Talk:Forever Young

The other song

The Rod Stewart song should have its own article, as it was a very popular single and still is. --67.172.13.176 (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

the song forever young

for ever young is a good video for kids i and it is about how you want to stay forever young and i think it is good for kids to say they want to be forever young — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.243.253 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

• Forever Young → Forever Young (disambiguation)
• Forever Young (Bob Dylan song) → Forever Young

– The Bob Dylan song is the original, everything else came later. Making Forever Young a disambiguation page discounts the importance of the original. It would be like making "New York Yankees" a disambiguation page just because there were other teams using the same name. Apteva (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Just because something came first does not mean it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and nothing is provided to show the song is the primary topic. There are links to eternal youth, immortality, two films, a TV series, a TV episode, four albums, four songs and two books, so the disambiguation place should stay at Forever Young. On a side note, I am not sure that this article even passes WP:NSONGS and it is not even listed as a single in Bob Dylan discography. Aspects (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The notability is not an issue. It may never have been issued as a single. Apteva (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I can't see a primary topic here. Calling the Dylan song the "original" makes it sound like all the others were named after it, which might support the move, but that isn't the case. Prouder Mary (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying. The Bob Dylan song came out in 1974 and although there is no correlation between the lyrics of the 1984 Alphaville song, for example, it is hard to believe that they were unaware of the Bob Dylan song. Apteva (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have any evidence for that. Not everybody is a Bob Dylan fan. Prouder Mary (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"...It is hard to believe that they were unaware of the Bob Dylan song." Possibly but, just as the founders of Perth were aware of Perth, Scotland and those of Boston were aware of Boston, Lincolnshire, such awareness does not make the original topic the primary topic. —  AjaxSmack  01:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Per Aspects' comments. The Bob Dylan song may have come first, but that alone does not qualify it as the primary topic for the term. The Alphaville song article gets almost twice as many page visits, the 1992 film gets about the same number as the Dylan song, and several other articles have substantial traffic. Forcing every user seeking something called Forever Young to go to the Dylan article just doesn't make sense. Keeping the dab page at the plain title is the better solution.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per User:Prouder Mary, User:Aspects, and User:ShelfSkewed. Goldenshimmer (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: many meanings, no clear primary use. In the last 90 days the Dylan song had 24k page views, the 1992 film 34k, which argues against the notion that the song is primary use. PamD 13:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, the Alphaville probably should rather be the primary topic than the Dylan song. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. For some of the reasons already discussed. On a side note I am not convinced that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is much help for songs, if I was looking for a song, having the name of the artist in the title space might be helpful. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

August 2019 edits

Disambiguation pages, although they are in the article space, are not articles, and they have their own manual of style: WP:MOSDAB. The specific guideline that is relevant here is MOS:DABPIPING, which directs that links should be piped to include correct formatting on the title but excluding the disambiguator from the formatting. --ShelfSkewed Talk 02:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. You are right and I am wrong. I really hate the MOSDAB guidance, I think it's awful, but I believe you're right so I'll follow along. I'll do some cleanup because there's still a bit wrong with the page, formatting aside: some songs are in the 'see also' section instead of the 'song' section, some lines have multiple wikilinks, and the ordering of songs within a section felt random (which is why I put them in chronological order). I will revert my changes and then make these additional changes separately. Thank you for the education! I learned something today! 87Fan (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The book

What about the book on Adrian Doherty written by Oliver Kay Zlatan markaçşi (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages list topics covered by Wikipedia, and there is no Wikipedia article about Doherty or Kay or the book, and there is not, as far as I can tell, any other article that mentions the book. If any of those things change, then the book could be listed here. —ShelfSkewed Talk 04:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)