 | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 October 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
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)
TORRES (Album) → Torres (album) – Unless it can be proved that 'TORRES' is an acronym. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Against changing, unless it can be shown that the artist is fine with standard capitalization. Common sense would indicate that the artist would be able to choose the capitalization of his or her works. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Okay, now that I've seen how a good percentage of the sources cited in the article use the "standard English" capitalization, it becomes one we can use. Because it is standard, it is the one we should use. Earlier I was unaware that the album was called Torres by others. The MOS generally allows us to choose only from among those names that are already in common use. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)- There is no policy or guideline that even remotely suggests that we need the artists permission to make a change like this. Whereas several of our guidelines MOS:CAPS and the WP:MOSTM clearly call for the exact opposite. In short, the artists preference us irrelevant and I support this move.--174.95.109.219 (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- This page is under AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TORRES (Album). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
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.
- Support MOS:CAPS/MOS:TM not an acronym. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support - per MOS:CAPS above. Album seems has passed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TORRES (Album). Where also User:Sparklism and User:Sergecross73 have noted need for rename. Would say that next editor might as well early close per WP:SNOW. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support. It's the right thing to do. If nobody has moved it by the time the AfD closes, then I'll move it myself (unless somebody comes up with a very good reason why MOS:CAPS shouldn't apply here). — sparklism hey! 08:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Recommend waiting until AFD is finished before doing the rename. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- The majority of these references are registered as "professional critics" on the music critic aggregator website metacritic, and therefore reliability, credibility, and "mainstream press" are ensured/assumed. Stomachworm88 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ALBUM/REVSITE. It lists a bunch of sources that are typically considered reliable in music/album related articles. You'll see that a number of them from this list, like "Drowned in Sound" and "Pitchfork Media" are considered reliable and useable. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)