Talk:Nico

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lindseybean27, Lindseybean28 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy section

[edit]

Performance artist Tammy Faye Starlite (Tammy Lang) is mentioned, as it's notable to this subject and she's a NYC living legend, but working on another page that mentions Lang, I'm wondering why Tammy doesn't have a page? I'm not advanced enough to create from scratch yet, but... should I mark her as notable with a red link? Thanks for any thoughts. PaulieZiegfeld (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mural in Lübben, Spreewald

[edit]

https://www.luebben.de/stadt-luebben/de/stadtleben/kultur/kunst-im-stadtraum/wandbild-nico/ 2003:C0:DF0F:3500:AD54:5DDD:3FE9:85C5 (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Formerly Of” needs to be removed.

[edit]

Nico was not a member of TVU. Sure, the album title is The Velvet Underground and Nico, but it indicates they are two separate performers on the album. 2603:8001:8001:F591:B969:1522:7C34:45BF (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging Garden

[edit]

This 1990 album is not a live album, it is a compiliation. FOXSOUNDZ (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 December 2025

[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: moved to Nico. (closed by non-admin page mover) Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 05:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nico (singer) → Nico (German singer)Nico (German singer) – (singer) not sufficient disambiguation, see Nico (Romanian singer), Nico & Vinz. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 14:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the simple disambiguation marker suffices, because the references to the other singers are scarce. I explained this at Talk:Nico the other day. Likewise, I explained why the singer isn't the primary topic there, with numerous data points. I would appreciate it if you had a look at the reasoning over there, @162 etc., as opposed to just shooting from the hip :D --Joy (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, it's been a few days since that move, and we can see that the potential impact on readers has been reduced to about a third of the old traffic at the daily page views graphs. A bit more than a third was from internal links, and I fixed all of those already (that change is visible like this). We don't know exactly how much time it takes for Google and other search engines to adjust completely - it may already be largely done, or it may take a while. In some earlier cases we saw a timeline of a month or so. --Joy (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the way you went about this is correct at all. This is an article that gets 1000+ daily pageviews, and should not have been moved without going through RM. I also note that you posted your thread on the disambiguation talk page, not this one; that's not a great way to get discussion, as dabpages are less likely to be watchlisted.
    Your justification seems to lean on WP:PTMs such as Nico Rosberg, Nico Hülkenberg, Nico Tortorella, Nico Williams et al., none of whom are known mononymously as "Nico". That's not a good argument. Like, we're not going to move Cher because Cher Lloyd exists.
    This is the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you acting as if you're not familiar with WP:Be bold? We don't need a preemptive discussion when there's no indication of controversy. Either way, we can have that discussion now.
    I don't see that most popular mononymous usage here suffices for the status of primary topic, because the singer is neither the most common usage of the term Nico, nor does it have the most long-term significance compared to other Nico topics.
    I don't think the comparison to Cher makes sense because the use of the name Cher for other topics is comparatively much more rare. Mass views for Cher (disambiguation) show that the readership of other topics known as Cher is far, far behind the readership of the articles about the singer.
    In case of Nico, it's the other way around - there's both individual articles that have comparable readership (like the race driver etc), and as a group they have much higher readership. In my mind, this means that it's not likely that the average English reader associates the term so strongly with a single topic that there would be a primary topic. In other words, the balance of WP:ASTONISH here is more likely to be in favor of disambigution.
    In addition, at Talk:Nico I've also mentioned other data sources, such as how the Google search readership doesn't seem to match the idea of a primary topic.
    I would recommend that we keep things as they are, and measure for a couple of months. That way we will get our own realistic sample of readership statistics with this more neutral layout, and be able to judge with more information.
    It's easy enough to revert if it turns out that the preponderance of readers do actually want to read about the singer. --Joy (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't disagree more. Per WP:RM, "(...) if you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." I don't see how you thought that moving a highly-popular article that has been stable at this title since 2006 (!) would fall under that definition.
    I also feel that your rationale seriously misinterprets WP:PTM. I don't see anything at Nico (disambiguation) that is even close to the singer, either in pageviews or in long-term notability, when it comes to the one-word term "Nico".
    My first instinct would be to instantly revert, per WP:BRD, but since this RM discussion is already ongoing, we will use it to determine consensus. 162 etc. (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Over time, I've come to read less and less into whether the age of a status quo is meaningful. The most recent example of that was Talk:Se7en (disambiguation), where we had much the same time scale.
    I don't quite understand why you would dismiss the human name Nico as not even close to the singer by long-term significance. The singer was named Nico after a person named Nikos in 1955. The name list Nikos lists numerous people from the 1900s, and the name list Nico lists a person named that way in 1861, and in turn numerous others which are much older than the singer, and whose articles seem no less educational compared to this singer's biography.
    These names are also both well-known derivatives of Nikolaos/Nicholas/..., a name which in turn is known for millenia.
    I am at a loss as to what sort of interpretation of long-term significance would allow us to completely disregard all of that. --Joy (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. No primary topic for Nico and partial disambiguation is always a bad idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support IF move remains in place I'd honestly have preferred if Nico had remained where she was, which seemed perfectly appropriate (and was so for many years before the move which did indeed take place with insufficient discussion and was indeed controversial) but, well, here we are and if we're going down disambiguation lane, then we need to do it properly and Nico (German singer) does the job. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note your first sentence backs moving the primary back to Nico. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do indeed strongly support that option. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and, frankly, move back to Nico. First of all, the Romanian singer's page is so badly sourced that it only has two citations, and secondly, the Norwegian singer's page just redirects back to his bands' page. This is unnecessary. KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is among the reasons why the older singer is fine to be disambiguated with just "singer". It doesn't explain why that article would be primary topic for all Nicos. --Joy (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppse and move this page back to the primary Nico. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Move back to Nico per the above. The German singer is clearly the primary topic. Tevildo (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can y'all explain a bit why you think the singer is the primary topic over all other uses of the name? Also, reminder of WP:CLEARLY. --Joy (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The raw pageviews might be a starting point. Since the undiscussed move, the German singer's page has around 800 views per day, Nico (album) around 50, with the other "Nico"'s being barely out of single figures. Tevildo (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But your pageviews search form only has a small subset of Nico articles. It ignores all the other people who are named Nico, which were moved to a separate list because there are so many of them they would lengthen this list too much (per guideline).
    If we add only some of those into the pageviews graph parameters, the graph looks totally different.
    With this sort of a glaring disparity in statistics, which is a nice indication of usage and is also a proxy for significance, it's hard to see how there could be a single primary topic. --Joy (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My initial search was on articles (not lists or dab pages) simply called "Nico (disambiguator)". If we're including all people named "Nico <Surname>", the appropriate search will be this - Nico (singer) vs Nico (given name), where, again, the singer has a clear lead. However, statistics are probably not the best way of resolving this issue. In my view, the onus should be on those who seek to depart from the status quo (in this case, the position before the undiscussed move) to make their case, with the status quo being the default position - in other words, without a demonstration that the singer is not the primary topic, we should revert to the situation where she was. Tevildo (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is what I did at Talk:Nico#primary topic? before the move. Would it help if it was all copied and pasted here, instead of just linked? --Joy (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what you should have done is submitted the request to WP:RM for a proper discussion, rather than move the page unilaterally before a consensus for the move was developed. As we're now in the "D" stage of WP:BRD, it would probably be best if you were to copy your rationale for the move to here so that the closing admin (and anyone else who might want to participate in the discussion) can consider it. Tevildo (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above, I didn't see any hints that it would be a controversial move - the article location coincided both with the heyday of interest in Wikipedia and an apparent swell of interest in the singer, and it's not uncommon to see article titles untouched for decades. Anyway, here's a summary of my original rationale:
    I was surprised to see the article on a single person occupy the primary topic position here. Per WP:DPT, I had a look at the standard sources on usage and significance. It was apparent that this was indeed the most common mononymous use of the term Nico, and the most well-known singer under the name. At the same time, there were dozens of articles about people named Nico that on the whole had much larger readership, which indicates that I probably won't be the only one surprised. The ratio between the combined readerships of top ten other Nicos and this Nico was about 5 : 1, let alone the rest of the long tail. I checked Google sources, and there was no indication that most book references would be about the singer or that most general searches would be about that. I went through all the incoming links to the Nico article, and the references to the singer were abundant, but often qualified or deep in-universe - there was no indication that the term was widely used mononymously outside the context of entertainment industry. I checked if other related articles were likely to occupy the primary topic position, and found several examples to the contrary.
    --Joy (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We are all contributing in good faith here in a shared effort to make the encyclopedia better.
    With that in mind, I hope that you can use this as a learning opportunity. A very popular article with a longstanding stable title should not be bold moved as you did here, for any reason. 162 etc. (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I should have cross-posted {{please see}} links to more talk pages to make sure others don't miss it, I think that final clause would go far beyond the spirit and letter of the WP:CAUTIOUS policy. --Joy (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this move and reinstate the stable title, Nico; there is enough discussion here to show that the rearrangement was not uncontroversial, and this page is the primary topic by usage and significance. Dekimasuよ! 11:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you see how there is enough discussion here would come across as arrogant? The WP:Consensus policy says we're supposed to use reasons, based in policy, sources, and common sense. Instead of fostering that sort of a discussion, you're trying to cut it off. Why? --Joy (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Because it is at or close to WP:SNOW to move this page back to primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's a foregone conclusion that your unsubstantiated assertion wins? Is that a policy-compliant discussion, or mob rule? --Joy (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to WP:RMUM. I did not state that "no discussion is needed" and snipping the phrase there alters the meaning of the sentence. In fact, what WP:RMUM intends is the opposite of cutting off discussion: the fact that this discussion is taking place is evidence that there was reasonable disagreement about making a change. This was a foreseeable outcome, and therefore a move request should have been initiated from the beginning. My comment was meant to reaffirm that in the event that there is no consensus in favor of the WP:BOLD change, the status quo should be restored. Please note as well that my comment specifically referred to reasons why I favor reversion: PT1 and PT2. Dekimasuよ! 20:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I couldn't foresee it based on no evidence that this matter was ever considered. There was no e.g. good article or vital article assessment. Not that that's determinative, but at least it would have been a good hint that the article title policy was seriously pondered. I do remember finding a link to it from one of the old VA lists, but there was no equivalent tag on the talk page, so that was just confusing. I also cross-checked that for the two examples that came up as articles with similar readership and topic area but not being marked primary topics, Talk:Blondie (band) and Talk:Jethro Tull (band), and they weren't marked as vital either. --Joy (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the move from Nico as primary. Just to be clear here. If we must have Nico (whatevs) then (German Singer) makes sense - but the rationale for keeping her as the Nico seems to me to be as clearly uncontroversial as the move from Nico was clearly controversial. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Women, WikiProject Fashion, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject American music, and WikiProject Women in Music have been notified of this discussion. Vestrian24Bio 08:41, 20 December 2025 (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.