Talk:"Awaken, My Love!"

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article title

I give up. Why is the article title in quotation marks? Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Names and titles seems to apply. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one care to clarify? Jamalyd? - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Glover's album is titled with quotation marks. It is how he chose to list it, how websites list it, therefore we should continue listing it this way. Golde62 (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources use the quotes and apply their usual style, others omit the quotes and use their usual style. USA Today, for instance, puts the title in single quotes[1], which is their style for all album titles.[2][3][4] AV Club uses the double quotes when their usual style seems to be to italicize. Allmusic uses the quotes. The Guardian does not use the quotes. It seems we have a mixed bag. I'm going to suggest we take this to the Music project and see how similar cases are handled as I don't think the MOS link directly addresses it. We could use a request for comments, but I think the project is active enough and more likely to have some idea what we have done in the past. Thoughts? - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112 has moved it back to the quotes, asking if we can "discuss this, at least?"[5] and to start a discussion if you disagree.[6] Um, yeah... The original move (to the quotes) was with no discussion. My move (back from the quotes) was preceded by attempted discussion, including tagging the editor who made the first move. After my move, a discussion had just started here before it was re-moved (to the quotes) with no real progress. Yes, agreed, it would be best to discuss before moving an article. (At this point, depending on your generation, visualize the Keystone Cops, Three Stooges, Benny Hill, etc. trying to work this one out.)

In any case, Ss cites "Heroes" (David Bowie album) as the requested example. Due to that albums stature, I am assuming it has received appropriate attention (something I kinda doubt anything by Glover has approached). As such, I'm comfortable we have a solid answer. Unless anyone has doubts, I'm done here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SummerPhDv2.0: Why have you changed your answer so suddenly? Yesterday you suggested "we" take this to the Music project. I'm assuming that meant before anybody, including yourself, decided to move it without any input again, but then you just decided to move it and tag me in a sarcastic, "I tried", rambling comment. I'm pretty sure when there's no consensus, that doesn't mean "just move it because there's no objection". It means leave as is. I'm going off Glover's own listing of the album, and the iTunes listing. All what was pointed out above, not publications that have probably been confused about what to do with the quotation marks. I don't know what exactly you mean by "solid answer", but there's only really your opinion here. I don't consider one's person opinion a solid answer. Yes, the rendering of the title is inconsistent. That doesn't mean do what you will with the page if nobody has answered within a week. I will wait until there is enough editors to weigh in to reach a consensus. Ss 112 06:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say above, I assumed the original namespace was with the quotation marks, as I was pretty sure it was created as a redirect around the same time as Awaken, My Love! was (however, checking the history and that a user with no particularly special permissions moved it, I guess not). I assumed there was not a move discussion, as the article was not tagged with a notice. Also, you cited Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Names and titles. That applies to the general practice of putting album titles in italics, and song titles in quotation marks. It doesn't speak about if the quotation marks are part of the album title, which in this instance, they appear to be. Ss 112 06:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why my sudden change? As I said, I was hoping for some indication of our style convention here. A seminal album ("Heroes") is, IMO, a solid indication of this.

I do not see no response = no consensus = don't move. Another editor moved without discussion. I found little the the way of guidelines and asked about it. The editors active here slept on their rights. I asked again, directly addressing the editor. Still nothing. I undid the move. A third editor questioned that. I suggested we seek directly relevant opinions You then restored the undiscussed move and asked for discussion. Now you wish I would have discussed it before moving the page and wonder why I agree with the explanation now given for the undiscussed moves.

Side point: There is little chance USA Today was "confused". Their style guide gives over 100 pages on the use of their own name (all caps, no italics: USA TODAY; not USA Today). The artist and label are no real help. Bowie's cover uses "HEROES" for the album and song. We use "Heroes" and "Heroes" (not ""HEROES""). Whatever. The cover uses the quotes, we do too. Works for me. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What USA Today does with its own title and content is different from an album coming to them that they had no input into, and that they are merely talking about and/or reviewing. I don't think the two situations are comparable. Also, I think the "undiscussed move" namespace takes precedence, as it stood for close to a month. The original namespace of an article isn't always correct just because it's where it was created originally. Perhaps it should have been discussed in the first place, but I was merely reverting to the namespace that stood for the longest. Ss 112 17:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The horse is thoroughly dead. If you feel I should be sanctioned for ... whatever ... feel free to take it to whatever venue you feel is appropriate. I really don't see anything futher to discuss. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...What? At no point did I suggest you should be "sanctioned". For what, moving a page? That's a really strange thing to read into what I said. Ss 112 03:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying there is no remaining question here. Everyone who has said anything agrees with the current title. You and I disagree over whose actions were "correct". We are not likely to resolve that, nor is there any particular reason to do so. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao coming back to this convo after logging in for the first time in a while... what a snafu I created, but this conversation afterward is just so inane! Worse than Twitter honestly lol Jamalyd (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why is there a single in September 2017 when the album released in 2016

i don't know, maybe it's normal to have a post-album singl or somethinge, but i genuinely don't know this information and i think it should have a note saying that's what's going on if so 185.134.146.106 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]