Talk:Underworld 1992–2002

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: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

---

1992–2002 → Underworld 1992–2002 – Another example of playing hide the artist, over zealous application of a guideline WP:SONGDAB at the expense of policy WP:AT RECOGNIZABILITY. A subtitle for a compilation like "1992–2002" never occurs as a standalone self sufficient title like a standalone album Underneath the Radar, Change the Weather or Beaucoup Fish. A compilation by definition is a collection based on the name of the band. Usually it occurs in sources together with band name SPIN March 2004 - Page 94 "Underworld, 1992-2002 These guys have long been techno's most aesthetically ambitious populists." CMJ New Music Report - 17 Nov 2003 - Page 8 "UNDERWORLD 1992-2002 After years of rocking our heads off to dance music of all types, the realization has come about that the only act that never wears thin is Underworld." even in Billboard the name of the band is actually repeated in the album title cover "1992–2002"&hl Top Electronic Albums Chart.. UNDERWORLD: Underworld 1992-2002. WP:SONGDAB really needs editing to state that a subtitle such as for a compilation "FOOBAND The Absolute Best" "FOOBAND Acoustic Live 2012" "FOOBAND The B-sides Vol.II" is not a standalone authorial title and requires the name of the band to be recognisable. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Note also 1992–2012 The Anthology (another version of the same Underworld album with a 3rd extra CD), Stars: The Best of 1992–2002, The Best of N-Trance 1992–2002, Grandes Exitos: 1992–2002, Gold Stars 1992–2002: The Juliana Hatfield Collection and redirect 1992-2002 (Piknik album) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Again, we cannot make up album titles. If the name of this album is "1992-2002", then that's the name of the album. If nothing else around WP is called that, or is a likely search string for anything, then it's fine as a standalone title. Dohn joe (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As above it isn't "made up", it is in sources, and Billboard calls it "1992–2002"&hl Top Electronic Albums Chart.. UNDERWORLD: Underworld 1992-2002 with the artist twice, so evidently Billboard don't consider deleting the artist name helps Billboard readers. But anyway, we'll see what broader participation here brings. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see CMJ New Music Report, Hemp 101, FutureMusic, etc. The title of the album is clearly "1992-2002" without the band name. Dohn joe (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Dohn joe, as with many of your oppose !votes in RMs to clearer titling I don't understand whom your oppose !vote benefits. If 1992-2002 still exists as a redirect it will go to Underworld 1992–2002 anyway, so whom does your oppose benefit? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Rename to something. The links provided convince me that the proposed name would be acceptable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support WP:CRITERIA -- title not recognizable, WP:ASTONISH. The period 1992-2002 has meaning in US politics, with regular scheduled biennial and quadrennial elections -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  I would find it far more WP:ASTONISHing and much less WP:RECOGNIZABLE to find an album article at an incorrect title. And do you seriously believe that there will ever be a 1992-2002 (random period in U.S. politics) article? Are you saying that any period from 1776-the present ending in even numbers is a likely search term for anyone? Dohn joe (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  The span 1992-2002 does correspond to the tenure in office of Nguyễn Thị Bình, former Vice President of Vietnam. I do contend that for any span of years, some serious historian could construct a meaninful rationale for considering that span an historical period. Xoloz (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support I feel a little personally invested in this one. Had I found the article titled "1992-2002", 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) 15:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  Please see my response to your post at Talk:1982-2000. Hopefully I made sense over there...! Dohn joe (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Mild oppose as it seems that this album might be occasionally referred to as proposed. But there is no logical target for this current link other than this album, which means we'd be foolish to move it, right? Red Slash 08:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Why? We have Hurricane redirecting to a better title, why shouldn't 1992–2002 redirect to a better title at Underworld 1992–2002? What is the downside of adding the artist name to (1) those looking for this album, (2) those not looking for this album. I proposed this RM because I believe this change will make life easier for group (1) and group (2). You haven't shown me any reason to think that the change will make life more difficult for (1) or (2). Please explain what you see the downside is. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Analogy fail. Hurricane is a type of Tropical cyclone (hurricanes are covered in that article, which is why Hurricane redirects there, but that article is not only about hurricanes, it is about all kinds of tropical cyclones, including but not only hurricanes). 1992-2002 is not a type of Underworld 1992–2002 - it refers to the exact same topic. --В²C ☎ 23:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Answer fail, please if you're going to answer questions asked of other editors then answer the question. No one has yet answered the question "Please explain what you see the downside is" to give any reason why redirecting the change will make life anything but easier for (1) or (2). As to Hurricane that's nitpicking, but if you want another example then see Harusame below. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. If the article isn't about the period in history 1992-2002 then it requires disambiguation. Zarcadia (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Zarcadia. For very very generic titles like "Acoustic Live 2012" the band name really is part of the recognizable title; Wikipedia should use the version other high-quality souces use to disambiguate, which will almost always be the band title. SnowFire (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Zarcadia. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per per User:Born2cycle/UNDAB. Titles are only supposed to be recognizable to those familiar with the subject area, otherwise we'd have to change the vast majority of our titles. --В²C ☎ 23:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I really think that many editors who contribute to article space would like that essay WP:UNDAB to follow the former WP:YOGHURTRULE essay into user space. Familiar with the subject area means general area, we have no guideline that says that a compilation product built around an artist as the main notable feature should be indecipherable except to diehard fans of a particular pop group and unrecognizable and misleading to every other user. And as you know from repeatedly arguing against consensus at WP:USPLACE we do have many project and case based exceptions to the extreme brevity at all costs "rule", which is no rule. I cite again the example of Harusame redirect, a perfectly good redirect to Japanese destroyer Harusame (1937) a standard format adopted by WP SHIPS to enable WP SHIPS editors to avoid the constant jockeying for the prize of unrecognizable title that affects pop music titles so badly on en.wp. Does this article criteria pass all 5 of WP:CRITERIA? Yes or No, obviously No as you admitted with another year title, so why not make it fit all 5 of WP:CRITERIA with a simple redirect. There is only upside for readers from this redirect to (album) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing new here. This is all addressed at WP:UNDAB. I will not engage in pointless repetitive arguing with you. --В²C ☎ 18:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

While your essay at WP:UNDAB may be helpful in some cases, it doesn't help us here IMO. Inclined to agree it should be userfied. Andrewa (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Current title is not recognisable without detailed knowledge of the subject. If current guidelines and policies leave any doubt as to these moves, then the guidelines etc need to change. Andrewa (talk) 00:52, 26 June 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 1992–2002 by itself is distinctive.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, several editors above think that the current guidelines indicate just that, so I guess we need to plead WP:IAR for now and tidy up the guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support, the primary topic of the phrase "1992-2002" is the period of years itself. bd2412 T 15:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. A review of the listed sources shows this the current title to be the subject's common name, and there's no real challenge to that. There aren't any other articles that conceivably could be called "1992-2002" (there's not an article on the years), the "(Underworld album)" serves no disambiguation purpose and fails the WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, and WP:NATURAL elements of the article titles criteria.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose (duplicate) per User:Born2cycle/UNDAB and WP:COMMONNAME. 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 ☎ 17:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC) strike out duplicate !vote --В²C ☎ 06:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @В²C. I think you should change your name to Born2VoteTwice. You certainly have here. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Doh! (thanks!) --В²C ☎ 06:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No problem, it confirms that you are not reading what others are saying ;) --Richhoncho (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Or I could suggest that all these RMs for albums by year dates are confusing and I understand why anybody would get confused with which one they had commented on. Just to help you, this is the Underworld album. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
          • That's exactly what happened. I got confused. In my defense, a week had gone by between my two !votes, and I had forgotten the first one. I did the second one as part of a copy/paste session to all four. Hm. I wonder if I had previously !votes in any of the other three? They should have all been submitted in one RM. --В²C ☎ 18:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Naked date ranges look like they refer to date ranges, and so this title will be widely misrecognised. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  How? In what context will this title be widely misrecognized? Dohn joe (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992-2002 which is produced by hovering, looks like a date range.

Someone taking care to check links before uploading pages may have no idea that the subject is what it actually is.

"In the Wikipedia article 1992-2002, fact X is asserted in relation to subject Y"

In an external reference to this specific article (now we do anticipate downstream uses of Wikipedia, don't we?), the reference to this article is grossly insufficient with respect to having the title identify the subject.

Some peoples' opinion, that a title need only be unique with respect to existing Wikipedia articles, ignoring the set of possible Wikipedia articles, ignoring the set of subjects that readers might not know are not currently reasonable Wikipedia articles, is to assume readers have considerable knowledge of Wikipedia, and therefore fails to fit the projects mission to make information freely, easily and widely available to as many people as possible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 3 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.