Talk:Days to Come (album)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 31 July 2018[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: pages moved as requested per the discussion below, though I've only heard the Bonobo album myself. Dekimasuよ! 20:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
– There is also Days to Come (EP). This title should be made a dab. The editor whose username is Z0 11:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support' move Days to Come (disambiguation) to baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. This is a WP:TWODABS situation and Days to Come (EP) is a brand new article. This could be reconsidered after a track record is established. Station1 (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Station1: why do you think there is a primary topic when the page currently at the base name may not even pass the notability criteria (as it doesn't have significant coverage)? The editor whose username is Z0 06:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- If it doen't meet notability criteria it should be taken to AfD. But as long as it's here, there is no benefit to readers in having them land on a dab page instead of an article, where they can click on a hatnote if necessary. Station1 (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe they should land on the EP's page then because it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? The editor whose username is Z0 06:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have no objection to that if you can somehow show it's the primary topic. Station1 (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've added more entries to the disambiguation page. Is that good enough for you to reconsider your !vote? The editor whose username is Z0 08:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely not. Dab pages are not search engines. Please see MOS:DAB. If the Bonobo album might not be notable, certainly none of those other entries are (aside from the fact that some are partial title matches) and should not preempt the search engine. It's clear that there are at most two notable topics titled "Days to Come" on WP, so a dab page is at best unnecessary and at worst misleading. Station1 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Recent discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_25#High on Life and WT:DAB#Without an article suggest just two or three entries are needed to start a disambiguation page regardless of whether the entry has a Wikipedia article or not. The editor whose username is Z0 17:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- There are zero articles on WP titled "High on Life", so there should not be a dab page. It only interferes with the search engine, which is far more accurate and up to date than a dab page. Station1 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- The RFD for that page resulted in disambiguate even when there are zero articles titled "High on Life". The argument that a dab shouldn't be created if it does not consist of 2 or more articles whose titles match the dab term, is not supported by consensus and MOS:DABMENTION. The editor whose username is Z0 04:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- There are zero articles on WP titled "High on Life", so there should not be a dab page. It only interferes with the search engine, which is far more accurate and up to date than a dab page. Station1 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Recent discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_25#High on Life and WT:DAB#Without an article suggest just two or three entries are needed to start a disambiguation page regardless of whether the entry has a Wikipedia article or not. The editor whose username is Z0 17:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely not. Dab pages are not search engines. Please see MOS:DAB. If the Bonobo album might not be notable, certainly none of those other entries are (aside from the fact that some are partial title matches) and should not preempt the search engine. It's clear that there are at most two notable topics titled "Days to Come" on WP, so a dab page is at best unnecessary and at worst misleading. Station1 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've added more entries to the disambiguation page. Is that good enough for you to reconsider your !vote? The editor whose username is Z0 08:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have no objection to that if you can somehow show it's the primary topic. Station1 (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe they should land on the EP's page then because it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? The editor whose username is Z0 06:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- If it doen't meet notability criteria it should be taken to AfD. But as long as it's here, there is no benefit to readers in having them land on a dab page instead of an article, where they can click on a hatnote if necessary. Station1 (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Station1: why do you think there is a primary topic when the page currently at the base name may not even pass the notability criteria (as it doesn't have significant coverage)? The editor whose username is Z0 06:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- It used to be understood that DABMENTION referred to occasional entries of notable topics on already existing dab pages. The example used to be "tail" which led to empennage and comet, which each had substantial information about a notable topic that could conceivably have its own article titled "tail" but was included in another article instead (comet tail actually was split off since then). Ironically, as the search engine has greatly improved over the years, many editors think adding non-notable songs that are barely mentioned in an album article is useful. But anyone can use the constantly updated search engine. They might be more interested in the non-notable blog by TourRadar actually called "Days to Come" (not on the dab page) than the Turkish film you indirectly linked to on the dab page, but which actually has an article titled To Better Days. I think the search engine is better. Station1 (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- You may want to share your opinion at WT:DAB to allow further discussion on the matter so that some kind of rule or guideline can be established to clear doubts. Creating a disambiguation page based on just "non-notable" entries seems to be accepted by the community. The editor whose username is Z0 08:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- It used to be understood that DABMENTION referred to occasional entries of notable topics on already existing dab pages. The example used to be "tail" which led to empennage and comet, which each had substantial information about a notable topic that could conceivably have its own article titled "tail" but was included in another article instead (comet tail actually was split off since then). Ironically, as the search engine has greatly improved over the years, many editors think adding non-notable songs that are barely mentioned in an album article is useful. But anyone can use the constantly updated search engine. They might be more interested in the non-notable blog by TourRadar actually called "Days to Come" (not on the dab page) than the Turkish film you indirectly linked to on the dab page, but which actually has an article titled To Better Days. I think the search engine is better. Station1 (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Both entities seem relatively obscure and hard to pick a definitive primary between them. — Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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.