Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:08, 1 July 2014

Albums Stub‑class

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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

	Punk music (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.bpi.co.uk/platinum/platinumright.asp?rq=search_plat&r_id=1127
  • In 1979–1983 on 2011-05-25 04:52:42, 404 Not Found
  • In 1979–1983 on 2011-06-07 01:34:53, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested moves

It has been proposed in this section that Bauhaus 1979–1983 be renamed and moved to 1979–1983 (album). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

1979–1983 → 1979–1983 (album) – 1979–1983 Eastern Australian drought. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. WP:CRITERIA recognizability. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, WP:CRITERIA: it's more concise (obviously), just as recognizable (anyone familiar with the subject area will immediately know what the article is regardless), more natural (obviously this is the more attested format), more consistent (most articles don't have disambiguators), and equally precise (there is only one possible topic that this title as it stands could describe, until and unless Miley Cyrus has a baby and names him "1979–1983" in an attempt to be weird). A tie in two, and a win in three out of five. Red Slash 07:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Red Slash, can you please clearly state what is your reason to oppose the addition of (album)? Specifically how will addition of (album) be anything but win-win both for (1) people who want the Bauhaus album, (2) people who don't. What is your reason to oppose the addition.? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. If the article isn't about the period in history 1979-1983 then it requires disambiguation. Zarcadia (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary per WP:AT and WP:SONGDAB. There is no other WP topic (let alone music topic) called "1979-1983". No one would ever search for or link to the drought using just the date range. Unless we start creating pages on every date range in history (by my count, that would be 4,950 pages for the 20th century alone), then it's perfectly reasonable to use the actual name of the album as the title of the article on that album. Dohn joe (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Besides the drought, these dates correspond to the First Thatcher ministry. Given the historical importance and long-term significance of this period to the history of the United Kingdom, I assert that First Thatcher ministry is the PRIMARYTOPIC for this date range. It is absolutely the first thing I thought of, and Misplaced Pages's readers from the UK will likely agree. Xoloz (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I feel a little personally invested in this one. Had I found the article titled "1979-1983", 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) 16:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  So you believe that 1979-1983 should be an article on .... what? Should we create articles on every possible historical date range? (Actual questions, not rhetorical, just for the record - I'm interested in your thoughts here.) Dohn joe (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not exactly sure. Do I believe there should be a disambiguation page for every date range: ideally, maybe I'd say yes, though I understand that practical issues make that difficult. I know two things, though: (1) when I see a date range, I think history: (1874-1965, lifespan of Winston Churchill), (1837-1901, reign of Queen Victoria), (1845-1849, Presidency of James K. Polk). Since encyclopedias are academic as a first purpose, I cannot be alone in the instinct that date ranges relate first to important historical topics; and (2) The upper-right hand search box currently only shows the album when I search for the date range 1979-1983, and it doesn't identify that article as an album. If I had reason to search for a date range, and the date range popped up, and I clicked on the generic name only to find an album, I'd be quite annoyed. The key thing here is that I am honestly enough of a nerd that I might search for a date range, and I'd like the search results to show me any relevant historical events related to that period, not simply an album. Xoloz (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  So, as an exercise, I just searched "1845-1849". Misplaced Pages reminds me that this is also the period of the Great Irish Famine, as well as the tenure of Bannon Goforth Thibodeaux as a US Representative, as well Polk's presidency. Isn't that wonderful for readers? Isn't that the way we want the encyclopedia to work? Fortunately, because no silly band was recording an album called "1845-1849", that search function is easily possible. Band titles like this just muck up the way I believe Misplaced Pages should work. Xoloz (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  That is interesting. But nothing prevents you from doing the same for "1979-1983". Type that into the search box, and at the bottom it should say, "containing...1979-1983" - exactly the way it presents "containing...1845-1849". Click on that, and you get the same sort of results as you did for the Polk Age - this album, of course, but the Australian drought, Margaret Thatcher's first term, and various other items. So no loss of search capability there. In fact, I think it might even be superior, because of the dual nature of WP's search box as both search engine and navigation aid. When someone types "1979-1983" into the box and sees both 1979-1983 and "containing...1979-1983", they can choose whether to search for the date range or go to any articles starting with that date range.

  Maybe it would be better if we encouraged more redirects starting with date ranges. That way, the search box would eventually catch up and display only the top results beginning with each range. Perhaps we could propose that somewhere? Otherwise, though, it seems that the current title fits WP's general titling policies. Given the unaffected ability to search for dates, does that impact your view here (and elsewhere)? Dohn joe (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)r

  You're right to commend the search box for its dual functionality. I'm still concerned, though, that a searcher (uninterested in the album), seeing an existing article "1979-1983" pop up, will click on that, and have time wasted. Leaving aside the issue of searching, I am left with the same impulse: "1979-1983" is encyclopedically notable as the tenure of significant government in a major English-speaking country. How can the community make the decision that a mere album is a PRIMARYTOPIC over such a significant historical marker? I'm not contending that popular music is awful, or that this article should be deleted. I believe popular culture and history are equally important. My concern is that leaving this article title unannotated suggests that the album is somehow more encyclopedic than the first Thatcher Ministry (or the drought.) I think this amounts to favoring popular culture over history, which I find fundamentally unsettling. I understand that the connection of the term "1979-1983" to the First Thatcher Ministry is slightly less direct than the album's connection to its title, and I appreciate if that distinction is the basis of your opinion. I simply think historical periods are -- by their nature as academic subjects -- at least as important as albums. It is a conviction I am not likely to surrender, even as I recognize that no article titling dispute is ultimately earthshattering. Xoloz (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Reasonable people can disagree, even on WP. Just to be clear, though - your position is that 1979-1983 should be removed completely, even as a redirect, so as not to pop up in the search box and confuse people, correct? Because that is not part of the proposal as is, which would keep the plain date range as a redirect to the article. Is that accurate? Dohn joe (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

redirects generally don't pop up in search box unless they are category holders. If 1979-1983 directed to 1979-1983 (album) I don't believe anyone would see it when filling in autocomplete in top RH corner. Am I wrong? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how it works in general, but as relevant to this move, 1979–1983 Eastern Australian drought is a redirect to 1979–83 Eastern Australian drought, yet the redirect shows up when you type "1979-1983" in the search box.... Dohn joe (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Dohn joe, I fully support the proposal of In ictu oculi, since I believe that the addition of the annotating term serves to disambiguate the album for confused searchers, about whom I remain concerned. However, it is true that I would support any consensus decision to turn the base title into a disambiguation page, one including the drought, the First Thatcher Ministry, the album, and any other historically significant uses of the timespan as a period. Xoloz (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Noted. But in the absence of that proposal, or if it were to fail, would you prefer to see 1979-1983 redirect to the album, or be deleted entirely? Dohn joe (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If the point made immediately above by in ictu oculi is correct, redirecting would not result in a situation which would confuse searchers. Hence, I would not view redirection as a major disservice. Having said that, deletion of the base title would also not be wrongful, as I do truly believe that searchers for the term are as likely to be looking for an historical period as the album. Deletion of the base title leaves the album and the historical periods "on equal footing", as it were, in any attempted search. I leave the matter to the discretion of the closing admin. As is almost always the case in any contested RM, the closing admin has my sympathies in advance. Xoloz (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support – a date range for an album does not pass recognizability or precision. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, support Bauhaus 1979–1983 as suggested by evidence discussed below. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Red Slash. These move requests are getting redicolous. Calidum 04:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  I agree it feels ridiculous to require move requests about these sorts of articles. They should be moved to fuller, disambiguated titles as a technical matter, without need for debate. ;) Let's empower User:In ictu oculi as Lord of Wiki-Disambiguation, and dispense with RMs entirely, since I happen to believe IIO has a superb grasp of common sense. Of course, I'm joking... my point is that one person's common sense is another's common foolishness, and we should all be careful what we call ridiculous. Consensus discussions exist for a reason, and deriding a particular one because IDONTLIKEIT serves no good purpose. Xoloz (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Calidum has made similar unsupported objection on other RMs. Here however is Google Books print proof that the album is referred to with the full title Bauhaus 1979-1983 rather than 1B9A7U9H1A9U8S3 as found on LP cover:

The British rock band Bauhaus found much success with their song “Bela Lugosi's Dead.”... The tune was issued on an analogue 45 rpm and stereo 12-inch disc in 1979, as well as on the LP collection Bauhaus 1979–1983, released on Bega 64." (Gary Don Rhodes Bela Lugosi: His Life in Films, on Stage, and in the Hearts of Horror Lovers 1997 Page 322)

"Bauhaus. 1986. “Bela Lugosi's Dead.” Bauhaus, 1979-1983. Atlantic Recording Corporation."Richard W. Flory, ‎Donald E. Miller GenX Religion 2013 Page 51

Of course this RM is not requesting that, it's merely requesting 1979-1983 redirect to 1979-1983 (album) just as Harusame redirects to the recognizable Japanese destroyer Harusame (1937), or the short Prince Andrew redirects to Prince Andrew, Duke of York per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support The "precision" criterion suggests that the title should be specific enough to indicate the topic." It is beyond belief that anybody could think 1979–1983 by itself is distinctive.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support, the primary topic of the phrase "1979-1983" is the period of years itself. bd2412 T 15:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. This is the name of this topic, as referenced in reliable sources. This is therefore the ideal and recognizable title for this topic. There is no argument based in policy or convention to change this title. 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 ☎ 17:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If invoking WP:IAR will cause you to consider this matter differently, then I do so. No rule, policy, or guideline can alter the reasonable assumption that this title primarily signifies, in the minds of a large share of readers, a period of years. Any rule, policy, or guideline (and any interpretation of rules, policies or guidelines) that stands in the way of recognizing this reality should be changed or ignored for the sake of fairness. Historical periods are at least as valuable to an encyclopedia as musical albums. To suggest the contrary is a disservice to the encyclopedia and its serious academic readers. Xoloz (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Album articles
• WikiProject Albums articles
• Requested moves