Talk:Sticks and Stones (Cher Lloyd album)

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 move. During the course of this discussion, Sticks + Stones has been redirected to Sticks and stones. Cúchullain ^t/c 03:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Sticks + Stones (album) → Sticks + Stones – As that title already redirects here. Unreal7 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support The plus sign for "and" is rare enough as to be largely unambiguous. Compare to Romeo + Juliet. I just wanted to check for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC considerations, and the song apparently had no views last month, so I think we're good to go. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

BDD, you may want to revise this support given page history of the redirect:

(cur | prev) 05:29, 3 October 2012‎ DJS209 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (←Redirected page to Sticks + Stones (album)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:27, 3 October 2012‎ DJS209 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (36 bytes) (+36)‎ . . (DJS209 moved page Sticks + Stones to Sticks + Stones (song): I don't think it's as significant as the Cher Lloyd album to have no disambiguation)

There's nothing particularly wrong with this WP:MOVE but it does mean that before 3 Oct the song was the primary, plus Sticks and Stones is picking up for both Sticks + Stones (album) and Sticks + Stones (album). In ictu oculi (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This explains the complete lack of views for (song) in September, which admittedly seemed odd. But the album still appears to be a clear primary topic over the song based on pageviews. I'm not as confident as I was, but I think the move is still probably sound. --BDD (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose "+" is sufficiently frequently and sufficiently commonly used to replace "and" or "&" for Sticks + Stones to mean "Sticks AND Stones" or "Sticks & Stones", especially they way people take shortcuts. The redirect should be repointed to the disambiguation page. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

  I really doubt that. Unreal7 (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - re above comment on "+" 65.92.181.190 is correct. Check actual listings on mp3 sites, for example. That plus the redirect move above is against this move, as it stands at least. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2012 (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.

The redirect

Following check on undiscussed but good faith move 3 October 2012‎ DJS209 didn't feel confident to revert, but all the same temporarily converted Sticks + Stones into a disamb between Sticks + Stones (song) which is what it was before, and Sticks + Stones (album) and added note to that effect on Talk:Sticks + Stones. Having now reset to status when RM proposed this means disamb is now 1 move back in redirect history. In reality it should probably redirect to Sticks and Stones which lists both of these "+" orthographic oddities among more normal titles. But happy to leave any decision on that to others. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've boldly disambiguated the redirect, since the target changed between the song and the album, and was relatively recent, prompting the topic change request in the section above. So in the past year, the topic of "Sticks + Stones" was represented as primary by two different articles, thus disputed. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Tracklisting & Cover Art

Again, no issues with the tracklisting. I own every version of this album, everything is according to album liner notes, or back vinyl notes, and time credits according to CD player. The cover art did not need to be changed. The color is off. The previous was uploaded from iTunes and looks identical to a copy you can buy at a local music store. Ilovechristianmusic (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)ilovechristianmusic

Your CD player is not valid for sourcing; you removed valid formats to the tracklist. And the album cover came directly from Epic's press site when Lloyd was an artist on the label. Furthermore, PNG artwork is the preferred lossless format and your upload violates non-free content criteria, as it is too large in size and file size. CD player is not acceptable for track length; the length included already is what's appropriate. Your edits were disruptive to the article per Wikipedia's standard. Credits are adapted from metadata that has been sourced within article. Owning a CD and the runtime from a physical CD is not a valid source, which is not cited in any way. The artwork comes directly from iTunes, and yours violated several terms of non-free content criteria. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for telling me what I did. I didn't quite understand why it was changed. So thank you for telling me. And thank you for your help on this article. Ilovechristianmusic (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)ilovechristianmusic