Talk:1983–1991

Untitled

02:59, 18 August 2008‎ Leamanc Created page 1983–1991 (album)

18:24, 11 November 2011‎ Tassedethe (moved 1983–1991 (album) to 1983–1991: no need for dab)

Requested move

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: no consensus. Numbers roughly split with good arguments on both sides, but again the arguments are fundamentally interpretation of policy and I don't think there is any way for a closing admin to adjudicate that either side is 'more correct' and hence has a stronger argument, so my conclusion is that there is no consensus. Discussion also seems to have petered out several weeks ago and the chances of any new editors participating seems vanishingly small. Proposed title created as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

---

1983–1991 → This Mortal Coil 1983–1991 – WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and also the only Google Book source: CD Review Digest Volume 7, 1994 Page 615 "THIS MORTAL COIL: This Mortal Coil, 1983-1991. Elizabeth Fraser; Robin Guthrie; Howard Devoto; Kim Deal (voc); Tanya Donnelly (voc); others. 4AD 45135 4 discs ...". Compilation albums such as His Very Best are not standalone products but subtitles for singers and bands and require the singer/band to mean anything. WP:AT The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists, in this case not even fans of the band would recognize it. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Please include all the Google Books results when basing one's argument on Google Books results:

1983-1991:

1. The Great Indie Discography
2. All Music Guide
3. All Music Guide to Rock
4. La Croche Lune
5. The Trouser Press Guide to 90's Rock
6. Schwann Spectrum

vs.

This Mortal Coil: 1983-1991:

1. CD Review Digest

The band name is omitted from 6 of 7 Google Books results. We should follow suit, per WP:AT. Dohn joe (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

These are simply catalogue listings and the artist name is included. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Whereas the CD Review Digest entry is.... Dohn joe (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dohn joe. At what point can we say these requests are pointy? Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 20:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Calidum, at the point when the wider community of editors stop supporting them probably. Remember also that from 2008‎ to 2011 the article had (album). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support The "precision" criterion suggests that the title should be specific enough to indicate the topic." It is beyond belief that anybody could think 1983–1991 by itself is distinctive. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support, the primary topic of the phrase "1983-1991" is the period of years itself. bd2412 T 15:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per User:Born2cycle/UNDAB. This is the name of this topic, as referenced in reliable sources. This is therefore the ideal and recognizable title for this topic. There is no argument based in policy or convention to change this title. It's a violation of WP:TITLECHANGES, really, as no good reason (based in policy or convention) has been given to change it. No one has invoked IAR either, much less provided a good reason for ignoring our rules. And ignoring our rules is exactly what this frivolous proposal is all about. And, no, it's not frivolous because I oppose it. It's frivolous because it's not supported by policy or convention. --В²C ☎ 17:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support I feel a little personally invested in this one. Had I found the article titled "1983-1991", I would have clicked on it, wondering aloud, "What possible historical significance could such a periodization have?" Upon discovering that it was merely the title of an album I've never heard of, nor ever would want to hear of, I would have felt misled, my time wasted. I am someone who cares deeply about history, and the art of conceptualizing it; at the same, I care little for obscure music. I would be one of the victims of this current title, robbed of my valuable time by a hopelessly confusing name. Analysis of guidelines is not necessary for me on this one (though WP:ASTONISH obtains.) I know the encyclopedia would be better if people like me were not misled. This is true for any range of dates that might serve as an album title. Xoloz (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's not underestimate the value of serendipitous learning. If that's the worst that occurs when people are astonished at landing up an article about an album after clicking on a date range, that's a plus in my book. Besides, in what context could that possibly occur? I can't imagine a likely context in which an album name could be used and still be confused with a date range. I mean, it might say something like, "...when they released their incredible album, 1983-1991...". Seems like a rather weak reason to ignore the guidelines. --В²C ☎ 18:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I value serendipitous learning. I also value controlling the use of my own time. You may consider it "a plus in your book" if I am confused by an article title. As most people would, I disagree, and am alarmed at the ease with which you condone my being misled. As to the questions regarding search context and likelihood, I have had that exchange with User:Dohn joe already at Talk:1979–1983. Xoloz (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Okay, then please serendipitously learn me. Please describe the scenario in which you would get confused by this title, but would not be confused if the title is moved as proposed (where the current title remains a redirect this article). --В²C ☎ 21:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support as the current title is not precise or recognizable; it is simply a range of years. In addition, the album cover clearly says "This Mortal Coil", then "1983-1991". Omnedon (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The claim that it is not precise is unsupportable. There is no proposal to create a dab page. If the proposal is supported, the existing title will continue to redirect to this same article, because it is precise. There is no other use on WP for this title.

    The claim that it is not recognizable is unsupportable. In practice, recognizability is measured in the context of those familiar with the topic. This is verifiable by a simple test: Just click on RANDOM repeatedly. Skip titles that are disambiguated due to necessity, and skip descriptive titles of topics that don't have names. You'll find title after title that consists of the topic's name which is recognizable only to those familiar with that article's topic. That's the convention. That's how we've always titled articles. The name of something is recognizable, by definition. This is no exception.

    This Mortal Coil is the name of the group; of course it's on the cover. That doesn't make it part of the name or title. --В²C ☎ 21:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

    • It's not precise or recognizable. This title could refer to anything. That there is not another subject with this title on Wikipedia is irrelevant. Titles must communicate something; they are not mere placeholders. Omnedon (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question: shouldn't the target have an endash rather than a hyphen? HandsomeFella (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support recognizability, and that English Wikipedia reserves four digit terms for years A.D. preferentially. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:CRITERIA: it's more concise (obviously), just as recognizable (anyone familiar with the subject area will immediately know what the article is regardless), more natural (obviously this is the more attested format), more consistent (most articles don't have disambiguators), and equally precise (there is only one possible topic that this title as it stands could describe, until and unless Miley Cyrus has a baby and names him "1983–1991" in an attempt to be weird). A tie in two, and a win in three out of five. Red Slash 07:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. As there aren't any other articles that could be titled "1983–1991", adding "This Mortal Coil" is unnecessary for disambiguation. Both the current and proposed titles are in use, but Dohn joe makes a good case that the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME between the two options. If this is the case, it fits better with the article title criteria. If it's really this much more common in the sources, then it better fits WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:NATURAL; it also clearly better fits WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE (in that it distinguishes the topic from other existing ones but is "no more precise than that").--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Cuchullain, the real problem with all these WP:COMMONNAME arguments is the applicability of WP:COMMONNAME to a "Greatest Hits" "Best of" "His very best" compilation. If we really believe that is the same thing then "1983-1991 (not This Mortal Coil 1983–1991)" or "At Her Best – Live (not "Roberta Flack at Her Very Best - Live") could be added to "Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)" and Lady Gaga (not: Stefani Germanotta) examples. Anyone arguing WP:COMMONNAME should be able to not just cite it but explain how "Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)" applies to "This Mortal Coil 1983–1991" rather than WP:AT "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists". In ictu oculi (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got a good point regarding common names, but so far the only evidence presented one way or the other has been Dohn joe's, and they've found 6 sources using the current title and only one using the proposed. If this is representative, it's a 6:1 ratio, a decisive case for common name. As far as putting the interest of the readers first, that's exactly why we use titles that are commonly used instead of those that are rarely used.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well that's the point isn't it I know I've got a good point so lets follow it. In 5 sources It's [[This Mortal Coil [space] 1983–1991] and in 2 [This Mortal Coil 1983–1991] without a gap. In 0 sources is it [This Mortal Coil 1983–1991], so why are we presenting a description of the media product found in 0 sources, why are we doing something no source would ever do.

WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to subtitles. It anyone believes it does then they should add "1983–1991" (not "This Mortal Coil 1983–1991" to WP:AT as an example alongside "Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)"

In fact if this RM decides "1983–1991" (not "This Mortal Coil 1983–1991") is covered by WP:COMMONNAME then I suggest we have an RFC on WP:AT to make it a concrete rule that the "Commonname" of a media compilation is the subtitle with what is being compiled deleted. Seriously. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In all of Dohn's 6 sources, the title is indeed given as "1983–1991" with "This Mortal Coil" used as the artist name. I really don't follow your point about subtitles. This isn't used as a subtitle in 6 of the 7 sources, and of course the WP:COMMONNAME policy applies to this and all article title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. A date range looks like it refers to a date range. Wikipedia articles are referred to widely, within and outside wikiepedia, by their urls. This title will obviously be misrecognised. Readers should not be expected to be conversant with subtle Wikipedia-specicific nuancing in titling that some regular editors may recognise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• A practical question to all the !supporters (except Xoloz - we've had this discussion already!). If this RM (and the other similar ones) passes, what do we do with 1983-1991? Redirect it to the album article, point it elsewhere, or remove it from WP space? Dohn joe (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• The redirect? It is unimportant. If it redirects to the CD box, it doesn't need to mean that it is a good title for the CD box. The point is that it is a bad title, and use of the character string as if it is a suitable title in an encyclopedia should be discouraged.

I suggest that the redirect should be deleted, every article incoming link fixed, and anyone who chooses to use it as a search query should be allowed to see the search results. The redirect interferes with he default search engine behaviour, preventing the searcher from seeing:

1. 1983–1991 is a four-CD box set of material by gothic rock supergroup This Mortal Coil , released in 1993 on the 4AD label The box set ...
2. Together Forever: Greatest Hits 1983–1991 is the first compilation album by Run–D.M.C.. It was released in 1991 and was complemented by a ...
3. Masqualero (1983-1991) was a Jazz band from Norway , originally named The Arild Andersen/Jon Christensen Quintet, but soon changed its ...
4. Glory years: 1983–1991 : Seven straight: 1983–1989: File:Stoppage in an AFL game. jpg | The Hawthorn-Essendon bitter rivalry started in the 1980 ...
5. James Blanchard , governor of the state of Michigan from 1983-1991 James Blanchard (scientist), Associate Professor of Community Health ...
6. November 3, 1933; Greek : Μιχαήλ Δουκάκης) served as the 65th and 67th Governor of Massachusetts , from 1975 to 1979 and 1983 to 1991 respectively. ...

The internal and external search engines are far more advanced, flexible, self-learning & adjustable than the editors who think they know what a searcher will always want should they search for some specific thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment (to be applied to the other current date-range RMs). Hopefully the closer of this and the other RMs will also have read the discussion at WT:AT on the subject, but if not, I wanted to add here the fact that both WP:AT and WP:DAB refer ultimately to the need to disambiguate only from other "subjects". These date ranges cannot be considered "subjects" of any article other than the album articles at issue. In other words, there is nothing to disambiguate from. I'd also like to point out WP:TITLECHANGES. Most, if not all, of these album article titles have been undisambiguated for most of their history on WP. Dohn joe (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• A great many time periods constitute articles, of course they can be considered subjects, especially in a historiological work such as an encyclopaedia. Having unimportant commercial product supplant logical titling is to forget what Wikipedia is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  I know of the ~45 date ranges which redirect to decade articles from 1600-present (e.g., 1710-1719, but I am aware of no other date range which is an article or a redirect to an article or even subsection of any article. The date ranges at issue in these RMs are not particularly special, and are extremely unlikely subjects for an article. Dohn joe (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

But the date ranges can be reasonably expected by an I suspicious reader to title a date range article. They can easily be misrecognized. Not disambiguation hurts these readers, as already explained to you. Disambiguating this album hurts no one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can help me understand, then - who are these unsuspecting readers? What is the likely scenario that sees them confused by 1983-1991? As far as I can tell, they will see it via wikilink in another article, where the context should be clear, or via external search engine result, where again, the context should be clear. Where will they run into 1983-1991 all by itself? Dohn joe (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

These unsuspecting readers could be anyone on the planet not already reading Wikipedia in the context of This Mortal Coil. Scenarios:

• Someone interested in search results #2-6, which I gave above
• Someone interested in search result #1, who would like some confidence that this is the right page before downloading it (for many readers, page downloads are not as easy as for others)
• There are reader an article that links to this page. They use the cursor to read the hover text. IT displays a date range, an imprecise reference for an album.
• They are reading something on another site that makes reference to something mentioned in this page, referencing according to the page title; but the page title looks like a historical period.
• That virtually no other page links to this article, except through a navigation template, and virtually no external publication will take interest in this particular page, are very poor reasons to let is have a more imporant looking title.

I've wondered why some people seem unable to comprehend the difficulties caused by imprecise titling, as compared to the non-issue for any reader in the page having a precise title? I'm guessing that it is because they are so narrowly obsessed with a single idea, that titles should be short (to save space in the index pages?), so much so that other concerns don't penetrate?

Is it the idea that titles need only be distinct in the set of extant Wikipedia titles, without reference to subjects possibly existing in the expectation of readers? If so, they are naval gazing, they are ignoring the real world, and thus risking disservice to the readership in the real world. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

My question was actually all about the real world. I still don't understand how, in the real world, any reader will come across 1983-1991 and not know what it's about. In all of your scenarios - internal search results, links from WP articles, external search results or websites - the context of 1983-1991 will be clear. I understand you believe otherwise, but can you find and show us a real-world example where a reasonable person would be confused?

As for titling in general, that's easy. If a topic has a commonly used name, that should be the title. If another topic has the same title, disambiguate it. It's not limited to currently existing WP articles, but it does require that the term at least be a subject of an article. Here, "1983-1991" is not, nor is it likely to be, the subject of any article - other than the album actually called "1983-1991". Again, if you believe otherwise, would you please find and show another article where "1983-1991" is a subject? If you can't find answers to either of these questions, then there is no real-world reader to harm. Dohn joe (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You've already ignored Xoloz's testimony. References to "1983-1991" will not always be clear. I've listed a number of other subjects that also make reference to the same, and even if there were none, "1983-1991" is ambiguous to the historical time space. Even in sources, there has been the need to disambiguate. Only when the context is already establish is there not. At the level of article title, context is not established. Natural disambiguation, used in sources, is available. The current title doesn't have a single advantage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually had a very interesting discussion with Xoloz. We've agreed to disagree, but I think I understand where they're coming from. I still don't think you and I are on the same page. Every thing you've listed - the search results, the links from WP articles or other websites - comes with context. You say, "At the level of article title, context is not established." But my question is: where, in the real world, does a WP title come without context? Where will you find 1983-1991 without the adjacent context that tells a reader what the article's about? Can you give me a real world example? Dohn joe (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe look at it the other way. You are arguing that a sufficient title is not needed because it is not notable enough to be referred to from an outside context? And if it is, whoever refers to it will take to the trouble to provide context, because the title is inadequate without context? You don't think that a Wikipedia article should ever be assumed to stand alone, to be published alone? To the extent that this is correct, it calls for this article to be merged. Indeed, it is a worthy article? The secondary source content is very this, is this a database or an encyclopedia? Shouldn't it, with the rest, be merged to This Mortal Coil discography? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, most of that (the notability part) is not what I'm arguing. The bit that comes closest to what I think is "You don't think that a Wikipedia article should ever be assumed to stand alone, to be published alone?" I think that is pretty true, by and large. More specifically, a WP title (with the wikilink "[[]]" attached) will almost never appear by itself, but always within some context. That is what I am asking for - a real-world example where you will find "1983-1991" - with the link to this article - and not have sufficient context to judge the content of the article. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. If 1983–1991 is to redirect to this article anyway, there is no need to move it to a longer and less common title. —  AjaxSmack  03:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• The redirect should be deleted. Multiple articles refer to 1983-1991. The search engine is far better qualified to help readers find what they want. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• But 1983–1991 is the most common name for this album and is the only topic at Wikipedia of that title. Why delete it? It would be like deleting "UK". —  AjaxSmack  05:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• The album is not the predominant association with "1983-1991". Delete the redirect because the search function does a very good job. A Wikipedia search generates results in multiple pages. A Wikipedia search for "UK" generates only connections to variations of "United Kingdom". UK is not a similar case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what "predominant association" means but encyclopedia articles are organised around the names of things and a search of "1983-1991" yields only one entity of that name. To say that someone seeking the Michael Dukakis article (an example you gave above from the search results) would search for "1983-1991" is farcical. (UK, on the other hand, is also University of Kentucky among other things.) —  AjaxSmack  03:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• "encyclopedia articles are organised around the names of things". What an odd idea. Elsewhere in this project, articles are organised around topics, and titles title the topics.

Not farcical is that someone might be interesting in browsing historical treatises by time period, and would be misled by the misleading title "1983–1991". Anyone searching "1983–1991" will immediately have it presented as one of the top few hits. However, it is an obscure topic, barely notable, if, and it is highly unreasonable to believe that many will search this way for this topic. Most of the few interested would (and should) use "mortal coil" as part of the search query. But titles are not primarily there to be searched for. They are not even particularly good to be searched for. Instead, titles are primarily there to be the really big prominent text at the top of the first page. Try Print/export ... Download as PDF, and see how the title has extraordinary prominence. The title is what you read before deciding whether there is any more than you want to read. Collate multiple articles, and see that only the title makes it to the table of contents. On-line, most links do not reliably communicate anything about the link beyond the title, and so it is important that this information is useful

Do you mean to suggest that there are readers, perhaps within the University of Kentucky, who do not know that UK usually stands for the United Kingdom? I suggest that there are many readers everywhere who would be astonished that Wikipedia editors think that they should not be surprised that "1983–1991" unambiguously refers to a Mortal Coil album. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Topics are things and, beyond the album, "1983-1991" is neither. I don't know what "browsing historical treatises by time period" in the context of Wikipedia means but, as far as being misled, I am misled by silverfish (which is neither silver nor a fish) but that is no reason to move the article to silverfish (small gray insect) and then delete the silverfish link so that readers will instead have to browse links to various fish that are silver. The article text, not the title, is the point of elucidation. (And, no, I don't suggest that UK grads are unaware of the other more notable UK. That is why UK is a redirect to the primary topic and not a redlink.) —  AjaxSmack  22:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• You are probably right about silverfish misleading audiences not familiar with the insect. Silverfish (disambiguation) should occupy the title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the difference between a silverfish and 1983-1991 is illustrated by 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, This Mortal Coil 1983–1991 is a subtitle relative to Mortal-Coil-time, not an original album, not a comment on 1983-1991 itself. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2014 (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.