Talk:1917–1987 (album)

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 articles

Finland Low‑importance

	Finland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland 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.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 18 November 2014[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 11:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1917–1987 → 1917–1987 (album) – per this Article Titles discussion. This title is a date range, not unambiguously an album title or any kind of title. Not sure whether a technical move would be acceptable, so here’s a discussion. 174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a bit like a date range, but it's not a date range that is at all ambiguous (particularly when compared with the date ranges in the cited discussion) or one that would otherwise be expected to be an encyclopedia topic. Dekimasuよ! 20:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per the successful move of 1979–1983 to Bauhaus 1979–1983 and other similar moves. Zarcadia (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the date range refers to the Soviet Union, not this album. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Revolution was in 1917, but the Soviet Union was still around after 1987 (and the production of this album). Dekimasuよ! 01:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dekimasu, the Soviet Union was 1917-1987 in 1987 when the album was issued. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's 1917-. Anyway, the Soviet Union was founded in 1922 (depending on what you count). Dekimasuよ! 05:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Finnish people legitimately count from 1917 since this is when they gained independence. Although the cover photo 1917-1987 suggests the Soviet Union, it's presumably equally a side-swipe at independent Finland too. But then who would know, this article is entirely unsourced, as usual. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per IIO ; Russian Revolution to the the Gorbie reforms. So the period of the totalitarian Soviet state. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no possibility of someone searching for the Soviet Union as "1917–1987". This is the only encyclopedic target for the search term "1917–1987". Dekimasuよ! 05:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Searchability is not one of our naming criteria. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, Wikipedia:Disambiguation states at the top of the page, "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead" [emphasis added]. There is not more than one existing Wikipedia article to which this phrase might be expected to lead, so disambiguation is not required. The naming criteria are recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. The title is recognizable and natural (it is the title by which the album is known), precise (sufficiently unique to unambiguously identify the subject of the article), concise (and more concise than the proposed title), and consistent with the naming of other articles on albums that do not conflict with other encyclopedia topics. Dekimasuよ! 19:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think what should have been emphasized in this quotation was the word “required.” And in this case, you’d be right—the rules do not require disambiguation here. But it would sure be helpful. Besides, I don’t believe WP:D prohibits disambiguation under any circumstances… and even if it did, rules don’t much matter when they prevent us from improving the encyclopedia. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unnecessary disambiguation is still seen as counterproductive by a large proportion of editors. At the bottom of my current talk page you can see an occasion on which one of my RM closes, based on the consensus of the participants to add an "extra" disambiguator, was reversed as "nonsensical" by another admin. At any rate, you made a specific comment that "searchability is not one of our naming criteria," and I dealt with those "rules" in my response. Thus it seems a little disingenuous to me that you'd skip to WP:IAR in reply. At any rate, at this point I disagree with the position that the move would improve the encyclopedia. Dekimasuよ! 16:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced IAR in response to the interpretation of “You must do this when…” as “You must not do this unless…,” which was the rule I inferred from your comment; apologies if I was mistaken. Anyway, I never said disambiguation was required per WP:D, but as far as I know, there is no rule against it to be ignored here, and others have cited the naming criteria in support. Yes, unnecessary disambiguation is counterproductive, but that’s not what’s being discussed here; the move request (and several supports) explains why it’s necessary (and again, it’s not because of searchability). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re the reversal of your RM close: If you mean Raining Men (Rihanna song), I notice that reversal was almost immediately re-reversed, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That moves to titles with non-essential disambiguation are still understood to be counterinuitive and counterproductive by many editors. See also User talk:Anthony Appleyard#The Climb (song). The reversal was re-reversed because it was based on a close, not because it was then understood to be warranted. Dekimasuよ! 23:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is WP:CRITERIA recognizability. Same with RM at Talk:1972–1979 In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"1917–1987" is recognizable as the title of the album (in fact, it is the only title by which the album is known). WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is explicitly not concerned with whether or not disambiguation is required (see footnote 6). WP:AT only asks that the title be "a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." It does not say that someone entirely unfamiliar with the subject should immediately recognize the contents of the article from the title. The lede accomplishes that well. Dekimasuよ! 06:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that "1917-1987" would be recognisable even to most Finnish people as an album. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Subject area" is vague, I suppose, but I don't think it means Finnish people. In this case, I'd assume it means people familiar with the general topic, which would be the band. To be clear, I don't oppose similar requests being opposed that have ranges of 5-10 years. This one in particular is idiosyncratic enough to be recognizable not as a simple date range. Dekimasuよ! 16:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi: Agreed. I'd actually go further and question whether even someone who's familiar with the band (but no expert on it) would recognize that particular date range as referring to an album, given its apparent obscurity and lack of popularity within the group's discography. Unlike some of the Cowboys' other work, the album doesn't appear on music services like Amazon, Spotify, iTunes, etc., and it has a minuscule number of listeners compared to many of the band's other releases. Certainly someone with expert knowledge of the band might correctly identify the title by itself, but it's tough to imagine many others doing so. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per In ictu, who explained well that "1917–1987 which is actually a title, not a subtitle. The subject of 1917–1987 is an album (not a compilation) commenting on the Soviet Union." Dohn joe (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a confusing comment. In ictu supported, so saying you oppose per In ictu is confusing. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quote in my comment was verbatim from In ictu in a discussion earlier this year, which makes his support !vote here confusing. Dohn joe (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think taking my words out of context scores any point nor is in good faith. I said 1917–1987 referred to the Soviet Union not the band, which it does, unlike another albums which were given (album) where the timescale related to the band only, which they do. That's a reason for this to be made recognizable not not to be. Dohn joe you also opposed the albums where the timescale was purely related to the band so the "per In Ictu" leaves me wondering. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me to be in bad faith. I'd add that my feelings here closely mirror User:AjaxSmack's comments there. Dekimasuよ! 16:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The topic of the article is insufficiently clear without some disambiguation. The average person would likely think "1917–1987" is an article about a span of time. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per the outcome of recent discussion at WP:AT (and various other places): that titles consisting only of date ranges merit clarification. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for the reasons already stated. --IJBall (talk) 17:33, 22 November 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.