Talk:Four of Diamonds

Move reverted

14:56, 22 May 2019‎ DarkGlow talk contribs‎ m 14,481 bytes 0‎ DarkGlow moved page Four of Diamonds (band) to Four of Diamonds (group): They are a group; not a band

While it might seem that we do use (girl group) and (musical group) where band members do not play instruments, the fact remains that Four of Diamonds do perform as a band with instruments and are therefore by default a (band) in Wikipedia terms. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See general agreement below to dispense with the qualifier and title this article with the base name as requested. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  20:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Four of Diamonds (band) → Four of Diamonds – Four of Diamonds is currently a redirect to an article on cards. DarkGlow (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  21:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  20:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• @DarkGlow, Timrollpickering, and In ictu oculi: queried Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Discuss this first as the destination is currently a redirect to elsewhere. Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• I have reverted to Four of Diamonds (band), we don't use (group) unless a very good reason, and in any case if proposing a RM, do it from the original stable location. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:RM#Commenting in a requested move
Support Comment: Four of Diamonds, as it stands, is currently a redirect, rather than a standalone article. Therefore, it makes more sense to change the name and place a disambiguation link at the head of the article. – DarkGlow (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Standard 52-card deck is probably the primary topic for this and almost every other card. Those hatnotes are terrible however and I would prefer to not add to them. Maybe a dab page at Four of Diamonds would be better. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pretty obscure band against common term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I'd be fine with a DAB here but I don't think the band is clearly primary (especially per PT#2), aside from that I'd note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four of Diamonds (band) there was consensus to redirect but its been re created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: The article was recreated because under WP:MUSIC, they qualify under points 1, 4 and 12 – DarkGlow (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Weak support per WP:DIFFCAPS since the card game topic, Four of diamonds is already a redirect to Standard 52-card deck and the band is the only usage of the upper case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As obscure as this band is, consider the hypothetical user searching with "Four of Diamonds". Of course anyone actually searching with that term will be looking for the band, and not the card. Seriously. --В²C ☎ 00:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, a recently created local commercial enterprise must not be allowed to steal the name of something very well known. They are using the name for its pre-entrenched mental recognition, and giving them the base name is an aspect of promotion. The card has way longer long term significance. As a scholarly work, this article is better served by a precise title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Support DAB page for "Four of Diamonds". For the vast majority of readers, they know the card, and will be astonished to land on some barely (if) notable band. All readers benefit from precise titles, and none benefit from inadequate titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. My research shows that, to my surprise, the band (which I'd never heard of) is the clear primary topic for the exact phrase, for example the 29 of the first 30 google hits (and 5 of hits 31-40) are about the band; of those that are not about the band 2 are about about a non-notable PR agency (including the only one of the first 30) and only one is related to the playing card (and then not directly, as the topic is cribbage strategy not the card itself). A hatnote to the playing card should of course be added after the move. Contrary to SmokeyJoe, it would be an NPOV violation to select the primary topic based on whether the topic is a commercial enterprise or not. Long-term significance is something to consider when choosing between two similarly prominent topics, not when there is a clear 34:0.5 out of 40 bias. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hatnotes are an admission that the title is inadequate, imprecise and likely to attract false recognition. The hatnote will be a bigger detraction from the product than the parenthetical disambiguate in the title. Probably billions know what is “the four of diamonds”. This recently formed band has no long term significance. Google ngram shows the primary topic, the playing card, has a huge history and presence. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Hatnotes are an admission that the title is inadequate eh!? That's possibly the most bizarre assertion regarding hatnotes I've ever read. Hatnotes are simply an acknowledgement that there is one or more other uses of a term related to the current article is not primary. By your logic articles such as London, Donald Trump, Country, AC/DC, Microsoft Windows and NBC are "inadequately titled, imprecise and likely to attract false recognition". Long term significance is only a minor consideration when determining article titles - it's not one of the 5 aspects listed at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, indeed it isn't mentioned at all at WP:AT. At WP:PRIMARYTOPIC long-term significance is the second of the two methods listed (after usage), that page also notes "While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative." Per all the available evidence the current primary use of the term is overwhelmingly the band - just because it wasn't before the band was formed is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • You've never considered that hatnotes, occupying prime real estate on the article second only to the title, is a detraction from the article? Give it a little more thought then. Suppose that some other document you've produced has to being immediately top and centre, just below the title, with other possible uses. Compare that with the current title that is WP:PRECISE and therefore needs no rescue mechanism for the readers who did not want this obscure band, and can format itself only for readers who really want this page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Nope, I have never considered a short hatnote a distraction at all. It is an unavoidable aspect of a general purpose encyclopaedia that some titles will be ambiguous with multiple topics. If articles can be accessed directly (i.e. not via an index or table of contents) then there is a requirement for some means of pointing to the articles about other uses. In this case the choice is between a hatnote here or a hatnote at Standard 52-card deck (which currently has nine redirects here notices, which is a whole screenful on mobile). So unless you want to replace hatnotes with something else (well outside the scope of this discussion) then this entirely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Your strident insistence that if it doesn't bother you then it is not a problem surprises me. Hatnotes most certainly annoy me. They are a mix of important things, and irrelevant editors idiosyncrasies. When unnecessary, they the article header above the fold. They may, or may appear, depending on your device. They mess with screenreaders. They are worst when they are used as a patch to cover inadequate titling. Leaving this article at the WP:Precise Four of Diamonds (band) hurts no reader, or am I missing one? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I can't imagine someone would look up the playing card. This is a different situation than the ace of spades for example. Calidum 17:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Who says "looking up"? Misrecognition occurs when the title occurs alone, such as in a list, or on a hovertext. Many specific cards have ling standing alternative meanings, Ace of Spaces, Queen of Hearts, and Four of Clubs. When unexpectedly seeing a link to the article titled "Four of Diamonds", I personally would follow it wanting to know what I missed, and would be annoyed to arrive at this article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The only time this could occur is if you see the phrase "four of diamonds" outside of any context, where it will either be unlinked or linked to either this article or the deck of cards article which will give you the context you need. If there is context related to playing cards it will either be linked to the deck of cards article or, more likely, be unlikd (as there is no mention of the 4♦ card at all in the article) - in neither case will there be any misrecognition, confusion or anything else. If the context is bands then again it will either be unlinked or linked to the correct article, assuring that there is no chance of confusion. We don't name articles on the off-chance that someone will see the title somewhere that is devoid of all context, look it up and be unable to read and understand a context-giving hatnote with a link to other uses and/or a context-giving lead section. Thryduulf (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I just want to say that your responses to SmokeyJoe here are pure gold. Thank you. Much more eloquent than anything I can ever seem to squeeze out of my fingertips. SmokeyJoe, I hope you give them the thought and consideration they deserve. --В²C ☎ 23:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - we need a more holistic solution to the card name primary topics, redirects, and disambiguations. Note that there is an existing DAB page at Four Diamonds. -- Netoholic @ 22:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral, but I believe we should create a disambiguation pageat the basename of "Four of Diamonds", or redirect it to the dab page "Four Diamonds". Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support According to the reason stated. Barca (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ASTONISH In ictu oculi (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. People really think that readers searching for "Four of diamonds" are actually looking for the standard 52-card deck article? This band is clearly the most popular topic for that phrase, and there is no particular long-term significance to the specific playing card in any context. Dohn joe (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, the card is not even notable to say it is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Standard 52-card deck. Also, "Four of Diamonds" and "Four Diamonds" don't mean the same to ask for a disambiguation. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 15:24, 24 June 2019 (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.

AfD result reverted with a loose claim

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four of Diamonds (band) found a consensus to redirect, does not meet NMUSIC.

13:29, 22 May 2019‎ DarkGlow (talk · contribs) reverted with edit summary "they now pass WP:MUSIC"

DarkGlow, can you please explain how? I don't see in your edits a substantiation of your claim, and I do see WP:Reference bombing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: They meet WP:MUSIC under point 1; as they have a lot of websites and television series that talk about them. In regards to me "reference bombing", that's untrue. All of the references I used back up claims made in the article; the only reason I used many more references than when I first made the article is because I learnt how to reference properly. They also loosely meet point 4, following their national tour in November and their recent tour with Rita Ora. – DarkGlow (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

RE meetings points 1 and 4. Can you point to the sources please? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• • @BarcrMac: I presume you intended this to be a comment supporting the request move in the section above this one? Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'd say they now pass WP:NMUSIC. Neutral to the whole scenario though. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Thryduulf: Thank you, fixed it already. Barca (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)