This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
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.
Support and agree with IP and SMcCandlish re redir to DAB. Agree also with Dekimasu re AfD, it seems likely to fail (and should) but best to let it close first.
Andrewa (
talk)
16:40, 23 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.
Requested move 29 October 2016
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.
Support? I do have one issue with this - the 2014 RM indicated that reliable sources at that time often spelled out "and" - but the current common name appears to use the ampersand. ONR (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
To be honest, the list of items at
Forever and Always is just a bunch of non-links -- the Swift song is the only one with an article, regardless if and or the ampersand is used in the title. Why disambiguate at all? Calidum¤05:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - I would say keep "and" and in the lead say "stylized as forver & always". And then create a page using "&" that redirects to "and". Think about it like a dictionary - if you don't know how to spell a word, how are to look it up to see how to spell it? WP is the same. If you are not a fan, but you hear people talking about the album and you want to look up some information on it, you aren't going to know to use "&" vs "and". With the redirected page, anyone that knows to use "&" will end up at the same place as those who do not.
ALSO, I oppose dropping the parentheses at the end of the title. With millions of pages available on WP, many common phrases need distinguished.
Kellymoat (
talk)
10:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Ampersands are not "stylizations"; not to mention
WP:COMMONNAME trumps guidelines (which are just that, not de facto rules). And our titling policy isn't meant to teach readers how to spell, otherwise we'd be having a hell of a time with Prince's catalogue. Chase (
talk |
contributions)
00:03, 2 November 2016 (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.
Suggestion
User:HĐ The first half of the paragraph you wrote into Composition and Reception..{ In "Forever & Always", Swift sings about her relationship with a boyfriend, who still "hasn't called" despite the fact that at an earlier point in their relationship, he had declared that they would be together "forever and always". } seems to deem better fit in the ‘Background & recording’ section of the article to me. Let me know your thoughts!
Elvisisalive95 (
talk)
01:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I think it fits better in the "Composition" section because it discusses the lyrical content. Regardless, you could just edit the article if you find something needing to be addressed without having to ask me :)
HĐ (
talk)
01:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
No worries--even veterans make mistakes (though I do not identify as one), so just be
bold and do what you think is right. Best,
HĐ (
talk)
04:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Why?
@
Doomsdayer520: I realise that you were only doing a TR, and that Tree Critter shouldn't have made a TR counter a historical RM result above, but were there any other factors in implementing the TR which mean the above RM result no longer stands? Cheers.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
22:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply
curprev 16:59, 26 May 2021 Doomsdayer520 talk contribs m 10,255 bytes 0 Doomsdayer520 moved page Talk:Forever & Always (song) to Talk:Forever & Always without leaving a redirect: request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests undothank
curprev 15:54, 26 May 2021 Tree Critter talk contribs m 10,255 bytes 0 Tree Critter moved page Talk:Forever & Always (Taylor Swift song) to Talk:Forever & Always (song): The only article for a song with this title, per WP:SONGDAB undothank
@
In ictu oculi: - You already asked me this exact same question nine months ago at multiple talk pages, and my response is the same this time. I handled a page move request for someone who made the request with certain reasoning, and I made a determination about that stupid ampersand based on evidence I could see at the time. Evidence: The title includes the ampersand at Billboard
[1], on the back cover of the associated album
[2], and the official Taylor Swift website
[3]. The "and" is often used mistakenly in commentary by fans and journalists. Or just change the page title back yourself if you think there's reason to do so, and see if anyone objects. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 23:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)reply