Talk:Two Hearts (Kish Mauve song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleTwo Hearts (Kish Mauve song) 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
December 25, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 23, 2011Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Wrong info on B-sides[edit]

The writing credits on my CDs seem to have the opposite to what is written on the Wikipedia page. Which is correct? Wiki or the CDs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.47.254 (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass[edit]

I'm glad to say that the article is nicely written, well referenced and is broad in coverage, passing the GA criteria. I have made a little copyedit and added a source which was probably needed. I removed the note about Madonna having ten number ones as there is no source covering it, and I can't find a source that says this. Fell free to add it back if you can find a source.

Otherwise, the article is good and difficult to fault. Thanks to everyone who contributed. Merry Christmas :) RaNdOm26 (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

The following discussion 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.

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:2 Hearts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article does not meet the GA criteria. The original review was shoddy in the first place. This article is not only skinny, but it is not fully sourced (breaks #2, 2 Hearts#Release history, 2 Hearts#Track listings, 2 Hearts#Live performances, 2 Hearts#Background and release). I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support delist — As the nominator said, the article's content is quite small, which doesn't really have to be much of a problem, but there's a lot of unsourced information. ℥nding·start 19:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delist - Definitely not up to standards. Candyo32 00:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delist – Not on par to be a GA in no way, not even a B-class article. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delist Pixelyoshi (discuter) 16:06, 1 May 2011 (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.

Fair use of sound file[edit]

Since the sound file, File:Kylie - 2 hearts.ogg, has been removed by one editor citing WP:NFC, without saying how this image specifically violates it, I am starting a discussion here so that the image is not deleted simply for being orphaned.

The current consensus for sound files are that they are acceptable for use in single/song articles as long as they are small samples of the song. Aspects (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - its useful and helps the readers to get an impression about the song.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2013 (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: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 Hearts → 2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue song) – WP:Naming conventions (music): 2 Hearts (Toto song) Two Hearts (Phil Collins song) Two Hearts (Stephanie Mills song). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, the current title should redirect to the disambiguation page -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Having titles of songs that sound the same but differ only in styling is poor practice. "2 Hearts" should be dabbed. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:00, 19 November 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]

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue song). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue 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) 13:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 January 2019[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 section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. I will use WP:RFC instead due to the escalated situation. Commenters will be notified. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


2 Hearts (2007 song) → 2 Hearts (Kish Mauve song) – A few days ago, I moved the page from 2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue song) to 2 Hearts (Kish Mauve song) because the song is a cover version as Kish Mauve published the song in 2005 (Kish Mauve (EP)). @KHBritish: moved the page according to a misunderstanding of WP:NCM (I cite their rationale: "If the lyricist(s) and/or the composer(s) are not well-recognized, or [...] notable performers that have covered it are better known than the original recording artist, the year of publication will be used".) But completely forgot the first clause: "If there is no defined performer of an old song (over 50 years)", so the move is incorrect, not only because it is not a pre-1969 song, but also because it is neither a 2007 song. So I request the move back to "(Kish Mauve song) per WP:NCM. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 02:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Your interpretation of WP:NCM appears to be correct and clearly the current title won't do. On the other hand, the "correct" title is not without it's problems, firstly because the original version appears to be titled "Two Hearts" as opposed to "2 Hearts" (at least according to the EP article), secondly because the song article only briefly mentions the original and is almost exclusively about the Kylie Minogue version. PC78 (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generaly, song by Kish Mauve is not reliable by Wikipedia standards, mention in the article is sufficient. It does not change the fact that the article is about hit by Kylie Minogue. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tbhotch: I was merely comenting on your move request; if this is part of a content dispute (as appears to be the case based on the discussion below) then I would suggest that this is not the ideal way to deal with it. For what it's worth though I agree with you. As far as I'm aware we always have a single article covering all versions of a song, we don't have separate articles for specific recordings. Subtropical-man's notion that the original version is "not notable" is clearly nonsense: the song itself is notable and it's origins require proper coverage in the article. PC78 (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, please provide evidence that the pre-song by Kish Mauve is encyclopedic and meets the requirements of Wikipedia. For now, everything seems to indicate that pre-song by band on borderline notability is not encyclopedic, not meets the requirements of Wikipedia and mention about pre-song in the article is sufficient. Wikipedia is not a music blog, there is no place here for junk songs. According to the Wikipedia rules, anyone who want add data about any song, must prove that it is notable and these data must meets the requirements of Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 00:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Subtropical-man: I'm not getting dragged into this spat between you two so I will make this my last comment here, but your arguments make no sense. Plainly, the song itself is notable so by definition the original version is also notable. You cannot limit this article to discussion of the Kylie Minogue version and not properly say who wrote it, who originally recorded it. The Kish Mauve version is not merely some obscure cover version, it is the original song. PC78 (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To elaborate, if only the Kish Mauve version existed then you would perhaps be correct that the song is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. But the song was subsequently made notable by Kylie so the matter is irrelevant. Only one article about the song is required so the original version does not need to make a separate case for notability. PC78 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but it depends on the opinions. Piece of garbage (pre-song) is garbage - not notable, if an real well-known in the world artist from a piece of garbage creates a work of art, not garbage is notable but only notable is a work that originated from rubbish. Simply. And as I mentioned earlier: pre-song by Kish Mauve is not notable, does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia, there is no sense in creating either a separate section or a separate article. Small mention in the article is sufficient. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this article is all about the 2007 song by Kylie Minogue, well know song. This name is correct and obvious. Or eventually, I support move to name of "2 Hearts (song)" without year. The song is (like most in the music market) another authorship (in this case - Kish Mauve) - there is mention about Kish Mauve in the article. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always there are exceptions for any cases, it does not mean anything. 2 Hearts (Toto song) is not reliable, article to delete. Torn (Ednaswap song) is to rename. Simply. The encyclopedia should be neutral, not extremely controversial. If there is no reliable song previously by author X, and the song is famous in the world as a hit by singer Y, we should use a neutral name of "name of article (song)". Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that order:
"Always there are exceptions", in fact you are trying make this the exception, not the rule. "Torn" is just one example of many.
"2 Hearts (Toto song) is to be deleted" Then request an AFD. There are also other Two Hearts.
"Torn (Ednaswap song) is to rename." Request a RM providing evidence why it should be moved, as I said these are not isolated cases.
"The encyclopedia should be neutral". The name Kish Mauve title is neutral. Saying Minogue's version is a hit and therefore deserves to have her as its title is not neutral.
You are using the word wikt:reliable incorrectly in several of your statements
"We should use a neutral name of "name of article (song)", yes, when there is no conflict against other uses of Two Hearts (song). © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 15:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I change my "reliable" to "notable", better? No, the name Kish Mauve title is not neutral. Only single by Kylie Minogue is notable per requirements of the Wikipedia and all article is about single by Kylie Minogue. Rename article about well know single by Kylie Minogue to "2 Hearts (Kish Mauve song)" is absurd. Kish Mauve is author of previously no notable version and they deserve to add information to the article but never the article about well known hit by Kylie Minogue should be renaming to Kish Mauve. Please stop feeling sorry for yourself. The conflict is serious, your proposition is unacceptable. Generally, the article should have a previous name of "2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue song)" before your change from 7 January 2019‎ because all article is about single by Kylie Minogue, simply. However, I see a problem with the previously author of not notable song, that's why I propose a change for neutral "2 Hearts (2007 song)". Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wrote: "' as a note I find ironic you say the song is merely about Minogue version's yet you are the one that is excluding Kish original version. Just because the article is clearly incomplete, it doesn't make the song automatically hers" - original version by Kish Mauve is not notable, does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, there is no reason to write details about original version by Kish Mauve on Wikipedia. This is a fact. The mention in the article is sufficient... and there is mention about author of Kish Mauve in the article, so. You are making a problem with nothing, you are trying to introduce non-encyclopedic content to the article, you are not willing to compromise, please come as you grow up. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"original version by Kish Mauve is not notable"{{citation needed}} "This is a fact"{{fact}} "there is no reason to write details about original version"{{citation needed}}. Considering you have moved from discussing to making personal attacks I suppose this is the end of our discussion. You have been unable to provide a single policy or guideline supporting the omission of Kish Mauve, and no single attempt has been to do any of what you said at 15:08, 28 January 2019. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can add my own opinion to discuss, I do not need sources, your use of templates like {citation needed} / {fact} in talk page is nonsense. You do not like my arguments, ok - but do not forget about the Wikipedia rules. If you want add data about previous song by Kish Mauve, you must prove that it is notable. We both know that the previous song by Kish Mauve does not meet the requirements of the Wikipedia. Grow up, seriously. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, I have to grow-up because I cited sources and I cited policies. Yet, you want to delete a page instead of looking for sources (while calling yourself an inclusionist in your user page), move a page, citing no reason to do it whatsoever. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can create your version of the article in scratchpad (draft), however, without clear consensus for such changes, new changes will be withdrawn in article. Also, do not forget - song by Kish Mauve have oficiall name of "Two Hearts", Kylie Minogue song is "2 Hearts". PS. Do not forget also, there is consensus for name of "2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue song)". Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Comment: Having read your comments and WP:NCM more thoroughly, I now realise that I have obviously misunderstood / misread WP:NCM, so I apologise for making the move. By all means feel free to add more information on the original track again. Once again, I'm very sorry for the inconvenience and (as a result) the unfortunate conflict with another user above. KHBritish (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Regardless of which version of the song is notable, it is fundamentally not a “Kylie Monogue song”, and this article’s scope has to be about both versions of the song to make any sense of the fact that it’s a cover song. Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did some research on this, and would like to share some of my findings in case they're of use to others.
  • Kish Mauve definitely released a recording of this song 2 years before Kylie's version. Kylie's version is technically a cover in this sense.
  • The EP/song received very little notice on release, and remains extremely obscure to this day. (I couldn't find it on streaming services, or on YouTube)
  • I was able to find three articles describing Kylie's version as a cover: The Independent, The Guardian, Daily Star. Two of those articles are about Kish Mauve, and one is about Kylie.
  • Most sources I read did not describe the song as a cover. Some sources merely mention Kish Mauve/Stilwell & Eliot as having written and produced the song (example).
  • Those who want to really dive deeply into this may appreciate this thread from the PopJustice forums dating to the time of the single release (by Kylie). There is considerable discussion of the Kish Mauve version, and whether Kylie's release should be considered a cover, or whether the Kish Mauve version should be considered a demo. For what it's worth, posters who have listened to the Kish Mauve original say that Kylie's version uses the same instrumentation and backing vocals (which is another way it would differ from a traditional "cover version", which typically involves re-recording a song from scratch). Dindon~enwiki (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per the criteria of Recognizability and Naturalness laid out in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. In fact, I'd go as far as saying the page should be moved back to 2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue song). Inevitably 99% of the article's content will be about Kylie's song. There's a lot of verifiable information about the Kylie single, such as its critical reception, its chart performance, its music video, live performances, etc. By contrast, what we know about the Kish Mauve recording can be covered in about 2 sentences - it would certainly not reach the notability threshold to merit a standalone article. To put "(Kish Mauve song)" in the title and begin the article with "Two Hearts" is a song recorded by British electronic duo Kish Mauve written for their 2005 self-titled extended play, and it was released by Sunday Best. is extremely confusing. It fails to set the tone for what the article is going to be about (see MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADREL). It gives a great deal of prominence to what is ultimately a fairly trivial aspect of the song.
I think a case could also be made based on WP:COVERSONG, which says Only cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right should be added to song articles (emphasis mine). That said, I think it's correct to mention the Kish Mauve version somewhere in the body of the article. e.g. "the song was written and produced by London duo Kish Mauve, who released an earlier version of the song on their 2005 self-titled EP". Dindon~enwiki (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2019 (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.

RFC: Original version/Cover version[edit]

There is a clear consensus in favour of options 1 and 3 and against option 2. I also find consensus against option 5, although this was less strong. Individually the other options did not produce significant consensuses either way, but when the RfC is taken as a whole I find consensus for option 4 and against option 6. Note that consensus is not generated from a raw count of votes but from weighing the strength of the arguments and how they relate to policies, guidelines and conventions.

The outcome can therfore be summariesed as:

  • Kish Mauve should be mentioned "thoroughly" in the article
  • The article title should be "Two Hearts (Kish Mauve song)"
I will move the page to the consensus title, but will make no changes to the article content myself. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Should the article include/mention/be named after the original release of the song? If so, what should it be its name? © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

Pretty much #Requested move 28 January 2019 gives the whole picture, but I'll try to resume the situation here. The song "Two Hearts" was written by Kish Mauve for a release of theirs in 2005 (Kish Mauve (EP)). At the time, the band was kind of obscure but nowadays it satisfies WP:NBAND. Two years later, the band offered the song to Australian singer Kylie Minogue. She recorded it, she/Parlophone Records changed the name of the song to "2 Hearts", and it was released as single in 2007. The song gained international popularity. We have to note that at the time all of this happened this article was located at 2 Hearts (without disambiguation), which was added until 2014, through a RM. The disambiguation added was "(Kylie Minogue song)". Note that at the time of the RM the article was written like this [1]. It is barely mentioned about being a cover as "The song is a cover version of a track originally recorded by Kish Mauve" on the lead, not in the first paragraph, but in the second.

A few days ago, I read somewhere that the song is not by Minogue but by Mauve. Per WP:SONGDAB ("Use the name of the performer who first published the song and not a cover artist name"), and previous consensus through multiple articles I had seen (including but not limited to) All I Ever Wanted (Aranda song), Friday Night (Lady Antebellum song) and Run Run Run (Tokio Hotel song) I decided to WP:BOLDLY move the page and made a few modifications to avoid confusion about "why is this titled 'Kish Mauve'?", not expecting the heat level of opposition from Subtropical-man above. KHBritish moved the song from (Kish Mauve song) to (2007 song) due to a misunderstanding (explained above). Then I opened a new RM to return it to (Kish Mauve song). The discussion was going normally until Subtropical-man started to take it personally and after this comment I decided that RM wouldn't be enough for this situation. Because of this I closed the RM and opened this RFC. I have thought about multiple situations which will be listed below (additional options are welcomed). © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping[edit]

This ping is for the users involved above. In no way, they are forced to participate. The notification is for courtesy. @PC78:, @Subtropical-man:, @KHBritish:, @Sergecross73:, @Dindon~enwiki:

As my own note for @Subtropical-man:. Due to the behaivor above, as well as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kish Mauve (EP), before participating consider reading WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Having freedom of speech is not equal to freedom of consequences. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an RM, why hasn't it been submitted as one? People who participated in a previous RM are not the only ones who might want to know that an RM discussion is happening here. I suggest to open an RM, following the instructions at WP:RM. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the very strict sense, this isn't a RM. Although a move is being requested, this is a content dispute resolution. The RM process is limited to discussion about the title, which would end in a "no consensus, suggest WP:DR" anyway. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 17:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, RFC also may end as a "no consensus". Your new section is only poll / voting, I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a democracy (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). Generally, in this section there are no new users (completely unrelated to the previous discussions about this). Now, your new section can be treated as an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a consensus for your changes. Even the basic problems with your proposal have not been discussed, for example: break of WP:COMMONSENSE (nearly whole article is about Kylie Minogue singel but name of article is about no-notable pre-song by Kish Mauve - where is sense?!? and also - options 2 and 3 - include "Kish Mauve" in the title of the page can break the rule of Wikipedia:No original research (using the name of the singiel by Kylie Minogue as song by Kish Mauve). Wikipedia:No original research is Wikipedia:Core content policies, you can not get a consensus to break it. The problem would not have been if the name of both songs were exactly the same, however, they are different and your arguments are insufficient here. Your willingness to change introduces very big controversy, you create WP:RM, later WP:RfC and why? Your attempt to change only introduces huge confusion. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Include "Kish Mauve" in the title of the page can break the rule of Wikipedia:No original research" -> NOR: "[It] refer[s] to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". Aren't there enough sources saying that Minogue's version is a cover?
"nearly whole article is about Kylie Minogue singel but name of article is about no-notable pre-song by Kish Mauve" [sic] -> I wonder why it is written like this.
What I don't get is why you come here as I was replying BP. You have a serious problem with WP:BATTLE. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see your links and what? no arguments! You tried to add the entire section about the not-notable song to article. Sorry, per Wikipedia:Notability, the song must meet certain requirements. If it does not meet the requirements, can enter a brief information about it, not whole articles or sections. Second case: "2 Hearts" is singel by Kylie Minogue, not by Kish Mauve (Kish Mauve uses similar but different name). Your proposal breaks the rule of Wikipedia:No original research because you try add two elements and create a new reality. You try add name of Kylie Minogue singel (2 Hearts) to text of "(Kish Mauve song), you try create false name of "2 Hearts (Kish Mauve song)". Also, this is breaks the rule of Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes, "2 Hearts" as Kish Mauve song is not exist! I apologize for reporting serious violations of the Wikipedia rules, that you accuse me of problem with WP:BATTLE. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "You tried to add the entire section about the not-notable song to article". From Notability itself (WP:NOTEWORTHY): "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it [...] Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." It does not matter how many times you call it "non-notable", that's merely you opinion about it. It is notable enough that Minogue herself (and other people) accepted to cover the song, and notable enough there are sources discussing the original song.
  • "Your proposal breaks the rule of Wikipedia:No original research because you try add two elements and create a new reality" -> There is no such thing as "new reality" (is this the new Alternative facts?). The reality is Kish Mauve wrote, recorded and released the song in 2005. "Also, this is breaks the rule of Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes" -> Where is the hoax? ""2 Hearts" was written and originally recorded by London-based electro group Kish Mauve, who gave the song to Minogue."
  • "I see your links and what?" That being part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Kylie Minogue gives the impression of why you keep removing the content, and why you keep overprotecting the article to give an impression it is a Minouge song alone and BATTLING everytime you are here.
Considering you keep misinterpreting policies and guidelines over and over again, I have come to the conclusion that your English level is not enough to comprehend them correctly, and I suggest you to read the same policies in pl:Wikipedia before attempting to cite them here. Also, this is the last time I reply any argument you give here, as you keep repeating yourself, and when you are getting corrected about your misinterpretations you wrongly cite another policy to give the impression you are right. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You did not understand what I wrote. I do not deny the existence of the song by Kish Mauve. However, name of song by Kish Mauve is "Two Hearts", name of singel by Kylie Minogue is "2 Hearts", the article can not have a name of "2 Hearts (Kish Mauve song)" beacuse no exist "2 Hearts (Kish Mauve song)". You can not add one element (name of Kylie Minogue singel) to other element (text of "Kish Mauve song") to create new false name of article. So, yes - your proposition breaks the Wikipedia:No original research, users are not allowed to create their own names based on various sources. Sources say clear: "2 Hearts" (Kylie Minogue singel) based on "Two Hearts" by Kish Mauve and "2 Hearts" (Kylie Minogue singel) based on "Two Hearts" by Kish Mauve is not "2 Hearts" (Kish Mauve song), this is just your interpretation who breaking rules of Wikipedia. Wikipedia must use the exact name supported by sources, not based on your mixed name. Secondly: the problem of this name of the article is more complicated than the other articles. Two reasons: song by Kish Mauve is not-notable, this is not related to - for example - Run Run Run (Tokio Hotel song): two version of Run Run Run songs meets of the Wikipedia:Notability. The matter is even more complicated because the songs by Kish Mauve and Kylie Minogue have different names! These two problems make it impossible to use your proposal. You accused me of WP:BATTLE but you create a problem. The article existed under the previous name for years, you want change - ok, but there are two too big problems. Generally, I support the maintenance of the previous version before your change ("2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue song)"), however, I am ready to compromise per Wikipedia:Compromise - to use of a neutral name, without 'Kylie Minogue' or 'Kish Mauve' in name of article. Maybe stop pushing your version, please suggest a neutral name (or a few to choose) and stopping your WP:BATTLE?!? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I support the opinion by BarrelProof above. It would be wise to use WP:RM to change article name. Based on previous two large discussions, to solve the problem, I suggest propose neutral names without text of 'Kylie Minogue' or 'Kish Mauve'. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•To mention Kish Mauve[edit]

••Option 1: Mention Kish Mauve in the article thoroughly[edit]

The article will mention the little existing information about Kish Mauve original version. An example of the free online information available about the original song can be seen in this draft I did a few days ago. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  • Support, as nominator. There is no policy or guideline that explicity disapproves the addition of such information. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - That’s good background information for a song article, plain and simple. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We have articles about songs, not singles or versions of a song. Clearly this song is notable, so it's origin and background are relevant and must be included. I don't buy into this notion that the original version of the song must pass some other test of notability. PC78 (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also WP:NOTEWORTHY, i.e. "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". PC78 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well sourced and entirely relevant, since the subject of the article is the song, including it's versions; it's not about a particular release by Minogue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  • Oppose - whole section for non-encyclopedic and not-notable pre-song? Nonsense. One-two sentences in contents of article is enough. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Other comments[edit]
  • Comment The article should mention whatever relevant information that can be reliably sourced. I can't say a priori whether that will amount to one sentence, two sentences, or several paragraphs. (However, after doing a pretty thorough search for references the other day to see if Kish Mauve (EP) could be rescued from deletion, I'm pessimistic about our ability to find sources supporting more than a sentence or two). Anyways, I would need to judge any particular piece of information and reference on a case-by-case basis. Therefore I'm abstaining from voting on options 1 and 2. Dindon~enwiki (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

••Option 2: Short mention about Kish Mauve in the article[edit]

It was mentioned above, by two users, that a mere short mention of the band is enough. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  • Support - short mention about Kish Mauve in the article is enough. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  • Opposed - If the information is reliably sourced and relevant, then this is too restrictive. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comment above. As much relevant information should be included as reliable sources allow. There is simply no basis for imposing some arbitrary limit. PC78 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since I support the option above; this would actually be a bare minimum I'd support, if people argued to exclude Mauve entirely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Other comments[edit]

••Option 3: Include "Kish Mauve" in the title of the page[edit]

Following WP:SONGDAB's recommendation of "Use the name of the performer who first published the song", as well as per the multiple examples mentioned in the RM above. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  • Generally, "Run Run Run" song is an example acting on your disadvantage, both version - Tokio Hotel and Kelly Clarkson they were listed on the charts - so, this example differs from this case because "Two Hearts" by Kish Mauve is meaningless, not notable, total zero... and even has a different name than song by Kylie Minogue. Also, disambiguation page of Run Run Run show song as "Run Run Run" (Tokio Hotel / Kelly Clarkson song). This is very interesting option of name. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per nom and my original comment in the requested move discussion. It is fundamentally not a Kylie Minogue song, it’s a cover she did. The article should be named accordingly. Sergecross73 msg me 20:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if only because this is consistant with the existing naming convention and with other comparable examples. I am sympathetic to Dindon~enwiki's argument below, but clearly this would also apply to other articles and so where do you draw the line between the notability of an original song and a cover version? Such a rule could end up being highly subjective. PC78 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have criteria for notability of songs, stemming from the general notability guidelines. A rendition of a song (whether original or a cover) is notable if it's received significant coverage in published sources that are independent of the artist. That doesn't seem too subjective to me. Colin M (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps. But while I agree with you to a point (with regards to recognisability) I also feel that a song "belongs" to the original artist. And since the guideline specifically says to use the original artist, using an example comparable to this one, I don't feel comfortable setting a contradictory precedent here. If the guideline needs to be changed or amended then so be it, but that ought to be a separate, broader, discussion. PC78 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I can definitely understand that perspective. To be candid, I do think that particular line in WP:SONGDAB should be changed. Particularly in light of the line that comes right after it, which says If there is no defined performer of an old song (over 50 years), the lyricist(s) and/or the composer(s) are not well-recognized, or multiple notable performers that have covered it are better known than the original recording artist, the year of publication will be used - I'm not sure why that clause I bolded would be there if the author(s) weren't thinking that, if a single notable performer did a well-known cover of a song whose original performer/rendition was not notable, the notable performer's name would be used to disambiguate. Anyways, I still think it's possible to decide this case in favour of the "(Kylie Minogue)" title without first trying to change WP:SONGDAB, if only by the rule of ignore all rules. (But also because of competing interpretations of rules like WP:COVERSONG which I cite below) Colin M (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:CONSITENCY and WP:SONGDAB. I'm not even faintly swayed by arguments that the guideline should change. If you want to change it, go to its talk page, propose a change, and if you get consensus for the change, then we have a new guideline and titles questions like this can be revisited under that different set of rules. Moving on: It simply does not matter that people are passionately arguing a pro-Minogue case here. This is not an article about a Minogue single, it's about a song, a popular version of which was a Minogue single. It simply does not matter that most incoming readers to this page right this second are thinking of Minogue's version. Next week that might not be true, if Rihanna puts out a version. Next year there might be five well-known covers. We don't know and we don't try to predict.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  • Oppose - per very long disscusion above. Article is about single of Kylie Minogue. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'll mostly repeat what I said above. Per the criteria of Recognizability and Naturalness laid out in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Inevitably 99% of the article's content will be about Kylie's song. There's a lot of verifiable information about the Kylie single, such as its critical reception, its chart performance, its music video, live performances, etc. By contrast, what we know about the Kish Mauve recording can be covered in about 2 sentences - it would certainly not reach the notability threshold to merit a standalone article. To put "(Kish Mauve song)" in the title and begin the article with "Two Hearts" is a song recorded by British electronic duo Kish Mauve written for their 2005 self-titled extended play, and it was released by Sunday Best. is extremely confusing. It fails to set the tone for what the article is going to be about (see MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADREL). It gives a great deal of prominence to what is ultimately a fairly trivial aspect of the song. I think a case for opposing this could also be made based on WP:COVERSONG, which says Only cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right should be added to song articles (emphasis mine). Kish Mauve's rendition of the song is not notable. (If anyone agrees with this logic, but disagrees with my claim that the Kish Mauve rendition is not notable, I'd be happy to discuss that point in more detail.) Dindon~enwiki (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using your scenario above, why would you want to begin the article in such a manner? Something like "2 Hearts" is a song orginally written and recorded by British electronic duo Kish Mauve and later re-recorded by Australian singer Kylie Minogue for her tenth studio album, X (2007). would seem more appropriate and far less confusing. PC78 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The EP that this song is on is apparently not notable enough to have its own article. If Kylie had not covered the song, the article would not exist. As much information available should be included about the original version, but it's not the main topic of the article. — Status (talk · contribs) 16:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Other comments[edit]

••Option 4: If "Kish Mauve" is included in the title of the page, should it be titled as "Two Hearts (Kish Mauve song)"?[edit]

The song was originally published as "Two Hearts" in 2005. Because of this, should the page be named as such? © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  • Support, since this seems to be the same as the subtopic immediately above this one. If this is just about the spelling, use the original. The next cover might call it "TwoHearts" or "Two (Hearts)" or "Two ♥s" for all we know. Use plain English per MOS:TM. It would also be aberrant for us to use the reified title of a work when the article is about the work as a whole. For example, Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? was also republished as Blade Runner (in more than one edition) after release of the film Blade Runner (based on that novel), and million more people (orders of magnitude more) have seen the film, and think of the story (as a total concept) as, Blade Runner, than have ever read the novel under its original title. It's even possible taht more people have read the novel under the title Blade Runner, though we'd need to see book sales data. Nevertheless, we would never move the novel's article to Blade Runner (novel), which is just a redirect. The underlying point being: WP:COMMONNAME is not even one of the WP:CRITERIA; it's what we use to pick the first, default title choice to then test against those criteria, against all other applicable policies and guidelines, and to weigh under all other applicable concern. Bible-thumping about COMMONNAME cannot be used to thwart WP:Common sense, a general meta-principle applied to all of our decision-making.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  • Oppose, as nominator. When I was looking for information about it, all the sources about the original song I could find labeled it as "2 Hearts". Due to this WP:COMMONAME interfers with the uncommon title "Two Hearts". © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - whole article is about "2 Hearts" by Kylie Minogue, not "Two Hearts" by Kish Mauve. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I do feel there's a valid argument here but "2 Hearts" is clearly the better known and more recognisable title. PC78 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Other comments[edit]

•Returning to status quo[edit]

••Option 5: Return the status quo before the January 2019 move[edit]

In other words, to keep the Kish Mauve mentions limited and the article titled as "2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue song)". © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  • Support - name existing for years and supported by consensus. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support returning to original title "2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue song)", per arguments given in my vote on option 3. Dindon~enwiki (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The EP that the original song is on is apparently not notable enough to have its own article. If Kylie had not covered the song, the article would not exist. As much information available should be included about the original version, but it's not the main topic of the article, so therefore the title should remain 2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue song). — Status (talk · contribs) 16:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  • Oppose, as nominator. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per nom, my above comments. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (assuming we're only talking about the article title here -- I still think the above wording is confusing). Again, I'm sympathetic to this idea but it is contrary to the existing naming convention and could set an awkward precedent for other articles. PC78 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as simply non-viable nonsense. It's not a Kylie Minogue song, its Kish Mauve song recorded and released as a single by Minogue. Just get over it. This is not FandomPedia (cf. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Other comments[edit]
  • Comment I think the description of this option could be clarified. The heading "to not mention Kish Mauve" seems to contradict the text "keep the Kish Mauve mentions limited". Since options 1 and 2 already deal with the amount of text to devote to Kish Mauve in the body, maybe Option 5 should just be about keeping the title "2 Hearts (Kylie Minogue song)"? (That's the specific part my vote is intended to be toward.) Dindon~enwiki (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased it, as it was similar to option 2. Also option 6 is about status quo. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

••Option 6: Return the status quo, even further: should it be titled simply 2 Hearts?[edit]

Can this be similar to 4 Minutes versus Four Minutes and keep it without disambiguation as it was before 2014?

Support[edit]
Oppose[edit]
  • Nope. This does not actually pass muster under current interpretation of WP:SMALLDETAILS. Numerous discussions in the last couple of years have gone against treating such minor substitutions as valid disambiguation because a) readers often don't know what the "correct" spelling is, and b) reliable sources are not at all consistent in mimicking stylization of song titles and other pop-culture stuff's names. Furthermore, this is not an article about the Minogue single and its modified title, it's about the song, from conception to present (and it's likely that a near-future present will include more covers, since notable pop songs usually garner multiple covers over time).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Other comments[edit]
  • Neutral. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Was forgetting about the Toto song until reminded so the partial disambiguation means that this option isn't ideal. PC78 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•Other options[edit]

Discuss[edit]

Why you add only options of "no more than a line" and "whole section" (your draft) for data about Kish Mauve. Why there is no option "One-two sentences in contents of article"? Your option "no more than a line" is too very restrictive. Also, your description of "It was mentioned above, by two users, that a mere mention of the band in one line is enough to give context" is not true. Two users wrote nothing about one line. Please change your text to "short mention" or similar. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tbhotch: - I change this untrue sentence to "Short mention about Kish Mauve in the article" instead of your version of "no more than a line". It's about a short and concise mention about Kish Mauve, does not must to fit in only one sentence. This "two users" wrote about a short mention, not "no more than a line". Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sergecross73: - due to change of sentence in option2, from too restrictive "no more than a line" with untrue description to normal version of "Short mention about Kish Mauve in the article" (in accordance with description), I am asking you to verify your vote. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change - I don’t believe there should be any restriction if we’ve got RS backed content to add. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 30 January 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Two_Hearts_(Kish_Mauve_song)&oldid=1211194946"