Talk:Keep On Keepin' On (New Riders of the Purple Sage album)

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

(New Riders of the Purple Sage album)[edit]

Band name needed per WP:NMC In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep On Keepin' On, album by Woody Herman
  • Keep On Keepin' On (New Riders of the Purple Sage album) 1999
  • Keep On Keepin' On, album by Kashief Lindo 2008
  • Keep On Keepin' On, album by Tom Shaka
  • Keep On Keepin' On, album by General Johnson - borderline notable album
  • Keep On Keepin' On, album by Chuck Wagon Gang 1994 - highly notable album
  • Keep On Keepin' On, album by The Riptide Movement
Just to clarify on the above, there was a mangle with
Keep On Keepin' On --> (New Riders of the Purple Sage album)
Keep On, Keepin' On --> (MC Lyte song)
Keep On Keeping On --> artist bio of Travie McCoy
And in sources it may well be "Keep On Keepin' On" Woody Herman tune of 1955 on the Blue Flame (album) which is the starting point of this recurring title. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 December 2014[edit]

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.

Moved to Keep On Keepin' On (New Riders of the Purple Sage album) and Keep On, Keepin' On (MC Lyte song), per consensus. bd2412 T 02:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– There are no other albums and no other songs of the same name. Nevertheless, mere punctuations are not merely distinctive enough. As for the album itself, there is no comma, so the first on should be treated as a preposition that should not be capitalized per WP:NCCAPS. on is a two-letter word used as anything, especially a preposition. Thank goodness there is no extra letter. George Ho (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the disambiguation but not with the capitalization: That seems appropriate to me, except for the capitalization of the album title. It should be Keep On Keepin' On, with the first "on" still capitalized. Looking at MOS:CT, it says to capitalize:
  • Words that have the same form as prepositions, but are not being used specifically as prepositions
The phrase "Keep On" uses the word "on" as a particle of a phrasal verb, and so should be capitalized. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the statement in the proposal "There are no other albums and no other songs of the same name" is simply not correct is it? There are evidently several other notable albums and several notable songs with exactly the same name at Keep On Keeping On disambiguation page, some of which receive more than just passing mention in artist bio content, but they haven't (yet) been forked into standalone articles. If we aren't going to provide recognisable and precise titles then why add (album) and (song), it only does half the job - and misleads readers into thinking there's only one "the" (album) and "the" (song) when that isn't here the case. Instead Move to Keep On Keepin' On (New Riders of the Purple Sage album) and Keep On, Keepin' On (MC Lyte song) per WP:PRECISION WP:RECOGNIZABILITY WP:NCM. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other topics of same name must pass WP:N first. Otherwise, this is extra precision, discouraged by WP:PRECISION. --George Ho (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is also discouraged by MOS:ALBUM#Naming, which says, "Do not pre-emptively disambiguate!" — Mudwater (Talk) 12:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The example given is London Calling, not London Calling (album), that's different from denying the existence of songs and albums more notable than those that have articles [comment here applies to the case of (MC Lyte song) in relation to the earlier songs, probably less true of (New Riders of the Purple Sage album) in relation to the non-article albums]. In any case WP:DISAMBIGUATION takes precedence over a recently edited local consensus guideline which in the past has been at odds with the rest of the project. This is particularly evident here with "Keep On Keepin' On" songs, where a new song called "Keep On Keepin' On" is appearing at 2-3 year intervals, ironically enough: new songs Keep On Keepin' On appearing. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every time one of these discussions comes up it is easier to simply start the missing notable articles than argue about whether we should acknowledge the existence of notable material from earlier decades - the Len Chandler song was used as a speech text by Martin Luther King Jr., and we're not going to acknowledge it's existence in our titling because it isn't WP:FORKED into a standalone song article? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Keep On Keepin' On → Keep On Keepin' On (New Riders of the Purple Sage album) and Keep On, Keepin' On → Keep On, Keepin' On (MC Lyte song) as suggested by IIO. Notability is not just about stand-alone articles, the minor difference of punctuation is insufficient disambiguation, there are lots of alternative disambiguation candidate topics, we shouldn't encourage unnecessary forking, Mudwater may be correct about the capitalization, and including the artist's name in the title of an article is generally helpful to the reader to clarify the topic and provide attribution. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose another solution seeking a problem. The two topics have distinct non-conflicting titles, and each as a hatnote link to the other. No good reason to change, certainly no policy-based reason. --В²C ☎ 21:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is distinguishing one among half a dozen albums from one among 15 songs by " , " to be dismissed with the comment "another solution seeking a problem. The two topics have distinct non-conflicting titles" As if even the most ardent opponent of recognisable titles would not argue constructively that " , " is enough information here. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree that the title is supposed to be informative in a stand-alone context. I submit there is no such relevant context in practice. Both titles reasonably identify their respective topics and don't conflict with any other titles. That's more than enough. --В²C ☎ 08:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Born2cycle since your contributions to the project are largely limited to advocating your positions in editing policies and guidlines, this is a pertinent question: do you see any other User in this discussion who agrees with you that the current situation is enough to meet WP:CRITERIA and WP:DISAMBIGUATION between these two articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I try my best, but confusion about the purpose of titles and reason for disambiguation is rampant. The most appropriate title for both of these topics is Keep On Keepin' On, and the only reason they can't both have that title is a technical one, since titles are used in the URLs of our articles, and URLs must be unique. So, instead of both of them being titled Keep On Keepin' On, one of them is altered with a comma. Problem solved, with natural disambiguation. Now, some people argue the comma is "not enough". How so? The comma makes it so the two titles are no longer identical, so it is enough, by definition. --В²C ☎ 17:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the weird theory that the two occurrences of "on" are grammatically different here. Support disambiguation by something other than a comma. And why do we even have the comma in the MC Lyte album? It's not on the album cover shown, and it looks like Billboard is the only source that puts it in. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: When you say that you "oppose the weird theory", are you saying that both "on"s should be capitalized? I think you are but I'm not sure. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only saying both should be the same; I would have thought lower case, but I haven't looked into this Particles of phrasal verb thing, which sound plausible. But "keeping on" is clearly the gerund form of "keep on", so it can't be a partical in one and not the other. Dicklyon (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Keep On Keepin' On → Keep On Keepin' On (New Riders of the Purple Sage album) and Keep On, Keepin' On → Keep On, Keepin' On (MC Lyte song) as suggested by IIO. Arguments above make it clear that with all the songs and albums with essentially this same title, disambiguating the titles is A Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The underlying principle that many here don't seem to understand much less appreciate is this: "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail." --WP:SMALLDETAILS. Ideally, titles with the same name would have the exact same title. All cities named "Paris", and the god, and all other uses whose most common name is "Paris", would all have the title Paris. The only reason this is not the case is because on WP the url of the article is formed from the title, and no two articles can have the same url. If it were for not this technicality, there would be no reason to even have WP:DISAMBIGUATION. But since it is the reality, once two titles are distinct, as they are in this case, no matter how small the detail in their distinction, to argue that they are not sufficiently distinct, is utter nonsense. It is creating reasons for distinguishing titles out of thin air, which have no practical purpose, and benefit no one. Sorry, but it is idiocy. This idiocy is also behind "loosening" title criteria and how it is interpreted to make these arguments seem based in policy. Don't fall for it. A decision to move this title in accordance with this idiocy would be moronic. --В²C ☎ 17:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to your pledge to be less obnoxious and strident in RM discussions, and to listen to the opinions of other, rather than writing them off as "moronic" and "utter nonsense"? It seems very clear to me that the "underlying principle" that you think you see in "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail" is not a principle that is widely accepted. And there are other reasons discussed here to not try to disambiguate these titles by a comma. Would it be "moronic" for the consensus here to differ from your view? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not writing anyone off without listening to them. I'm reading their arguments, evaluating them, and then concluding that the arguments are nonsense and presenting them idiocy, per the reasoning presented above. Even geniuses can make idiotic arguments and decisions, so this is not a statement about any persons; it's a statement about the arguments presented here.

The WP:SMALLDETAILS principle in question is policy which accurately reflects practice on Wikipedia. While there are a few title fanatics who are obsessed with making titles more descriptive and/or more distinctive from other titles or other uses for reasons that nobody can explain (disagree: explain!), this is generally not how our article titles are selected, and it would be a nightmare to do so. --В²C ☎ 04:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing titles by small details has never been widely accepted. It is tolerated at a few places, which doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that policy says it's better than reasonable alternatives. Concluding that people who agree with me and not with you are morons might sometimes be justified, but not here, I think. Maybe someone will back me up on this? Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon the problem is that calling for "someone to back you" up in concluding that people who agree with you and not with B2C are morons is not justified is calling for exactly those that B2C labels "moronic" "obesessed" "fanatics" etc. It would be more impartial to ping the admin who determined the length and terms of B2C's previous topic ban and ask that admin to review B2Cs pledge and edits after expiry of the ban. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conflating the depiction of someone's behavior as moronic with calling that person a moron is, well, moronic.

The whole point is that the only reason to distinguish titles at all is because WP titles can't be the same solely ecause of the url collision problem. And distinction, even in small details, resolves that problem. Period.

You know, I wonder if anyone has looked into generating random elements for the urls so we wouldn't have to be concerned about disambiguation at all? Titles could differ in small detail, or not at all, and it would all be fine. --В²C ☎ 17:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there are now several points of discussion. (1) Should disambiguation of article names be based on what Wikipedia articles exist, or should it also be based on things that exist "in the real world" but don't have their own articles? For example, if multiple albums exist called Keep On Keepin' On, but only one has an article, should the article be called "Keep On Keepin' On (album)", or "Keep On Keepin' On (New Riders of the Purple Sage album)"? I really think that the first and not the second is standard practice, as I stated above. (2) Is title disambiguation by detail, such as punctuation, sufficient -- for example, "Keep On Keepin' On" vs. "Keep On, Keepin' On" with a comma, and assuming that each article has appropriate hatnotes. I could argue that one either way. (3) In ictu oculi, earlier in the discussion you said, "... it is easier to simply start the missing notable articles..." I can see that you've recently created an article called Keep On Keepin' On (Chuck Wagon Gang album), and also a disambiguation page called Keep On Keeping On. The new album article may force the issue this time, but, as I said in point (1), standard practice is to disambiguate article names based on existing articles, not existing potential subjects of articles. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mudwater, hi, on (1) according to WP:DISAMBIGUATION we disambiguate by content, not titles, this is absolutely clear in the guideline and always has been. (2) depends on each case. (3) in this case although there's no evidence that the article you created Keep On Keepin' On (New Riders of the Purple Sage album) 1989, charted or won any awards, it presumably would pass WP:NALBUMS, but the issue is that it isn't a natural candidate to occupy such a generic title as Keep On Keepin' On; given that, it certainly should have (album), and once it has (album) then when there are other albums mentioned in articles by notable musicians WP:NCM it helps everyone for artist name to be included. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About point (1), I'm really under the impression that disambiguation is generally done by article title, not by potential article subject. See for example MOS:ALBUM#Naming, where it says to use the artist name to distinguish between albums only if there is more than one album article with that name. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that we disambiguate based on anything other than title conflicts is nonsense. We disambiguate ONLY because titles map directly to urls, and urls must be unique. If our titles did not map directly to urls, then multiple articles could all have the same title, if that was the most appropriate title for each of those articles. To bring into consideration supposed "conflicts" with topics that don't even have articles on WP is absurd. --В²C ☎ 17:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "nonsense" is not a productive characterization of the position of those who disagree with you. You are violating your pledge to stop doing that. Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"We", as in Wikipedia, not the B2C philosophy of minimalist titling, title articles so that they are recognizable to interested readers, and as necessarily follows, not misrecognizable to readers looking for something else. This is also espoused in the "precise" criterion. B2C's contention that only extant articles are considered in titling algorithms is to poorly assume that readers are familiar with the set of all articles, or at least with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, something so clearly false even just looking at Wikipedia editors active at AfD. B2C's position is not suitable for Wikipedia because an important aim of Wikipedia is to make included information easily accessible to as wide an audience as possible. This means that assumptions of a minimum reader proficiency in understanding what topics are include are to be rejected. If any reasonable reader is likely to be misled by an imprecise title, then in the interests of the readership, the title should be more precise.
In this case, the two titles are too easily confused with each other, and should be meaningfully disambiguated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What on Earth are you talking about? There has never been a requirement or even a goal to make TITLES recognizable to anyone besides those who are familiar with the topic in question. If multiple topics all have the same commonly used name, and all are recognizable by that name to those who are familiar with each respective topic, then the recognizability criterion is met if the same title is used for all of the articles. The reason we don't do that has nothing to do with reducing confusion, and everything to do with the direct connection between titles and urls, the latter of which must be unique. That's all there is to it. That's all there ever was to it. If it wasn't for the url restriction, then both the state and the country could each have the title Georgia. The city, the stopper and the flora could all have the title Cork. And so on. And there would be no confusion, because titles are referenced in context. If I'm wrong about that, then produce a context in which these two titles, or any two same-name titles, could be confused. Just because we have to disambiguate due to the url conflict situation does not mean we have to make up reasons to disambiguate or describe topics in further detail in their TITLES than is necessary to resolve the url conflict issue. --В²C ☎ 02:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly everything you said is wrong. The two titles being discussed here are one example of a pair mix up that could confuse readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HOW??? You asserting it's wrong does not make it so. Please explain exactly how any user could be confused by two articles having the same title. Are Brittanica readers confused by Cork and Cork? Or by Moscow and Moscow? Hare and Hare? You know why there is no internet banter at all about the confusion with Britannica using the same titles for articles with topics that have the same names? Because it causes no confusion. Nor would it on WP. But we can't do it here because our titles map directly to the url. But if identical titles don't cause problems there, then almost identical titles would not cause problems here. Stop trying to enforce imaginary concerns which have zero basis in reality in order to justify a rather bizarre fetish with so-called "recognizable" titles. --В²C ☎ 06:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
B2C: What are you talking about? Britannica does disambiguate article titles with the same names. Notice the actual webpage titles shown in the browser tabs:
  • Cork (Ireland)
  • cork (plant anatomy)
  • Moscow (Idaho, United States)
  • Moscow (national capital, Russia)
  • Hare (people)
  • hare (mammal)
One difference I do see between Wikipedia and Britannica when it comes to the in-page title is that we tend to place the disambiguator parenthetically after the title whereas they tend to place the disambiguator non-parenthetically below it as a subtitle. Either way, Britannica clearly felt it necessary to include it, despite there being no "technical necessity" to do so, presumably in order to try to avoid confusion for the reader. We sensibly do the same. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huwmanbeing (talk · contribs), those short summary descriptions are not part of the Britannica article titles. Look for example at their New York City. Even though that is not ambiguous, the short summary description is still there ("New York, United States"), and so are alternate titles: "New Amsterdam; New Orange; New York". We have short descriptions under our titles too. We call them leads. Those are necessary. There is no dispute about that. The issue is about whether there is any need, or even any benefit, to include such descriptions as part of the title. The answer is clear: there is no need nor even a benefit in doing so. That emperor has no clothes.

As far as what is shown in the browser tabs - let's not confuse webpage titles with article titles. We're talking about the latter here. On WP, the webpage title happens to be the article title plus the string "- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". For example, the webpage title displayed in the browser tab for this article is Keep On Keepin' On - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - that's not the article title, and on Britannica the webpage title is not the article title either. Some browsers don't even display that technical artifact, and even on the ones that do, they tend to be visible with more and smaller-sized tabs. Again, nobody complains about the "confusing" article titles on Britannica, even though they are often ambiguous, and it's not because they include some extra descriptive info in the relatively obscure webpage title, because that is often not even visibly displayed. --В²C ☎ 17:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B2C: No one complains about Britannica's titles being confusing because Britannica takes pains to accompany both its page titles and article titles with disambiguators (or even more broadly, clarifiers). They do this despite not having a "technical" need to do so. This runs counter to your rather odd claim that technical limitation is the only reason why one would not give all homographic subjects identical titles.
For instance: the page titles of all of Britannica's articles on "Moscow" could simply have been "Moscow | Encyclopedia Britannica". There's no apparent technical reason they couldn't be. However, Britannica instead gives the pages the titles "Moscow (Idaho, United States)", "Moscow (national capital, Russia)", and the like. I think that's quite interesting and significant.
As for Britannica's in-page article titles, they are also often accompanied by disambiguators: for instance, five different articles about Paris. Each title is accompanied by a subtitle that disambiguates it from the others.
You strangely call these "leads", but I think you may misunderstand that term. The lead is the entire introductory section of an article. (See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section) A disambiguator accompanying the title that consists merely of the words "fictional character" or "Texas, United States" is clearly not the lead. (The fact that these disambiguators are also incorporated into Britannica's page titles, and even in the same parenthetical form that Wikipedia uses, reinforces that they associate to the title.) ╠╣uw [talk] 19:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one other point: you dismiss the page's <title> as a mere "technical artifact", but please note that these titles are what search engines like Google capture and use as their large, bold, primary links. (Example for britannica.com.) Far from being obscure, the page title winds up being arguably one of the most important and visible pieces of any article. Which presumably is why they include proper disambiguation. :-) ╠╣uw [talk] 19:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Despite countless requests for an example of where our titles are used without context like this, this is the first time anyone has ever actually provided one. However... well, I'll get to that in a moment. When I referred to a "lead" above, I was talking about the leads of our articles. Specifically, I said "We have short descriptions under our titles too. We call them leads.". I was not referring to Britannica subtitles as "leads". But they serve a similar function, which brings me back to the however. Look at the Google results for a search for Keep On Keepin' On restricted to WP — what I'm calling the "lead" (meaning more or less the lead sentence of the lead paragraph of the article) is displayed with each result, serving a similar function to what the Britannica subtitle does - it tells the user which use each one is. So impressive as your example is, it does not actually favor making the titles more distinctive or more descriptive; such a change serves no practical purpose in the context of Google results, or anywhere else. I mean, there it is clear as day anyway...
  • Keep On Keepin' On is the twelfth studio album by the country rock band the New Riders of the Purple Sage.
  • "Keep On, Keepin' On" is a single by MC Lyte featuring Xscape from the Sunset Park soundtrack.
  • Keep On Keeping On may refer to ...
  • Keep On Keepin' On is a 1993 album by the Chuck Wagon Gang.
Making the titles more distinctive or more descriptive would be redundant at best, and arguably would make these results look more clunky and less useful. But in no way is a more distinctive or more descriptive title more beneficial.

Now, you started with the following claim: "No one complains about Britannica's titles being confusing because Britannica takes pains to accompany both its page titles and article titles with disambiguators (or even more broadly, clarifiers)." Well, in those terms, WP "takes pains" (I dispute that it's a "pain" for them or us - but that's your term) to accompany lead information or other information (depending on the context) along with titles so that even very similar titles don't cause confusion. I've just shown you how this works in the context of Google results. The same thing happens in the context of WP search results. And in the context of article references, well, the editor provides whatever information is appropriate. So, practically speaking, in no context does the lack of distinction or description in the title cause confusion. Adding information to a title in order to improve distinction or descriptiveness is a solution to a problem that does not exist in practice. This literally bold statement is a fact, not opinion, that would be refutable with specific counter-examples if it weren't a fact. --В²C ☎ 23:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another place where the article titles are used without context is in the Wikipedia search function. Only the article names appear there, so having a more descriptive article title would be of some use to readers there. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Yes, I always forget about that because I personally never use that feature (and it's relatively new). That doesn't mean others don't use it (though I suspect most search via Google). But this is not another place where article titles are used without context; it's the only place. Is it worth adding all that clutter to so many titles just to make this one feature a bit more useful? --В²C ☎ 00:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
B2C: Sorry, but your bold statement is already refuted by the very example you introduced: Encyclopedia Britannica.

You claim that a lack of distinction between identical article titles causes no confusion in any context; that distinguishing between them is in no way beneficial; that doing so would be solving a problem that does not exist in practice. Yet in practice we see that encyclopedias like Britannica nonetheless choose to clearly distinguish such titles by adding disambiguation in various contexts — again despite there being no technical need for them to do so. This suggests that adding what you call "distinction or descriptiveness" to otherwise ambiguous titles does indeed serve a purpose. You are of course free to say otherwise as much as you wish, but I'm afraid this point is nevertheless quite clear.

Anyway, in the interests of staying focused on the merits of this particular RM it might be better to avoid going a whole lot deeper into the weeds; however, doing so in a broader forum might be interesting. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huwmanbeing (talk · contribs), we are not off into the weeds. We're discussing the fundamental general underlying reasons for moving or not moving this article. You are confusing article titles with contexts in which the article titles are presented. Britannica does not add anything to the article title - the title remains the name of the article topic. In some contexts, like in webpage titles, they add additional information. That's not adding it to the article title. And in contexts where webpage titles matter, like in your Google results example, the WP setup also provides additional information, as snippets of the leads. But we've been over this already.

The point remains, slightly clarified. Adding information to a WP article title in order to improve distinction or descriptiveness is a solution to a problem that does not exist in any actual context in practice, except maybe with title completion in WP search, a relatively new feature that hardly justifies changing how we title our articles (especially considering how rarely it's ever mentioned as the reason for changing any title, including this one). This bold statement is a fact, not opinion, that would be refutable with specific counter-examples if it weren't a fact. Some people just like more descriptive titles. It's a personal preference. But liking something is not a good reason to change, and changing for no good reason is a violation of WP:TITLECHANGES --В²C ☎ 17:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B2C knows some vocabulary, but just doesn't make credible sense. It is a huge time sink to address his points, and it is to no end, as his view is entrenched. With much effort, we may at best clarifying some confused communication. If anyone is persuaded by B2C's posts, it may be productive to engage with them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), I even put my one point in bold (the rest is explanatory context to reduce the chance of misunderstanding) and you still refer to "his points" and claim "confused communication" and "much effort" as your justification for dodging it? --В²C ☎ 19:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that bolded text is "one point", jeez indeed. It included multiple scattered clauses. It includes that same foolish "does not ... in any ... except" absolutism negated in the next breath that I told you about months ago on your talk page. And whatever it is, it is not fact, it not citable to a realiable source, you still seem to think that your own headstrong opinion constitutes "fact". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 25 December 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keep_On_Keepin%27_On_(New_Riders_of_the_Purple_Sage_album)&oldid=1211222486"