When this discussion is done, we'll see how it affects Sexy Back and Love Game then, won't we? --George Ho (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't even be an issue. Wikipedia policy is WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:GRAMMATICALLYCORRECTNAME. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but GetItRight (Miley Cyrus song), per WP:MOSTM ("Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable."), although this is not a trademark. WP:COMMONAME also applies. Also, the page should have a format like Beautiful (Mariah Carey song), for the hashtag title. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 18:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Source usage, primary and secondary, is not strong enough in following the "GetItRight" form to override the MOS discouragement of using source styling over house styling. ALLCAPS and CamelCase as source style are strongly discouraged from being carried over to article titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
there's not a question of styling here. It's all 100% clear that this is the official name, and that this is what reliable sources call it. The fact that some sources are calling it incorrectly does not change that or make the official title "styling", hence pages like eBay, LittleBigPlanet, and Zipcar.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is just styling, because there is no difference in meaning between "GetItRight", "GETITRIGHT", "Get It Right" and "Get it Right". "Official title" in creative/commercial products carries little weight. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's also no difference in meaning between These Boots Are Made for Walkin' and These Boots Are Made for Walkin', or Snapchat and Snap chat. And when the official title, the WP:COMMONNAME, and the bulk of the most reliable and long term sources match, I would certainly say that carries pretty much all the weight.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but my impression was that bulk of the most reliable and long term sources did not match a single style. I see all of the following in use:
"#getitright"
"get it right"
"#GETITRIGHT"
"GET IT RIGHT"
"Get it right"
and I have to conclude that the styling has no recognized significance, and all of these are ambiguous. Even if setting asdie the MOS, the parenthetical disambiguation would still be needed for recognizability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the sources in the article it's evident that, while there was a variance on capitalization, there's little in terms of the spacing - the bulk of our sources here all use some form of non-spaced name. Obviously these are not all the sources in existence, which an editor pointed at above when asking about use in books and newspapers in order to assess a sense more more long term reliable sources. When the discussion above resulted in numerous using the name without spacing, he or she agreed. The discussion above doesn't seem like it from the actual bolded !votes, but there is a probable consensus for GetItRight (Miley Cyrus Song). While there was no consensus for removing the parenthetical disambiguation, I think it's been generally agreed and makes sense that if what varies most among our most reliable sourcing is capitalization and not spacing, it makes little sense for the name to include spaces against the official title. Capitalization is where the MOS actually comes into play and is a more subjective matter, although it seems most have agreed on GetItRight with the parenthetical as a logical solution.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:57, 9 October 2014 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GetItRight (Miley Cyrus song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 March 2017[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to GetItRight. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GetItRight (Miley Cyrus song) → GetItRight – There is simply no point of having "(Miley Cyrus song)" when just "GetItRight" redirects here. Shane Cyrus (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Unnecessary disambiguators should be avoided. Pppery 14:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was a previous RM on this matter. I'm not completely sold on why GetItRight was dismissed as an option last time out, but it appears the parenthetical isn't necessary. GetItRight is sufficiently different from Get It Right.  ONR  (talk)  20:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose despite some sources having turned up before, four years later this is still a stylism not found in book sources. Restore original title Get It Right (Miley Cyrus song). as created and stable for the first six months when it was actually current. But.. if we must have the stylism then that still doesn't remove the need for the artist because not every user will be familiar with the stylism, but all users will know the name of artist. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: But I don't get the point about not being able to find this song when typing "Get It Right" takes you to a disambiguation page which lists this article too!? And no one looking for other songs will search "GETITRIGHT".--Shane Cyrus (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. Readers looking for Get It Right as a Miley Cyrus song will no longer be able to easily/directly find it if we take the artist name off. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No they will see it because it's listed on that page you speak of.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why should they have to go via the dab page, why can't they be allowed to go direct? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They can go direct. GetItRight (Miley Cyrus song) will redirect here. But the disambiguation is really unneeded when the songs name is GetItRight and that redirects here. What you're suggesting is simply not how disambiguation works on Wiki.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can they go direct? If we remove the artist name anyone who knows this song as "Get It Right" - which is what the article should be titled per MTV etc. as this is just a stylism, will input "Get It Right" in the top right hand box and not see (Miley Cyrus song) among the options. All we're doing here is playing hide the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - No point on having extra disambiguation. "Get It Right (Miley Cyrus song)" can serve as a redirect whenever a searcher types it. Meanwhile, the proposed title meets all criteria, including concision and precision criteria. If not, at least do not force readers to enter too many words to exactly type "Getitright" or "GetItRight". Right? --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I did oppose "GetItRight" in the previous RM when the song was released. However, over time, I guess I have changed my mind. George Ho (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GetItRight&oldid=1136763321"