Talk:International (Chase & Status song)

Requested move 6 June 2022[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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No prejudice with a new RM after a couple of months. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International (Chase & Status song) → International (song) – Moved without discussion, citing possible confusion with The Internationale; however, the latter is not known as "International" in any reliable sources 162 etc. (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The move was done in 2014 and hasn't been contested since then. I don't think RMT is a legit venue for this. Please start a regular RM on the talk page. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 08:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not whether RS's are confused, it is whether Wikipedia readers might be confused. It's a useful disambiguation. Walrasiad (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are enough small details separating "International" and "The Internationale". The latter is consistently spelled with an extra E, and the former isn't. The latter is named with a definite article, and the former isn't. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the differences in spelling are more than enough to distinguish the articles per WP:SMALLDETAILS; a hatnote would be sufficient to resolve any ambiguity. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Many people will be unaware of the extra E in the left-wing anthem (I was one of them until now). Vpab15 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I mentioned the definite article as well. Multiple small details combined together have a distinguishing strength even stronger than just adding together the individual strengths of each small detail. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. International (song) is seriously ambiguous. The Internationale is the correct name for that article by wp:AT, that seems uncontroversial, but that song is also just known as International, see https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/sounds/lyrics/international.htm for example. And this is not surprising as it is associated with the First International and Second International, note the absence of the e there in English. While The Internationale is a curious mix of French and English it seems to be the unambiguous common name in English for that song. But what matters here is, it is also known as International, so International (song) is ambiguous. And IMO there is no case for another song being primary for that article name. Andrewa (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that your evidence outright contradicts the argument it is supposed to support. Nowhere on the page you externally linked is The Internationale labeled as just "International". That page calls it "The International", with a definite article. The International(e) is generally recognized as containing the definite article, while this song never is. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't see the URL? Or perhaps a little lesson in logic is necessary... a false generalisation is disproved by a single counterexample. Andrewa (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A URL string does not count as a legitimate name of something if contradicted by the page content. A similar exclusion is enshrined in MOS:JA#Modern names where we do not rely on a URL when the actual text is all Japanese. In this case, we do not rely on a URL to provide evidence that the page authors call the song "International", since the actual text on the page clearly uses "The International(e)". The page URL could have "intl" instead of "international" instead, but that doesn't make "Intl" a song name the page authors had in mind. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a stretch. The cited source spells the title as "The International." The Chase & Status song is called "International", no "the". As seen with The Caterpillar (song) / Caterpillar (song) and The Ringer (song) / Ringer (song), "The" disambiguates just fine. 162 etc. (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per discussion and too close to the more familiar with an 'e' song. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2022 (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.