Jump to content

Talk:Torres (album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:TORRES (Album))

Move?

[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. 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: page moved. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]



TORRES (Album)Torres (album) – Unless it can be proved that 'TORRES' is an acronym. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Against Changing i created this article with the title in "all caps" because that is the manner in which the album is titled on the artist's website, as well as several other websites in the reference list. In order to make the change, there needs to be a good reason, which has not yet been demonstrated. the article was created with the current capitalization, and changing it should require convincing evidence as to the reason. Stomachworm88 (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC) I suppose that now, having read the rules for capitalization on MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, i support this move. though according to WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, "the artist or record label's website may be acceptable sources," and according to this artist's website, the capitalization should remain as is.[reply]
I don`t think that is necessary since moving this article would not affect the AFD in any way.--174.95.109.219 (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2013 (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.

Sources and notability

[edit]
  • Reliability of source is not clear. Specifically, it's unclear if there is any editorial content for this link which might qualify it as a "news blog" or or if it's just a blog-type entry being hosted on this web site.
  • In-depth coverage of the artist
  • Trivial coverage of the album
  • Several years ago inyourspeakers.com was considered a "spam" URL
  • Reliability of source is not clear. Specifically, it's unclear if there is any editorial content for this link which might qualify it as a "news blog" or if it's just a blog-type entry being hosted on this web site. It bills itself as a blog. See http://prettymuchamazing.com/site/about
  • In-depth review of this album
  • Reliability of source is not clear. Specifically, it's unclear if there is any editorial content for this link which might qualify it as a "news blog" or if it's just a blog-type entry being hosted on this web site. It bills itself as an online magazine. See http://www.noripcord.com/about
  • Modest amount of coverage of the artist
  • Modest amount of coverage of the album
  • Reliability of source is not clear. Specifically, it's unclear if there is any editorial content for this link which might qualify it as a "news blog" or if it's just a blog-type entry being hosted on this web site. It bills itself as an online publication. See http://beatsperminute.com/about/
  • In-depth review of this album
  • Reliability of source is not clear. Specifically, it's unclear if there is any editorial content for this link which might qualify it as a "news blog" or if it's just a blog-type entry being hosted on this web site.
  • In-depth review of this album
  • Capsule album review put up by someone with a GMAIL address, likely indicating zero editorial control. Not "significant coverage" in any case.
  • Reliability of source is not clear. Specifically, it's unclear if there is any editorial content for this link which might qualify it as a "news blog" or if it's just a blog-type entry being hosted on this web site.
  • Album review with moderate to significant depth
  • Reliability of source is not clear.
  • Minimal coverage.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]