Talk:Attack! Attack! (Welsh band)

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Band Members:

Neil Starr(Vocals/Guitar), Ryan Day(Guitar/Vocals), Will Davies(Bass), Mike Griffiths(Drums). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.135.2 (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

I restored the external links because they are the closest thing the article has to references, and are likely serviceable in that capacity. Certainly, the BBC does not fall under WP:LINKSTOAVOID. As for the lead, the band's album was released under the name "Attack Attack UK" in the United States (on Rock Ridge Records), and since Attack Attack! have a trademark on the name they can't market themselves as simply AA in that country. That's more than worth a mention; Attack Attack UK even redirects here. Chubbles (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

I started a discussion regarding the articles title on this page as these two articles have very similar names, please discuss and vote whether you believe these pages should be more distinguishable or not. SilentDan297 talk 00:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Attack Attack! which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 May 2019

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 those advocating a move of Attack Attack! to Attack Attack! (American band), please start a new discussion. It makes sense but there was insufficient commentary to judge consensus in this discussion. Moreover the required notifications were not posted on that article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attack! Attack! → Attack! Attack! (Welsh band) – An extra ! is no way to distinguish a stub which barely survived deletion from the middle-notableish-maybe US band Attack Attack! with one !. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Red Slash 23:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and Red Slash. Moreover, if this nomination is successful, Attack Attack! should be moved to Attack Attack! (American band). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS I think the extra "!" does distinguish and note that all the other WPs other than German have this at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that there is a DAB page at Attack Attack listing both the bands and their albums plus a song. However the only other use of "Attack! Attack!" is this band's album (which doesn't have an article anyway) but that's a subsidiary meaning per WP:DABCONCEPT, similarly the only other use of "Attack Attack!" is the American band's album, Attack Attack! (album) which again would fall under DABCONCEPT so it doesn't look like these titles are ambiguous, in any case per WP:2DABS hatnotes are sufficient. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Roman. WP:SMALLDETAILS just does not help here at all. --Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Roman. And I agree, if this nomination is successful, Attack Attack! should be moved to Attack Attack! (American band).. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the difference is so small that it's very confusing (and the other article should probably be moved too). Pretty much the same as I said five years ago at Talk:Attack Attack!/Archives/2014 1#Requested moves. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The difference is so easily overlooked that a better distinguisher is needed. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm with Crouch, Swale on this one. The current title is the name of this band, meets WP:CRITERIA across the board, and it is unique - therefore, disambiguation is unnecessary per WP:SMALLDETAILS. As long as each has a hatnote to the other, users are no better off with this title being disambiguated. I note that neither the nom nor any support here is based on policy or guidelines; it's quintessential WP:JDLI. --В²C ☎ 18:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern is that the current title does not meet CRITERIA across the board, particularly the requirement that the title "unambiguously identify the subject and distinguish it from other subjects." That two titles are technically unique does not necessarily mean they're reliably distinguishable in practice, something that SMALLDETAILS recognizes by noting that small diffs are "usually" sufficient... but not always. When (as here) there's doubt about whether a pair of titles are sufficiently distinguishable, it's sensible to favor the interests of readers (as CRITERIA advises) and distinguish them more clearly. ╠╣uw [talk] 23:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but I think it's misguided concern. No other topic is named "Attack! Attack!" - that's the epitome of "unambiguously identify the subject and distinguish it from other subjects". In other words, anyone going to the trouble of typing in exactly "Attack! Attack!" in the search box is as certainly looking for this topic as anyone who is using any other PRIMARYTOPIC title as a search term is looking for that primary topic. --В²C ☎ 16:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot assume that readers will discern the difference. Tellingly, many pieces dealing with the Welsh band (or the American one) feel the need to explicitly clarify to readers which one they're talking about — something they do even when the punctuation mark is correctly shown. A quick search turns up many such instances:

"Unluckily for our home grown talent, Attack Attack! (US) continue to tour under their confusingly similar moniker, and have no plans to stop soon."[1]
"There’s always a constant confusion between the two: Attack Attack! from America, and Attack! Attack! from Wales. "[2]
"‘Attack Attack!’, an American metalcore band (not to be confused with the Welsh band of the same name), have just released their latest music video..."[3]
"Welsh outfit Attack! Attack! UK - not to be confused with the Attack Attack! from Ohio - have called it quits after six years together."[4]
"The band is commonly confused with the Welsh alternative rock band Attack! Attack!, which have two exclamation points."[5][6]
"Just to make it clear, this is Attack! Attack!, the Welsh band, not the shitty hardcore crappy band from America :)"[7]
"Lets face it, you’ve all probably made up your mind about Attack Attack! already – no, we’re not talking about the Welsh one, we’re talking about the crabcore one..."[8]
"Not to get confused with the Welsh band, Attack! Attack! (with two exclamation marks..."[9]
"I'm talking Attack Attack! as in the hardcore/metalcore band from Ohio. Not Attack! Attack! as in the Welsh alternative band."[10]
"Attack! Attack! (the American screamo band not the soft Welsh rockers!)"[11]
"Google the band Attack! Attack! typed in exactly like that and, no kidding, the first entry you get is a screamo band out of Ohio. But you look a little closer and you notice that that is not Attack! Attack! that's Attack Attack! see the difference? Yeah, I didn't either."[12]

Since the difference seemingly isn't obvious even to those in the relevant music scenes, the clarifier seems warranted. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but isn't that why we have hatnotes on our articles? Doesn't that solve any confusion of landing on the wrong article (WP:2DABPRIMARY)? Since both are at their name and readers who land on the other can easily navigate to the other band. As B2C points out readers familiar with either band will likely enter the correct name, if we move and redirect them to the DAB, not only are we introducing unnecessary disambiguation but we'd land those who type the correct name on a DAB while those who don't type the correct name can still click the hatnote. Yes I understand that if both are qualified it would help those see which band it is (and DABs are less confusing than landing on the wrong article) but that's a can of worms per User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't use hatnotes to avoid meeting article title criteria. Per policy, a title should unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from others — and given the apparent confusion even among those familiar with the band(s), the current title does not do that.

As for disambiguation: it's not unnecessary if it's necessary. :) ╠╣uw [talk] 20:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huwmanbeing, my point has not been addressed. I repeat: anyone going to the trouble of typing in exactly "Attack! Attack!" in the search box is as certainly looking for this topic as anyone who is using any other PRIMARYTOPIC title as a search term is looking for that primary topic. That's as good as it gets. There is no reason to distinguish further. Topics are not supposed to "unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from others" in the way you're interpreting that here. If that were the case, we'd have to retitle countless other articles. The current title is not ambiguous in the only way that matters in WP title decision-making (no other article has a claim to this title) and it's the name of the article's subject, which is the definition of identifying the subject. It therefore unambiguously identifies the subject, meeting CRITERIA with aplomb. Please don't break it. --В²C ☎ 21:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support This rather obviously serves user interests in organizing information related to the two bands, tied by an unendingly confusing coincidence. Chubbles (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support and redirect current title to the DAB. Clearly in readers' interests. And hatnotes on both band articles each pointing to the other. At the very least. And note that what other Wikipedias do to choose titles in their respective languages is the height of irrelevance here. Andrewa (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are probably following our lead. Chubbles (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2019 (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.