Jump to content

Talk:Best... I

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two album titles

[edit]

Sources, such as they are, seem to indicate The Smiths Best... I and The Smiths Best... II are the titles here. Previously they were inconsistently titled ...Best II, which evidently is unhelpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

[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: no consensus. Effectively what we have here is a disagreement about the interpretation of the policy. Both sides make reasonable points that are based on the article titles policy and disambiguation guideline and the numbers on each side are roughly split, with the slight majority for the supporters. But I have considered this for a while and I don't think the slight numerical majority is enough for me to say there is a consensus. I dislike closing as 'no consensus' because it often means the issue will fester, but in this case I think it is the only reasonable conclusion. To make any other close would, I think, be a supervote – imposing my own opinion in place of the community's. Jenks24 (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Amended proposal per Xoloz Best I to distinguish from Best 1 Aya Matsuura album and Best 1 Morning Musume album and to distinguish from Best 2 Ayumi Hamasaki album and others on Best 2 dab In ictu oculi (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above was amended 7 July per alternative proposal below, Original RM proposal:

→ The Smiths Best I and → The Smiths Best II Another example of how the legalistic approach that we must always conceal band names if at all possible doesn't serve readers; evidently the name THE SMITHS BEST is part of the title here, this isn't the same as an album with a distinct authorial title, such as Meat Is Murder, The Queen Is Dead, or Strangeways, Here We Come etc., so when we delete the band THE SMITHS BEST... I, we're just making life difficult for everyone by over application of a guideline WP:SONGDAB against WP:AT policy which is that articles should be "recognizable". This is not recognizable, and no one benefits from removing the band name on a "Best of FOO" album no matter where the BEST is placed. For comparison see how we treat Aya Matsuura Best 1 and Best! Morning Musume 1. We don't have either of these albums at Best 1, why should The Smiths be? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, The Great Rock Discography, Meetings With Morrissey, Billboard, Cult Pop Culture, Rock Stars Encyclopedia etc. The stylization varies from publication to publication, but they all agree that "The Smiths" is the name of the band, not part of the album titles. Dohn joe (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in some of those it does talk about "The Smiths..... Best 1" but nevertheless in listings it's simply "The Smiths Best 1", Best 1 isn't a standalone title any more than for the following albums: In ictu oculi (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support addition of disambiguating term "(The Smiths)". I agree with AjaxSmack that adding the Smiths as part of the natural title risks confusion with the album The Very Best of The Smiths. However, these titles still require disambiguation by artist for the sake of reader recognizability. The use of the parenthetical term avoids the confusion about which AjaxSmack is concerned. Xoloz (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dohn joe. We don't make up titles; we use common names. Calidum Talk To Me 04:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjust proposal as proposer I'm fine with Xoloz' suggestion:
Best I (The Smiths album) to distinguish from Best 1 Aya Matsuura album and Best 1 Morning Musume album
Best II (The Smiths album) to distinguish from Best 2 Ayumi Hamasaki album and others on Best 2 dab
Consistent with Singles (The Smiths album) Complete (The Smiths album)
User:65.94.171.126 and BarrelProof would this affect your support? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the adjusted proposal. Current titles are not recognisable (WP:AT of course). If current guidelines and policies leave any doubt as to these moves, then the guidelines etc need to change. Andrewa (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support amended proposal. I thought I was the best one... obviously not, but that's no reason to confuse us. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The original proposal using a made up name fails WP:COMMONNAME, and the second proposal is over-precise unnecessary disambiguation. Best II already redirects to ...Best II, and Best I has almost always redirected to Best... I until In ictu started moving things around a few days ago. They appear to be the primary topics of the redirected terms. There are no other articles titled "Best I" or even "Best 1"; the two potentially confusing articles In ictu mentions are actually titled Aya Matsuura Best 1 and Best! Morning Musume 1, which aren't ambiguous. There are also no articles titled "Best II" (or "Best 2", etc.). There's the unambiguous A Best 2 by Ayumi Hamasaki, and nothing else at Best II (disambiguation) has an article or anything more than a mention on any other article. Barring any evidence that other coverage challenges the Smiths albums as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of these terms, this appears to be another solution searching for a problem.--Cúchullain t/c 14:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
? excuse me but truly confused by this statement. Yes of course Aya Matsuura Best 1 isn't ambiguous, because it's fully titled per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. If we deleted [Aya Matsura Best 1] then it would just be Best 1, which we have redirecting to Best dab, while Best I redirects to The Smiths Best I, which we have titled [The Smiths Best I]. So to state that the Best 1 compilation we haven't removed the artist isn't ambiguous is, undeniable, but logically because we have only removed the artist from the Smiths album doesn't therefore mean that "Best I" is unambiguously not Aya Matsura and must be Morrissey. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also "unambiguous A Best 2 by Ayumi Hamasaki", is only unambiguous because we haven't titled it "Ayumi Hamasaki Best 2", or BoA's album Best II (BoA album) isn't titled "BoA Best II", so this is a circular argument. Actually the symbol which occurs of A Best 2 is not an "A" it is the Ayumi Hamasaki >A< symbol (also here), like Prince (singer) used to have a symbol, it means Best 2 (Ayumi Hamasaki album). Like wise BoA's BoA Best II listed on Amazon as [http://www.amazon.com/Boa-Best-2/dp/B004TWP4D8/ BoA Best 2] but the cover says "BoA Best II", and then Amazon [http://www.amazon.com/Jpop-CD-BOA-Japan-SEALED/dp/B0094AKNXG/ lists the Korean edition as BoA Best II] and [http://www.amazon.com/BOA-BEST-II-Japanese-Featured/dp/7799222654/ lists the Chinese edition as BoA Best 2] despite the cover saying BoA Best II. Sources for albums are just not consistent enough between "Best II" and "Best 2" for "Best II" to only mean the Smiths. The Smiths also gets called "Best 2 (The Smiths album), and we're doing this for a UK album which only reached British chart position #29, didn't chart in the States, while the various Japanese "Best II" albums seem to have all reached No.1 in Japan. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aya Matsuura Best 1 is presumably at that title that because that's the name of the subject (or at least it should be; if that's not the name it needs to move). It's clearly a different title than "Best I". I don't see how it challenges the Smiths album as primary topic of the term "Best I" (let alone "Best... I"), especially as the only source given isn't even in English. If the real issue is that we have a bunch of articles that aren't titled according to the available, English-language reliable sources, we've got a much bigger problem that's not going to be solved by moving around other, correctly titled articles.--Cúchullain t/c 13:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1.) back to something Richhoncho and I think also BarrelProof keep mentioning WP:SONGDAB has no reference to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is generally not applied in songs/albums (I can barely think of an example) because music genres are so partitioned; i.e. a "primary topic" to a reggae fan is unhelpful to a C&W, hip hop, drum & bass, Latin or R&B fan. Category:WikiProject Music genres. If we were to apply WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to songs and albums it would cause a massive upheaval and even worse recognizability across the song/album corpus. There are a few mega examples (I'm struggling to think where I have seen one), but it's unusual. Neither of these compilation albums is a mega example.
(2.) I would like to see precedent for disambiguation by 1/I as "Aya Matsura Best 1" different from "The Smiths Best I"? Or better still, which guideline states that we should disambiguate by the difference between "Best 1" and "Best I"? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
btw Cúchullain - I wish you hadn't removed Best II (BoA album) (redirect) from the Best II dab [http://www.amazon.com/Boa-Best-2/dp/B004TWP4D8/ shows it with exactly the same artwork as the Japan version], as do similar editions on Amazon.jp and Amazon.cn The track-listing is also virtually identical. If Best II (BoA album) was retitled Best & USA for the CD DVD issue that's perhaps to avoid confusion with the really big ko:Best II, Best II (Akina Nakamori album), that isn't a reason to remove something that clearly exists and we have an article on from the dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is exactly the same album. According to sources on ko.wp it was released in Japan as BoA Best & USA and in Korea as BoA Best II. I don't know whether that's because of anti-US sentiment in Korea or because Boa Best I is Korean songs and wasn't big in Japan, but anyway, have fixed article info box to include both editions, I am now going, if you don't mind, to restore to Best II (disambiguation) dab page, ....which incidentally should move over Best II (The Smiths) after this RM concludes per WP:SONGDAB. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: (1.): Lol @In ictu. WP:SONGDAB prominently references WP:DAB (which includes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) in the first paragraph - and In ictu added the reference themself on May 19. With an accompanying post on the talkpage (section Addition_of_WP:DISAMBIGUATION): "Surprisingly the Dab section only listed WP:DABSONG not the main WP:DISAMBIGUATION. I have added it. That should not be controversial and cannot see any reason to be reversed." Dohn joe (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn joe, please don't "Lol" at other editors, it looks like what it looks like.
Yes I added the link from project guideline to the main policy guideline. As to your addition I see an actual song editor has already reverted it, and (are you listening?) that is not what song editors do. In the meantime, can you explain why you are opposing adding "Smiths" in any format to Best I and Best II. Are you arguing primary topic over the other Best I and Best II albums? Or are you arguing that "..." is sufficient to disambiguate? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No offense meant by the lol. It doesn't actually mean "laughing at In ictu". The connotation is laughing out loud at the situation. It just made me chuckle.... :)
As for the substance, probably both. Definitely wp:primarytopic, and probably wp:diffcaps. Dohn joe (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, of course it applies to song articles, as with any articles. As Dohn joe says, WP:SONGDAB clearly references the WP:DISAMBIGUATION guideline, where PRIMARYTOPIC is found, thanks to you. Even before then, it didn't say to avoid PRIMARYTOPIC. But even if it did, it would be totally out of step with universally accepted practice, and in such cases it's the sub-guideline that needs to change to reflect the existing consensus.
One "1" vs. "I", as you know, WP:DIFFCAPS allows for "using minor details to naturally disambiguate articles"; there's also the matter that the Aya Matsura album includes "Aya Matsura" in the title.
Finally, on the Akina Nakamori album, I'd already restored it to the page pending sources establishing that it's the same as Best & USA (or that it's notable). You added "Best II" as the Korean title for Best & USA, but you still haven't given any sources.[2] Even the Korean Wikipedia you mention has the album under the Latin letters "BEST&USA". Either (preferably English) sources exist attesting the album's alternative name is "Best II", in which case it should be added, or they don't, in which case it should be left off the article and the dab page. And please start formatting your dab page edits in accordance with MOS:DAB. This contained several frustrating errors.--Cúchullain t/c 12:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to have a discussion on whether the Japanese or Korean edition of Best II (BoA album) should be first in lead or title or how that be reflected on the dab then I suggest it be on the article talk page.
In the meantime however we have a proliferation of 3 x Best I and 3 x Best II albums. Per WP:SONGDAB then the Smiths albums should be titled with "Smiths" in one form or another. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:DIFFCAPS says nothing about distinguishing between Aya Matsuura Best 1 and The Smiths Best I which won't show up in some fonts anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what we have at Best II (disambiguation) is one article, another of a different title that supposedly was released as "Best II" (or actually "BoA Best II") in the Korean market (though there's still no reliable source for that, even in Korean) and three other entries that (1) have no article and (2) are only partial title matches for "Best II" anyway. And no evidence has been presented that any of them challenge the primary topic status of the Smiths album regarding the term "Best II".
WP:DIFFCAPS says that "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail", as in the difference between "1" and "I" or "2" and "II", not to mention the "..." punctuation mark, punctuation being specifically mentioned in the policy.--Cúchullain t/c 15:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does "supposedly" in your above post mean? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That there appears to be a release called Best II that's somehow related to Best & USA, but the fact that it's the same album as it was released in Korea is attributed only to retail websites written largely in Korean. To me, it appears to be only the first disc of Best & USA and who knows if the title was exclusive to Korea. The fact that it's still so unclear makes it less likely that it challenges the Smiths album as primary topic.--Cúchullain t/c 17:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Supposedly" means As a matter of supposition; in the beliefs or according to the claims of some people.
[http://www.amazon.com/Boa-Best-2/dp/B004TWP4D8/ Amazon.com] (etc) is in English and shows BoA Best II/Best II (BoA album) being released by "SM Entertainment Kr" = Korea. Likewise [http://www.amazon.com/Best-2-Akina-Nakamori/dp/B0086XFEMW/ Amazon.com] (etc) shows Best II (Akina Nakamori album) being released by WEA Japan. Therefore per WP:SONGDAB "multiple albums (or songs) of the same name exist". In ictu oculi (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Supposedly" as in "you claim that Best & USA was released as Best II in Korea but you haven't added any reliable sources and the claim seem off." It's off in that (1) it seems to have only some of the songs on Best & USA and (2) there's little indication this was that album's official name in South Korea, or was just used for some obscure alternate release in Korea or wherever. In which case it may not even be worth mentioning in the article, let alone moving around another unrelated article that's at its correct name.--Cúchullain t/c 15:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Supposedly" as in I'm falsifying Korean sources? Did I also plant the 3 different versions of Best II (BoA album) on Amazon.com, and use Photoshop to fabricate the Amazon CD covers? What about Best II (Akina Nakamori album) which was No.1 for 2 weeks. Did I fabricate the Amazon.com cover for that too? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. I'm saying your addition makes claims that are only attributed to commercial websites, not real sources, and even there it's dodgy. Do they really say Best IIis "the same album" as Best & USA, even though seems to have only some of the songs? Do they really say Best II is the official title of the Korean release of Best & USA, or is it, say, a non-notable alternate release featuring some of the songs, which may or may not even be worth mentioning in the article? Why are we even discussing this if there are no reliable sources for it?--Cúchullain t/c 13:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly calm, I was actually going to ask you to calm down. It's a Korean edition album by a Korean artist, those Korean sources are as good as any other Korean sources for any other Korean edition album on en.wp. I have no idea why you are discussing it. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've finally figured out the situation with BoA's Best II, based on real sources.[3][4] As I suspected it seems to be a separate release containing only some of the songs from the Japanese album Best & USA (the Best half, the USA half being released as BoA (album)). No idea if this was released only in Korea or if it was available in Japan too, but in any case it's comparatively obscure. I've left a note at Talk:Best & USA#Best II and will be rewriting the article.--Cúchullain t/c 14:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is basically what the ko.wp article says. Thank you for having left Best II in the English article as it was in the ko.wp particle. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:DIFFPUNCT In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

What to do with Best I and Best II redirects

[edit]

Whether the above RM stays at ...Best II or moves to Best II (The Smiths album) etc:

Then this needs to go to redirects for discussion, seeing as the other albums actually are as the redirects, and the Smiths albums aren't... In ictu oculi (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 24 Best I. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Best..._I&oldid=1211156530"