Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:09, 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.

02:59, 18 August 2008‎ Leamanc Created page 1983–1991 (album)

18:24, 11 November 2011‎ Tassedethe (moved 1983–1991 (album) to 1983–1991: no need for dab)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that 1983–1991 be renamed and moved to This Mortal Coil 1983-1991. 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

1983–1991 → This Mortal Coil 1983-1991 – WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and also the only Google Book source: CD Review Digest Volume 7, 1994 Page 615 "THIS MORTAL COIL: This Mortal Coil, 1983-1991. Elizabeth Fraser; Robin Guthrie; Howard Devoto; Kim Deal (voc); Tanya Donnelly (voc); others. 4AD 45135 4 discs ...". Compilation albums such as His Very Best are not standalone products but subtitles for singers and bands and require the singer/band to mean anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Please include all the Google Books results when basing one's argument on Google Books results:

1983-1991:

1. The Great Indie Discography
2. All Music Guide
3. All Music Guide to Rock
4. La Croche Lune
5. The Trouser Press Guide to 90's Rock
6. Schwann Spectrum

vs.

This Mortal Coil: 1983-1991:

1. CD Review Digest

The band name is omitted from 6 of 7 Google Books results. We should follow suit, per WP:AT. Dohn joe (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

These are simply catalogue listings and the artist name is included. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Whereas the CD Review Digest entry is.... Dohn joe (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dohn joe. At what point can we say these requests are pointy? Calidum 20:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Calidum, at the point when the wider community of editors stop supporting them probably. Remember also that from 2008‎ to 2011 the article had (album). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:16, 1 July 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 1983–1991 by itself is distinctive. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support, the primary topic of the phrase "1983-1991" is the period of years itself. bd2412 T 15:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per User:Born2cycle/UNDAB. 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 ☎ 17:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support I feel a little personally invested in this one. Had I found the article titled "1983-1991", 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) 18:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's not underestimate the value of serendipitous learning. If that's the worst that occurs when people are astonished at landing up an article about an album after clicking on a date range, that's a plus in my book. Besides, in what context could that possibly occur? I can't imagine a likely context in which an album name could be used and still be confused with a date range. I mean, it might say something like, "...when they released their incredible album, 1983-1991...". Seems like a rather weak reason to ignore the guidelines. --В²C ☎ 18:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I value serendipitous learning. I also value controlling the use of my own time. You may consider it "a plus in your book" if I am confused by an article title. As most people would, I disagree, and am alarmed at the ease with which you condone my being misled. As to the questions regarding search context and likelihood, I have had that exchange with User:Dohn joe already at Talk:1979–1983. Xoloz (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support as the current title is not precise or recognizable; it is simply a range of years. In addition, the album cover clearly says "This Mortal Coil", then "1983-1991". Omnedon (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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