This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics 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.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies 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 Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women 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
Is the ⟨k⟩ in "Noka" really pronounced [r]? She "was born… to Moroccan Berber immigrant parents", so I suppose the name needn't follow normal Swedish orthography, but this seems strange. --Thnidu (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Her registered name is "Lorine Zineb Noka Talhaoui", listed on Upplysning.se and Ratsit.se,[1] among others. However, in a video interview with German TV channel Bravo, she claims that the "Noka" in her registered name is a misspelling and that "Nora"[2] (Arabic: لورين زينب نورا طلحاوي)[3] is the correct name. Ecacheiro (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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: rough consensus to move. This is a complicated RM, one which I mulled over closing as no consensus, however I do overall find the supporting arguments stronger than the opposing ones. Detailed analysis:
Those in opposition stated that this is recentism, while the supporters countered that despite the recentism, she still was and has been over the threshold for being the PTOPIC. The opposition also stated that Loreen is a name with multiple others, which was countered by WP:TITLEPTM since no other Loreens are known mononymously as such, and that all of the Loreens get low pageviews. Finally, the opposition argued WP:NWFCTM, however the supporters argued that even if NWFCTM applies, it still gets the bulk of views and clickthroughs, which I admittedly don't think is a good rebuttal, but I still overall find supporting arguments stronger.
Support. I'm not as familiar with Eurovision but US media outlets (see CNN and The NY Times for example) have put her front and center. Comparatively, the other entries on the present disambiguating page are notable enough for Wikipedia but not notable enough to take away from Loreen the singer. For these reasons, I strongly agree with PatGallacher and say that there isn't too much of a valid reason to think that Loreen can't be the primary topic. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly a huge spike of recent interest here, though it is a rather niche name. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=enbaike.710302.xyz&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Loreen%7CLoreen_(singer) - with logarithmic scale turned on - indicates that the proposed primary topic is driving the preponderance of reader interest. At the same time, we're clearly at a spike right now, that will eventually dissipate - we can't know how much. So the question for right now is does it astonish the average reader to have them click on the first entry in the list as opposed to being short-circuited. I can't really say the answer is yes, because they seem to be getting navigated just fine already. --Joy (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be best to wait before making any move. Loreen's first Eurovision win apparently didn't lead to her becoming the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and it's too soon to know if her second will change that (although I suspect it may). A.D.Hope (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think there is enough popularity for the songs, as seen on Loreen_discography for this to be well known to be the primary topic to be honest, which includes the UK where just one entry charted to date. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I feel this should be closed without prejudice, to be reopened when the documented spike in popularity is over. The name is obscure and the singer is clearly the most notable person with it (and, to be sure, who is known exclusively by it; see Shakira), but whether this discussion is influenced by RECENT or not, we won't know until after the fact, so waiting seems best. Kingsif (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second this idea. Any decision on this matter should wait until the momentary media hullabaloo is over. That way a decision can be made with any parties is more-or-less neutral positions. Stevenisinatree (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Loreen is a name" is not an argument. All the other name-holders get 20-50 page views a month, which is extremely low. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is similar to my thinking. Yes, there is an obvious RECENTISM boost here, but the other BLPs all not being mononyms (therefore being NATURALly disambiguated via their additional names), the singer having a large amount of cited sources, and Loreen (name) being a redlink all added up to tip it for me to accept the singer as the primary topic per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC) And obviously we would place a hatnote on the singer's article directing people interested in the other Loreens to the DAB page. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)15:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The disambig should suffice. There are several other WP articles on women with that first name. No need to single this one out just because she chooses not to use her surname. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - winning Eurovision in 2012 might not have been enough to make her the primary topic, but winning it for the second time?Turini2 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially the argument that the other articles get 20-50 views a month is very compelling. Euphoria was already one of the most notable Eurovision winners in recent history and her second win absolutely cements her as the main Loreen to be linked to. Romeowth (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with this argument is that even if the average English reader is aware of the hit song, that does not actually mean they know the singer's name. --Joy (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, she is clearly the primary topic, seemingly none of the other people listed on the disambiguation page go by Loreen mononymously either and are all quite obscure, whereas Loreen (singer) has won a very high profile international event twice and had multiple hits across Europe. Mountaincirquetalk09:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - To some people this Loreen is the primary topic. But to many she isn’t, especially people who don’t have experience with the Eurovision Song Contest. So it would be best to keep the original title so other pages with Loreen in the title can be found more easily. Tescomealdeal1 (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be giving undue weight. (WP:YESPOV) Unless it is provable that there is another Loreen that has any comparable notability to the singer, there is no reason to oppose this move on grounds of not being the primary topic. Zorblin (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As mentioned above, this clearly meets the criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Loreen won Eurovision twice and Loreen (name) is a redlink. I see her as a primary topic and do not see any prominent reason that proves otherwise. Aris Odi❯❯❯talk10:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all other people's articles currently at Loreen have last names in their titles where disambiguation is not needed. The only other instance where disambiguation is needed is Loreen (song), but it's much less known, so the singer Loreen appears to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Brandmeistertalk11:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait This person is currently in a media frenzy, so making long term decisions about the position and title of their article is a bad idea. Wait until they are back to the amount of fame they enjoy when not participating in Eurovision. At that point, we will have a better gauge of her fame and whether or not this move is needed. Stevenisinatree (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tentatively Support the person in question is not only very notable as the only woman to win Eurovision twice, but also seems to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC-compliant. Others have pointed out that the only other article that is titled simply as Loreen is Loreen (song), and that Loreen (name) is a redirect to Loreen (disambiguation). Either way, care should be taken as this is also a decision that could be subject to WP:RECENT due to recency bias. Zorblin (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RECENTISM, I also agree with whoever suggested closing and reopening at a later date when everything's died down. Once everything has died down we'd have the full story. –Davey2010Talk22:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Media attention on her is naturally high, and, while she might likely become the primary topic, it's better to see if it holds up in the long run. Chaotic Enby (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sourcing indicates that this person is the primary topic. The other people mentioned in Loreen are nowhere as notable as this person and most likely have long-term significance. Carpimaps (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't they nowhere near as notable, can you provide some information other than the assertion? --Joy (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I respectfully suggest caution here. Guideline "A topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people (for example, as the name of a local place, or software), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience." Also WP:NWFCTM. This woman is known only to her fans, which are not in a major percentage of readers here. We are at risk that (1) the other articles on women named Loreen (with surnames) are unfairly out-classed, that (2) the first name itself is given low importance and (3) that fans unduly push this through. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree -- I did not watch Eurovision, nor have I ever listened to her songs. However I support the move since it is clearly WP:PTOPIC. This seems like the whole Twice debacle, but the other articles under the DAB page have way lower view counts. Loreen is also not the most common name, especially with its usage split between spellings such as Laureen. 160 million people watched ESC this year, and that puts it up there in terms of relevance. Zorblin (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of millions watch every ESC, though, and this doesn't implicitly translate into long-term significance of every ESC-related topic. Can we say that all or most of these people when they read the encyclopedia have an expectation that they'll navigate to ESC-related topics first? --Joy (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop generalizing here. We are not talking about ESC in general, We are talking about articles that are linked to by the page Loreen (disambiguation). In terms of these articles, nothing else comes close in pageviews and article length. Zorblin (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia navigation is meant to serve the average English reader, not just the average ESC fan. If you're unwilling to even try to answer such a question from the perspective of the ESC fans who are part of those page views, I don't think this is a very productive discussion. --Joy (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am by no means a ESC fan (I pretty much only know of Lordi lol). Going into this RM, my initial thought was that this probably didn't need to happen (ie, my preconception was to lean oppose). But look at all of the facts. First, that WP:NATURAL applies here due to the other BLPs having surnames in their article titles. Second, the only case where disambiguation is needed, Loreen (song) (which happens to be a clear 2nd place for pageviews) has far fewer RSs and wikilinks. Third, the singer consistently has more pageviews than the other articles put together, even when discounting the spikes that will happen every time a music artist puts out a release.
We are not "unfairly out-class[ing]" the other articles like what SergeWoodzing fears. No one, no one, here has argued in favour of another PRIMARY. By the same token that you say ESC fans are navigating to Loreen (singer) just fine, fans of the other subjects can navigate to those articles just fine. Or, to put it another, more blunt way, the average Wikipedia reader is and has been navigating to the singer's article, which is why it should be moved. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)17:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's because of the relatively fresh popularity of the topic that causes the average ESC fan to be the average reader. Nevertheless, in the grand scheme of things this is still comparably as niche as is the given name or whatever other meanings, and an average reader who is not an ESC fan might well be slightly astonished to see the short-circuiting. IOW I think that we tend to apply WP:PTOPIC too liberally in general. --Joy (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: She's by far the most popular Loreen - she has the most pageviews out of any other page in the disambiguation and considerably more wikilinks. Also (this may be a Eurovision fan thing) she's the only Loreen I've heard of. Wasabi OS (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2023 (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.
.svg){kind=small}
