Talk:Civil Twilight (band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inaccuracies[edit]

Some of the informations in this here article is inconsistent - such as the debut album. Accrording to the band's website, this article intro and the Afrikaans Wikipedia, it hails Human, according to the neat box constructed lower in the English Wikipedia's article, it's called Civil Twilight. This disambiguation should be addressed. — Adriaan (T★C) 22:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

{{movereq}}

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Work still needs to be done on the dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Civil Twilight → Civil Twilight (band) —

Oppose Move[edit]

  • I oppose the move (surprise there :P). My points are that a google search of 'civil twilight' reveals that the band is far more notable that the light. Out of the top fifty results only 7 are about the light while the rest are all the bands (all 43 of them). Civil Twilight the light doesn't merit its own article so why should it get a redirect while the band has to have a (band) in it's title. It doesn't make sense. An article in this position right now is Crossfade it is a band and also a music technique. The technique doesn't have its own article, it's a part of the article Fade (audio engineering) (like Civil Twilight the light). Crossfade does not redirect to the section of Fade (audio engineering) and the band doesn't have a (band) in it's title. Why? Well its because it wouldn't make sense. How can you have the main page (IE Civil Twilight) redirect to a section of an article that doesn't deserve its own page. The band has an article while the light does not.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You missing the point, you cannot give precedent over a section in another article to a self sufficient article. Everything I say, all you say is you can't compare this or this isn't reliable. Please come up with more conclusive points--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For move[edit]

  • The band's fame will likeliest fade away over time, as with most pop music bands. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of right now, there is no article that can be named Civil Twilight. A subsection of an article (that's redirected) should never be chosen over an article. No real point in moving since there's only one article that is really Civil Twilight. Crossfade is another band in this situation and they have their own page. Why? Because Crossfade the music technique is a subsection of another article and will never be it's own article and it's in the same position as Civil Twilight.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crossfade the music technique is nowhere near as notable as Civil Twilight. A person need only step outside to see Civil Twilight, while Crossfade the music technique is more technical in nature. Also, Civil Twilight has been present for 4.6 billion years, while the band has not even been around for 46 years let alone 4.6 billion years. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 334° 44' 15" NET 22:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Civil Twilight (the light) does not have an article of its own. Simple as that. It is not notable enough for it's own article. Go create an article about it and lets see if it's last an afd. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact Civil Twilight doesn't have its own article is totally irrelevant. Civil Twilight could easily survive as an individual article. Civil Twilight is the most common form of Twilight to civilians hence the name "Civil Twilight". Civil Twilight is way more notable than the band because far more people have seen Civil Twilight in the skies than seen the band playing. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 194° 49' 15" NET 12:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take you up on that offer. Create an individual article for the Light. Wait don't bother, It already happen here [1]. What happen. Oh yea, it got merged with Twilight because it wasn't notable. Read my other post for more on the bottom. You saying that it is notable for it's own article is BS, Civil Twilight, the light, has been it a position where it had its own article. Just FYI, Civil Twilight (the light) went through a merge discussion and the result was merge. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, you made your point. However, just because it doesn't have its own article doesn't make it non-notable. It is still more notable than the band due to the reasons below. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 260° 12' 30" NET 17:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I never said it wasn't notable it's notable in a section of another article. If it was notable as a stand alone article it would have one. Second under wikipedia guidelines it's not notable as a stand alone article because all it'll be is a dictionary definition and under the guildline of Wikipedia is not a dictionary it can't be it's own article and that's why it was merged into Twilight. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this move because wikipedia guidelines states that the main title name should point to the primary topic, which in this case is Twilight. This phenomena is something that everyone has seen and can relate to as common knowledge. Since Civil Twilight is the most well known form of Twilight, it is basically Twilight versus the band in terms of notability. Most people understand Civil Twilight as a form of Twilight and only a minority know the band. Consider the top 50 results for Twilight, none of them have anything do to with the form of light. Yet, Twilight has priority over Twilight (book) and Twilight (film). The reasoning is simple, google searches show a biased view of popularity due to the pagerank algorithm it uses. Also, this algorithm can be exploited using a procedure known as google bombing. Everyone in the world will have a chance to see Civil Twilight since it occurs twice a day at some time in the tropical and temperate regions and can last for hours in the polar regions. However, most people have never heard of the band. Therefore Civil Twilight (as a part of Twilight) is more notable than the band. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 333° 42' 45" NET 22:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe what you are saying google bombing. Civil Twilight get's more hits end of story. As I said before Civil Twilight (the light) will not survive an afd. Also, we are talking about Civil Twilight NOT Twilight. Twilight is notable enough but Civil Twilight itself is not. They are ton of Minor League Baseball player than have their info redirect to the teams page which basic info. What you are saying in if John Doe is being redirected to the New York Whips (fake team) no one should take John Doe since it's being redirected to the New York Whips and the New York Whips are notable. This is exalting what you are saying. I'm not going to play the game with you that more people know this than that with you. I had no clue what Civil Twilight (the light) was a month ago. Yet, I know everything about crossfade (the technique). --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible to bias google results. Google bombing is proof of this. Therefore this is a unreliable source of proof. Google search is not designed to to be reliable source. Civil Twilight is the most well known form of Twilight. Anyone can just look out side at the right time and see Civil Twilight for themselves. Also, Civil Twilight and Twilight cannot be compared to John Doe and the New York Whips. In 1000-2000 years time John Doe and the New York Whips will have been long forgotten by most people just like the band, while Civil Twilight and Twilight will still be well known. Pretty much everyone has seen the sky just before sunrise or just after sunset. This is Civil Twilight. Therefore more people have seen Civil Twilight than the band. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 194° 49' 15" NET 12:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omg, you bring the same point over and over. Your like a broken record. Civil Twilight will NOT survive an afd. You are using Twilight's notability for Civil Twilight. You can't do that. Civil Twilight is NOT notable for it's own article. If it was then you have a case but it's not. Can you find one (YES ONE) page on wikipedia that the main title is given to a section of an article instead of a main article. Can you. You can't.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Civil Twilight is more well known, easier to see, has been around longer and will last longer than the band. In time, the band will fade away into history and cease to be notable, while Civil Twilight will still be well known therefore (as I said earlier) Civil Twilight is more notable than the band. You can't argue with that. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 260° 12' 30" NET 17:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes you can actually. If hardly anyone uses the term civil twilight, then that term is not notable, even though twilight may be. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Civil Twilight" is civil twilight. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Far more reliable sources use the term to refer to the time of day than the time. Compare [2] and [3]. No books that I can find refer to the band; thousands refer to the time. Google hits are irrelevant. Just because "Civil twilight" is part of Twilight doesn't mean it's not the primary usage. Fences&Windows 19:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Lets discuss this move, this time. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Civil Twilight was moved to Civil Twilight (band). It was not discussed and I oppose the move and it should be moved back and then we can list the move here Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case difference is not enough distinction. To most people Civil Twilight is civil twilight, not some routine pop music band. Keep the disambiguator. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I am going to invite wikiproject time members (since Twilight is supported by that project) and wikiproject music members sorry wikiproject bio to this discussion (since Civil Twilight band is supported by it). Any objects. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My message will be as follows, There is a discussion regarding Civil Twilight. One side is Civil Twilight should be moved to Civil Twilight (band) to make way for Civil Twilight to be a redirect to the section Civil Twilight in the article Twilight (Twilight#Civil_twilight). The other is to keep everything the way it, Civil Twilight doesn't get moved to Civil Twilight (band) and theres a message at the top giving a link to Twilight#Civil_twilight. This will be the same message to both projects.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Everyone Dies In the End - It seems that this discussion is getting quite heated and before things get really bad, I would like to suggest as a compromise, we create a disambiguation page at Civil Twilight. Personally, I dislike heated debate like this as it bring hostility between editors. My point here is that you are definitely a great editor here and you have made some valid points here regardless of what I've said and I rather be working with you rather than against you here. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 264° 31' 29" NET 17:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can't just stop a discussion. We need more input on here. It will also prevent things getting heated as third parties tend to give you more input that is why I'm going to alert both project so we can reach a consensus.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was definitely a good call inviting third parties. I think I need a break from this discussion, but I should be back soon. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 229° 34' 0" NET 15:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesevenseas (talk • contribs) [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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Associated Acts[edit]

I'm not sure these associated acts are correct. I can't find anything about Radiohead and Civil Twilight being associated other than similar musical style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.28.26 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Civil Twilight (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Civil Twilight (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_Twilight_(band)&oldid=1195555043"