Talk:This Woman's Work

Untitled

It's not actually clear that she dies at the end. It could be a sense of relief that she is ok. Watch it on youtube and decide for yourself Marlinspike 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Marlinspike. I always interpreted the look on McInnerny's face to be that of relief as well. Jessikins 19:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lyrics, isn't the video about Kate's character going into labor? That would also explain the look of relief ("Congratulations, Mr. McInnerny, you are now a father."). My $0.02. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting - I always thought she died at the end. But I can see how it might be interpreted either way. 70.138.218.110 (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The song is in Ab major, not A# minor. I'm not going to edit the page since I don't have a "source" for it other than the audio of the song itself. At the very least it should be clear that it's in a major key, not a minor one. Dfan (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're 100% right about the key: A flat major Michelham (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved -- Aervanath (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Woman's Work (song) → This Woman's Work — Hopefully non-controversial move. The only two items on the page for This Woman's Work are both to do with Bush. As the source of inspiration for the boxset, the song's article should really take preference. — Sceptre ^(talk) 20:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Weak oppose. The song article has about 64% of the combined page views ([1], [2]) and about 55% of incoming article namespace wikilinks ([3], [4]), so it's the most common search term of the two, but not by much. Therefore I wouldn't say that the song is "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer". Leaving the disambiguation page in place seems like a better solution to me. Jafeluv (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both are in the template {{Kate Bush}}, which accounts for the equal number of links. I think 199 puts it better than I could, seeing as the box set is a partial derivative of the song (for another Bush example, see Wuthering Heights with the original undisambiguated, and then further disambiguated to the four films and the song, and who knows what else) Sceptre ^(talk) 00:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is a common misconception that you look at the percentage of combined page views. A better measure is to look at the ratio of most viewed page views to second most viewed page views, so in this case you get almost a 2:1 ratio, certainly sufficient to establish primary usage (the metric is more used than any other, not more used than every other). In this case it is kind of moot because there are only two items and one is a derivative of the other. In that case I would defer to the original, for example if a movie is made from a book, use the book as the primary topic, even if it got almost no hits compared to the movie, and call the movie "Bookname (film)". 199.125.109.88 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your "almost a 2:1 ratio [of page views]" is actually equivalent to my "64% of the combined page views" (64:36 ≈ 1.8:1), so I wouldn't say one of them is a "better" measure in this situation. You compare the two most used usages, and so do I, since there are only two. My point was that I don't consider a 1.8:1 ratio (or, if you prefer percentages, 64% of the combined page views of the two most common usages) a clear primary usage. To answer your second point: it's not always the case that original usage equals to primary usage. The Godfather is about the film, and the book is located at The Godfather (novel). The same for Requiem for a Dream and Requiem for a Dream (novel). Most often there's a disambiguation page that links to both "Bookname (film)" and "Bookname (novel)". I still think that the disambiguation page is a better solution here. Jafeluv (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support IP makes a stronger case.Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.