Talk:Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit request[edit]

Requesting removal of "it follows the chord progression Dm–F–C–Gm" under the composition heading. It's unnecessary and misleading, giving the impression that those four chords loop in that order throughout the entire song, when they don't. It may even be incorrect, while the sheet music arrangement cited denotes an F, the piano score is missing the root, while the track itself has an audible E making it unambiguously Am. Furoar (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You are providing original research. Adabow (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: David K. Kim, p/k/a Kiyanu Kim, is one of the co-authors of the song "Wrecking Ball," recorded by Miley Cyrus. His name should be included as one of the writers. Although he was not originally given credit, he recently entered into a settlement and co-publishing agreement with MoZella and EMI which legally establish his status as co-author and his rights in the song. Mr. Kim has edited the article appropriately.Drumtoad59 (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

I think Synthpop isn't a good genre and if it must stay should be supplied with a source --92.17.8.227 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for coming here to discuss it. The composition section says ""Wrecking Ball" is a synthpop ballad", and cites this as a reference. Considering that On the Red Carpet is an entertainment/celebrity gossip site and not a music critic one, I don't think it is appropriate to cite it as a source for genre. I'll remove it now. Adabow (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: No move, following the recent creation of Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song). Depending on what becomes of that article, it may be worth revisiting this request. Cúchullain t/c 18:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song) → Wrecking Ball (song) – This is the only song called "Wrecking Ball" with an article. 69.117.171.98 (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This proposal follows WP:PRECISION: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." 37.9.56.220 (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: IP listed at SPI In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose. There are several other notable songs with the same title that have coverage in Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 15:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per the IP and many other recent examples of 1 song with article v. non-notable songs trivially mentioned. Since the beginning it was meant to be there, just the article was created here. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 15:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Tbnotch. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, redundant precision. Adabow (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:NSONG#Songs sets forth specific notability guidelines for songs. If there are no other songs by this name that meet these guidelines, then none of the other songs will have an article, and this article should be titled Wrecking Ball (song), as the only article that can be at that title. bd2412 T 17:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see that Wikipedia:NSONG says anything about titling or disambiguation. It only sets forth guidelines for whether a song should have a stand-alone article. WP:SONGDAB has the relevant naming conventions. older ≠ wiser 17:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of the examples provided in that section are stand-alone articles. There is no guidance suggesting that a disambiguator is needed where only one article has that status. bd2412 T 19:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:DAB suggests that Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia. (A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.)
        • WP:DABMENTION suggests If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included.
        • WP:INCOMPDAB suggests When a more specific title is still ambiguous, but not enough so to call for double disambiguation, it should redirect back to the main disambiguation page (or a section of it). This aids navigation, and helps editors to avoid creating new articles under the ambiguous title by accident.
        • So, if there are multiple songs mentioned in existing Wikipedia articles -- why would we not consider the title of that song as being ambiguous? older ≠ wiser 20:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are conflating two different ideas. WP:DABMENTION is about the content of disambiguation pages. Nowhere in our policies does WP:DABMENTION implicate article titles. bd2412 T 20:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think so. WP:DAB covers disambiguating TOPICS not only article titles and WP:DABMENTION provides criteria for inclusion within scope of disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 21:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:DAB and WP:AT CRITERIA ... these 20 songs include at least 3 (redlinked by Wrecking Ball (Bruce Springsteen song), Wrecking Ball (Gillian Welch and David Rawlings song) and Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song)) which are any of the 3 more notable than the WP:RECENT coverage given to Miley Cyrus. These 3 songs receive extensive coverage in print books, and in multiple en.wp articles. The Springsteen song is mentioned in our Giants Stadium article for example. There seems to be a circular logic here - WikiProject doesn't do song articles for non-singles, therefore discussion in an album article isn't notable? This isn't the way en.wp works. Disambiguation derives from article content, not what is forked and what isn't. If WikiProject songs editors want an exception to WP:DAB's general rule that whether content is in big article or a fork (and all these songs articles are basically stubby WP:FORKs from album articles) then please have an RFC and get a songs exception written into WP:DAB. If this move passes it will be an extreme example of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just turned Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song) into an article - I did it since I had all the Google Books open and seemed silly to waste the sources - I note the fact simply because it explains why one of the redlinks is now blue - it shouldn't be used as a factor in this RM, because it could easily be merged into the album after a full merger discussion. I would prefer that this doesn't distract from the real issue here - is article content or article title the basis of disambiguation, WP:DAB says it is article content. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There's a huge number of songs with this title that are covered on Wikipedia, as listed on the dab page, and some of them are clearly notable (Joe Walsh, Neil Young, etc.). Cyrus' song may be the most popular one this week, but Wikipedia is supposed to pay attention to long-term significance, not transient swings of popularity. The popularity of songs is highly volatile. Including the name of the artist in the article title is helpful to readers. That makes the titles more clear and recognizable, and avoids future maintenance headaches over whether to consider some particular song or album as primary. Within a few more years, there will surely be several other songs with this title. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PDAB, as there's at least one other song by this title that has an article - Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – There isn't any reason to suspect that this recent song will be the most significant by this name over a long-term perspective. Should it turn out to be in the future, it could always be moved then. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What is it about WP:DAB that is so hard for some to understand? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is so hard about WP:IAR that is so hard for some to understand? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:IAR is last refuge to which a scoundrel editor clings. I think George Washington said that. LOL. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Irony is a refuge of people who can't give a valid reply to something they cite at first, in your case WP:DAB, which clearly begins with "...and occasional exceptions may apply...", and the usage of Internet slang in an encyclopedia clearly demostrate your lack of maturity. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • IAR is used by people who want to ignore other guidelines, generally newbies (which I know you are not!) who who want to make a point. My ironic comment was warranted and deserved. If you feel that there is a get out clause in WP:DAB, then you must explain why, including, specifically, the part that reads, (A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.) There are also a number (excluding me) of editors who have made valid reasons why the article should not be moved, these also need rebutting, otherwise we finish up with these RMs with each side saying, "yaa-boo, I am right, you are wrong." Hardly consensus or discussion? Meanwhile, WP:NPOV, WP:RECENT, WP:NCM and WP:AT also need, in my opinion, rebutting for this article to be moved.Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While there are now only two articles on songs by this name, there's no indication of this song's primacy compared to Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song), recentism and the articles' sizes notwithstanding. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there are not 2 articles with this name, I said Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song) could be merged to the album "after a full merger discussion" - Miley Cyrus fan user:Adabow apparently disagrees and believes that no discussion is necessary and has deleted and redirected, then discarded half of the article and sources about the Emmylou Harris version, and merged about 2/3 of what was left. Which is fine by me since the whether a song is a WP:FORK from an album or inside an album shouldn't matter. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't redirect the article to make a point, I did so because it simply doesn't meet WP:NSONGS. If you disagree, feel free to revert and/or discuss at the talk page. It wasn't in bad faith, for what it's worth. Note that I also added some info to Harris' album article. I am not supporting out of "fandom" or any similar reason, but I sincerely believe extra dab is unnecessary precision. Would you also have Love Me Again (song) disambiguated further and the former titlee redirected to Love Me Again for similar reasons? Adabow (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The recent creation of the Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song) article indicates how relatively unimportant it is. So even if it counts as coverage on WP, the hugely popular new Miley Cyrus version is clearly the primary topic between these two (and all songs named "Wrecking Ball"). --B2C 00:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but there is no such thing as "primary topic... between two songs." Note that WP:PRIMARYSONG has been removed from MOS:ALBUM months ago as a no-consensus addition contradicting WP:NCM, and note also that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would have to tackle Wrecking Ball (Bruce Springsteen album) (2012) and Wrecking Ball (Emmylou Harris album) (1995). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song) is a *much* more recognizable title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Eliminating the artist's name from the title would increase ambiguity, regardless of how many songs of the same name and how many notable songs. Whether the Miley Cyrus song is primary or not to be "Wrecking Ball (song)" is irrelevant to the titling. Also, it is precise enough. --George Ho (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose there are far too many wrecking ball songs, even if this one currently gets more hits - adding more precisions helps here. The (song) redirect should be turned into a redirect to the appropriate section of the dab.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Only one with an article. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You missed this one. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:48, 6 October 2013 (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.

Release Date[edit]

The release date is incorrect. That release was only for promotional release. It was released as a single in September 13.

Alternative cover[edit]

The second cover looks like fan art. While the Hung Medien websites are reliable for chart data, they are less reliable for cover art and release info. A search on the RCA site only finds the first cover. Is there a more reliable source for the second cover? Adabow (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the cover and I searched for similar images on Google: such search pointed to fan-made edits of the song and no official website reported it. I think it should be removed. prism △ 22:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.--Launchballer 23:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 6 April 2015[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: withdrawn by nominator. Obviously not going to pass. Because there were some supporters, anyone who would like this to be discussed further may boldly revert my withdrawal. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song) → Wrecking Ball – Page views in the last 90 days:

Other topics at Wrecking ball (disambiguation) are either only partial title matches or don't have articles at all. These articles' combined pageviews: 19,045, less than half of those for the Cyrus song. According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." It is apparent that Cyrus' song is the primary topic for "Wrecking Ball" topics that are not the actual wrecking ball. With capitalization used to disambiguate it from the object per WP:DIFFCAPS, we should opt for the more WP:CONCISE title.

Any potential ambiguity can be easily remedied with hatnotes atop Wrecking ball and the Cyrus song's article:

This article is about the object. For the Miley Cyrus song, see Wrecking Ball. For other uses, see Wrecking ball (disambiguation).
This article is about the Miley Cyrus song. For the object, see Wrecking ball. For other uses, see Wrecking ball (disambiguation).


–Chase (talk / contribs) 18:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (for this Wrecking Ball above other Wrecking Balls) and WP:DIFFCAPS (compared to, of course, wrecking ball). Red Slash 19:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Even when no other subject is involved I think that credit can rightly be given to Miley Cyrus with inclusion of her name in the title. I also think that the fact that there is an object that is a Wrecking ball should be given priority mention over a song that is called "Wrecking Ball". I also note, with disappointment, that the ball in the picture hasn't been licked clean. GregKaye 19:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation isn't about "giving credit"; it's about helping the reader find the article they're looking for most quickly. In the face of evidence that readers looking for "Wrecking Ball" works topics overwhelmingly pick the Cyrus article, we should accommodate this majority and provide a hatnote to the disambiguation page for everyone else. Furthermore, this RM distinctly differentiates between "Wrecking ball" and "Wrecking Ball" (DIFFCAPS). –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Parenthesis can also be about explanation as in the comparatively mundane examples of Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) and M-185 (Michigan highway) in WP:Precision.
We are not talking here about different things in completely different categories such as Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology) but a variety of songs.
I don't think that by seeing "Wrecking Ball" that there would be universal certainty as to the subject. I don't see the motivation for or the benefit of the move.
43,156 / (12,515 + 442 + 5,071 + 1,017) only gives a ratio of 2.6:1 GregKaye 21:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Double - almost triple - the other articles combined is not a significant ratio? –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per GregKaye. Besides, I don't like Miley Cyrus anyway. she is very immodest. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
despite not agreeing with the reasoning Hannah! Hannah! Where are you? GregKaye 17:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMALLDETAILS – also known as DIFFCAPS, which I cited in the OP – says that "This form of disambiguation may not be sufficient if one article is far more significant on an encyclopedic level or far more likely to be searched for than the other." But I find it to be incredibly unlikely that a reader searching for the demolition tool would use a capital "b", as if it's the title of a work. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other "Wrecking Ball" topics are also fairly recent – Springsteen's album, for instance, came out just a year before Cyrus' song – but they don't approach the Cyrus song article's popularity. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We make decisions using facts, not opinions or predictions. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral while the page views are high, I'm not quite sure if it's simply due to WP:Recentism. Either way, it most certainly won't be forgotten anytime soon. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per recentism. If this song is still getting the same sort of traffic in five or ten years from now, then maybe justifiable as primary topic. But otherwise not so overwhelming as to change status quo. older ≠ wiser 14:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:DIFFCAPS, which states that "This form of disambiguation may not be sufficient if one article is far more significant on an encyclopedic level". Since pop music tends towards the ephemeral, we should keep in mind how WP:RECENT the song is. In the event it turns out to have lasting cultural significance, it can be re-evaluated in the future. We shouldn't assume it will, since most popular songs won't. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. WP:RECENTISM discusses the weight that should be given to the various aspects of a subject in a text. It urges us to "be aware of balance and historical perspective." It does not mention primary topics. However, WP:CRYSTALBALL does provide advise relevant to this situation. Man from Nephew (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose: as for wrecking ball, is not wrecking ball a machine? machine is original meaning. Togashi Yuuta (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The machine is lower cased (wrecking ball). Wikipedia software can distinguish between lower and upper cased titles, so the machine would not be effected by this RM. See WP:DIFFPUNCT. Man from Nephew (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The popularity of music is unpredictable, volatile, and fleeting, and the page view ratio seems insufficient to justify primary status. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2015 (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.

Infobox is broken[edit]

TinyEdit (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

writers[edit]

The text says "The song was written by MoZella, Stephan Moccio, Sacha Skarbek, Lukasz Gottwald, and Henry Russell Walter" but in the infobox says that the only one man wrote the song was sacha skarbek.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.95.141.29 (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing credits - Kiyanu Kim?[edit]

Someone has written to Wikimedia (OTRS) regarding the omission of the name of Kiyanu Kim in the list of writing credits. I responded that such an inclusion requires a reliable source. There provided to sources:

The first, when queried for “wrecking ball”, lists the writers:

LUKASZ GOTTWALD, SACHA SKARBEK, HENRY WALTER, STEPHAN RICHARD MOCCIO, MOZELLA, KIYANU KIM, MAUREEN MCDONALD

Unfortunately, there is more than one song with this name, and while there is an apparently unique HFA song code, W7045L, I don’t know how to connect that to this song. It may be helpful to note that the other names in this list of writers are also in the list in the article and not challenged.

The second source discusses the writing of the song.

I don’t know the industry well enough to know whether this is adequate support for the claim if it is the name should be added. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm that the Harry Fox Agency's first songfile listing for "Wrecking Ball" is the Miley Cyrus version, there are several entries (gigwise, wikipedia ("Bangerz")) on the web that link these writers to the Miley Cyrus song explicitly. Unfortunately, Kiyanu Kim was not given credit when the song was released. That has now been rectified, which is why Harry Fox Agency (the world's leading mechanical rights licensing agency) has adjusted its database to include Mr. Kim as one of the writers. Similarly, BMI (one of the world's leading performing rights licensing organizations) has adjusted its database to include Mr. Kim as one of the writers. These are not only reliable sources, but they are the sources upon which all music publishers rely to pay royalties. Drumtoad59 (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all the credit on Bangerz booklet? --Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This matter has also been brought up at WPSongs, would be useful to keep the debate there. 123.136.107.11 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The credit to Kim would not be in the booklet if it was attributed retrospectively. As the BMI interview (referenced in the infobox) indicates he co-wrote the chorus of the song. Karst (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Suspected users have been listed on Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Kiyanu Kim. 183.171.180.234 (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect comment about longest gap between sittings at #1.[edit]

"Wrecking Ball"'s nine week gap between #1 sittings is listed in the article as being the largest gap in Billboard Hot 100 history. This needs to be clarified. It is the longest gap for songs remaining on the chart through that gap period, but is not even close for overall longest gap. That was Chubby Checker's "The Twist" That was #1 the week of 9/19/60, later dropped off the chart, but then returned to #1 for two weeks beginning 1/13/62. The gap is 476 days!!

Reference: The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits, 7th Edition, Joel Whitburn (2000). — Preceding unsigned comment added by H2izcool (talk • contribs) 05:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wrecking Ball (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) 19:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 January 2018[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: Not moved. (closed by page mover) Simplexity22 (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song) → Wrecking Ball (song) – The Neil Young song of the same name has no significance, so I redirected it to its album, making this the only song called "Wrecking Ball" on Wikipedia with an article. This song was extremely popular, considering its video of course. JE98 (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There seem to be 32 songs named 'Wrecking Ball' per Wrecking Ball#Songs. See also the essay at WP:PDAB which advises against partial disambiguation. Even if you believe that partial disambiguation is acceptable here, you would need to consider if this Wrecking Ball is the primary topic among all songs of that name. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For previous comments at WP:RMTR, see this diff. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Higher up on this talk page are two prior move discussions for this article, one for the same move requested in 2013. That time it was closed as No move. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2018 (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:Wrecking_Ball_(Miley_Cyrus_song)&oldid=1208249814"