Jump to content

Talk:1982–2000 (Europe album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:1982-2000)

Requested moves

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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.

The result of the move request was: Accept: majority after a month; there was no discussion in last 13 days Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) states "When necessary, disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)" (such as Queen (band) or H.M.S. Donovan (album))." There is evidently disagreement among editors about whether "When necessary" means (A) "necessary for any reason, such as common sense" (i.e. "necessary because a subtitle is meaningless with the band name hidden"), or means (B) the strict legalistic interpretation "we must always conceal the name of the band unless there is an article on another album with "FOO 1982–2000" on the cover." WP:AT Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. There are various other cases where not hiding the name of the band also is common sense, such as titles in the "Strike name Demo tapes 2010" "Strike name Live at the Mocambo" "Strike name The B-side Collection" format where evidently a mundane subtitle cannot stand alone without Strike band name as a recognizable/helpful title. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Oppose the first two because the base name already redirects to the album pages, and will do so even if the requested move goes through; as a result, disambiguation is not needed (see WP:DISAMBIGUATION) and the parentheses are meaningless. "1982-1992" and "1982-2000" seem very unlikely search terms for any other topic. If they're unique, they should go ahead and be the article titles - why not? Oppose the third because a) the base name would still redirect, and b) it's a made-up name. Dohn joe (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again WP:DAB is a guideline not policy, and says that best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply: In ictu oculi (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) is just a guideline as well. And as for WP:AT, I think it self-evident that someone familiar with the subject area of the Europe discography would recognize "1982-2000" as the title of the album "1982-2000". Common sense, absolutely! Dohn joe (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it is possible that many of Wikipedias millions of users, or even millions of music article readers, may not all be deep experts in Europe (band) discography, and some consideration should be shown to readers outside the diehard Europe (band) fan club. Anyway, we'll see what others think. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn joe, as for the Rasmus album, it does appear that at least Allmusic calls it "Best of the Rasmus: 2001-2009", so that particular rendering isn't made up. I don't know why In ictu didn't mention this, or use Allmusic's formatting in the move request, considering he's the one who added the Allmusic cite in the first place.[1]--Cúchullain t/c 15:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:CRITERIA these lack recognizability. WP:ASTONISH; "1982–2000" has meaning in US Politics, which has scheduled biennial and quadrennial elections; "Best of 2001–2009" not recognizable, the world is not made of Rasmus fans, this would be normally thought of as a decadal list of popculture bests as frequently found on TV. "1982–1992" would be the period of the end of the Cold War. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you truly expect to ever see any article with those titles? More to the point, consider today - where else will those dates ranges redirect if these moves were to take place? They are not date ranges with encyclopedic content potential. And again - it is much more WP:ASTONISHing and much less WP:RECOGNIZABLE to put the Rasmus album article at the wrong title. Dohn joe (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Wrong" "Right" - unusual vocabulary for a titling discussion. allmusic.com "The Best of the Rasmus 2001-2009 features 17 songs recorded during the band's tenure with Playground Music.." In ictu oculi (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See that article's talkpage for evidence of the actual album name. Dohn joe (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I feel a little personally invested in this one. Had I found the article titled "1982-2000", I would have clicked on it, wondering aloud, "What possible historical significance could such a periodization have?" Upon discovering that it was merely the title of an album I've never heard of, nor ever would want to hear of, I would have felt misled, my time wasted. I am someone who cares deeply about history, and the art of conceptualizing it; at the same, I care little for obscure music. I would be one of the victims of this current title, robbed of my valuable time by a hopelessly confusing name. Analysis of guidelines is not necessary for me on this one (though WP:ASTONISH obtains.) I know the encyclopedia would be better if people like me were not misled. This is true for any range of dates that might serve as an album title. Xoloz (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that feeling - out of context, I, too, would think that this might be some strangely dated, but interesting historical period. Let me ask you this, though. How would you ever have come across the title 1982-2000 out of context? These titles don't float around in a vacuum. They are either intentionally linked to or sought within WP, or you'll find them upon a Google search, in which case the context is provided in the preview. It's a seductive argument - that we need to provide "helpful" extra information in titles. But it's not actually helpful in reality. Someone who is looking for this article probably knows the name of the album. No one else is going to be looking for "1982-2000" - nor are they likely to encounter it outside of the album context. Does that makes sense? Dohn joe (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW - there are certainly articles, and events, that take place across all manner of date ranges. There is, in fact, the 1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict (a redirect to South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000)). But no one would ever refer to that conflict as "1982-2000" or "1985-2000". Whereas people would (and do) refer to the album as "1982-2000" - because that is its name. Dohn joe (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will admit one thing: as a wiki-gnome, I am much more likely than average to encounter an article name like this "in the wild" (on a recent changes page, for instance, where context is totally lacking) than the average person. Still, I can imagine a circumstance in which a user wikilinks in article to the span of years 1982-2000. For instance, a brief search reveals that this is lifespan of the musical Cats during its original run on Broadway, the tenure of Richard Jolly as assistant Secretary-General of the UN, or the tenure of Jean-Yves Empereur as general secretary of French School at Athens. Also, I could imagine an American historian dating the dawn of Reaganomics to 1982 (when the provisions of Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 took actual effect) and using that date as a marker in the economic and social history of the United States. The significance of the millennium as a marker in history is generally obvious, and the year was remarkable in US history also. Basically, for any span of years, I can imagine a serious historian somewhere finding a meaningful rationale for constructing an historical period. As something of intellectual snob, I maintain that academic concerns are at least equally important to popular culture in every circumstance. Every time I see a span of years, I will feel that the first usage (aka PRIMARYTOPIC) is to refer to an historically significant period, not the name of a -- dare I say, mediocre -- album. I don't think that instinctive response is idiosyncratic to me, so I think it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to move the album from the base title. Xoloz (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But isn't a good test of what people might link to what they actually link to? In this case, it seems that all the incoming links to 1982-2000 are for this album? Isn't that somewhat indicative of the actual and potential usage of those specific years? Dohn joe (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As so often happens 1 template can generate 40 links. I've fixed it, in the meantime please don't deliberately ambiguate it, in 24 hours it'll update. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Red Slash well they might type 1982–2000 looking for 1982–2000 South Lebanon conflict, evidently someone did as no end of pages link there. or History of the Arab–Israeli conflict (section 1982–2000 conflict), or something as mundane as Elland Road (section 1982–2000), Statue of Liberty (section Renovation and rededication (1982–2000) etc. But that aside simply "typing" isn't the only way readers arrive at articles. This article isn't hidden in a corner Access Denied Except to Europe (band) Fans, it's out there in the search engines. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But people have articles (or at least concepts) in mind when they search for things, right? Okay, not ALL the time--surely some people are just bored or curious, but most people have something in mind that they're looking for. I cannot possibly come up with a single thing that someone would be thinking of, besides this album, that would lead them to type in "1982-2000" and leave it at that. Red Slash 07:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well for a start when they search for
http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/1982–2000_South_Lebanon_conflict
Then this comes up as well
http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/1982–2000
Based on these page views wouldn't it make more sense to delete South Lebanon conflict from the other article so that those wanting the Swedish album go to the South Lebanon conflict article rather than vice-versa. If we are determined to confuse 1 group (we don't have to but if we want to) it makes sense to confuse those looking for the album and suck them to the South Lebanon conflict doesn't it? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But obviously nobody would ever refer to the conflict as 1982–2000. If I released an album called Airpl, I would expect it to get primary topic at Wikipedia. Yes, it pales next to any of the many articles at Airplane (disambiguation), especially Airplane itself, but if it weren't for the album, it would not even occur to someone to put a redirect to the main topic there. WP:CONCISE only works when it's in tandem with WP:UCN. Red Slash 08:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that obvious? It isn't obvious from Google Books that no one refers to "1982-2000" except in relation to a Swedish compilation album, so the evidence is there that people can use "1982-2000" without listening to Swedish pop music, which makes those comments about who searches what irrelevant.
But the real problem here is that none of the oppose !votes have given a reason to oppose. Adding (album) or better (Europe album) only helps those looking for the Europe album. No one looking for 1982–2000 (Europe album) is going to walk away from the article because it has "(Europe album)" on it. The deep seated opposition among to artist names isn't shared by our readers. Titling the album clearly is a win-win situation both for those looking for it and those not. The opposes have not given a single downside reason for opposing.
I think User:Xoloz stated very well the waste-my-time element with inconsiderate titling of this sort. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I do understand where you're coming from. But I still have my original question. Where might someone be looking for anything other than this article and type in "1982–2000"? I have no idea - I mean that - how anyone's time could possibly be wasted. You don't just walk around and then suddenly find yourself reading this article. You arrive here either by searching (be it on WP or from another search engine) or by following an internal link. I fail to see any compelling reason to ignore WP:CONCISE. Red Slash 04:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red Slash well typing isn't the only way people find articles, but by all means try "1982–1992" on Amazon.com and on Allmusic.com and see even among albums what else there is. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it had "(album)" after it, that would do. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the first two one per User:Red Slash's question of 19 June 2014. The meaning of unfamiliar terms is to be explained in the body of an article, not the title. Oppose the third for the same reason and as borderline OR. Wikipedia should not alter the titles of published works to suit perceived reader convenience. (However, I say borderline because the cover art is a bit ambiguous and at least one secondary source uses the proposed title.) —  AjaxSmack  05:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed moves are all unnecessary disambiguation. Calidum Talk To Me 04:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Current titles are not recognisable (WP:AT of course). If current guidelines and policies leave any doubt as to these moves, then the guidelines etc need to change. Andrewa (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per user Dicklyon who said above,  "the "precision" criterion suggests that the title should be specific enough to indicate the topic." It is beyond belief that anybody could think 1982–2000 by itself is distinctive.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the Europe albums. A quick search (ie [2]) suggests the articles are at their WP:COMMONNAMES, and there appears to be no challenge to that. There is no other article titled "1982–2000", so adding "(Europe album)" serves no disambiguation purpose and thus fails the WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, and WP:NATURAL elements of the article titles criteria. There is one other article titled "1982-1992", 1982–1992 (Cassiber album) (created recently by the nominator) but I see no indication it challenges the Europe album's status as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a WP:TWODABS situation.
As an aside, 1982–2000 appears to be just a reissue of the better known 1982–1992.[3] The articles should be merged together, which will solve this RM issue for one or the other of them.
As for the Rasmus album, it at least does seem to be called "Best of the Rasmus: 2001-2009" by at least Allmusic. This title (slightly different than the proposed title) may be a workable alternative, but it's not a necessity. Barring any COMMONNAME evidence, I'm inclinded to oppose that move as well.--Cúchullain t/c 14:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the primary topic of these phrases is the period of years itself. bd2412 T 15:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. These are the names of these topics, as referenced in reliable sources. These are therefore the ideal and recognizable titles for these topics. There is no argument based in policy or convention to change these titles. It's a violation of WP:TITLECHANGES, really, as no good reason (based in policy or convention) has been given to change it. No one has invoked IAR either, much less provided a good reason for ignoring our rules. And ignoring our rules is exactly what this frivolous proposal is all about. And, no, it's not frivolous because I oppose it. It's frivolous because it's not supported by policy or convention. --В²C ☎ 17:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While you're entitled to your opinion, the results of your previous chastisements should have made it clear to you by now that you are not entitled to a stronger opinion than others. I suggest you strike or remove that. Dicklyon (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are holding me to a standard to which nobody else is held by anyone else. I did not invent the convention to emphasize a particularly strong conviction in a given case by emphasizing a !vote with the word strong. Many others use it every day. I only had to go through three discussions listed in the WP:RM backlog to find an example[4]. Are you going to chastise RGloucester (talk · contribs) now too? Why not be consistent. It's never too late to start. Anyway, if you can establish a consensus against using such emphasis on occasion, I will be happy to comply. Absent such achievement, please leave me alone. --В²C ☎ 19:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most experienced people recognise that "strong" means ""weak", because I am emotional affected by this question". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. As date ranges, they will be misrecognised as date ranges, astonishing/frustrating people following links/indexes/etc. Obviously, 1982–2000 (Europe) would be similarly problematic, even worse, and extra disambiguation is essential in these cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the issue here is the need to disambiguate. I would expect that the non-disambiguated date range "1982-2000" would be the title of an article summarizing the historical events that took place within that date range. I also agree with SmokeyJoe in thinking that the parenthetical "1982-2000 (Europe)" would logically link to an article summarizing the events that took place on the continent of Europe during that date range. That said... since the unadorned date ranges are the "official" names of these albums, it seem to me that the best method of disambiguation is to use the format: title (band-name album) Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 3 July 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.

Merge?

[edit]

Without wishing to complicate things further, the 1982-2000 album really should be merged into 1982-1992, since it is a remarketing of the same album with 1 extra track, and only the 1982-2000 album is covered in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 June 2019

[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: Withdrawn. I confused the redirect with the article. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1982–2000 (Europe album) → 1982–2000 (album) – First of all, let's ignore the current situation at the "disambiguation" page 1982–2000 (in quotes because it is not disambiguating anything, if anything it is a set index-esque page) with a) an album with the exact base name, b) an African conflict that took place 3 years later, in 1985, and c) the year 1982 where, somehow, the suffix "-2000" makes it ambiguous enough to appear here. Anyway, returning to this RM, there is no justification to use "Europe" per WP:OVERPRECISION, as there is no other album sharing the name. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC) {{subst:RM bottomć}}[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:1982–2000_(Europe_album)&oldid=1196206854"