Talk:Singles (The Long Blondes album)

Page moves

(cur | prev) 17:45, 14 October 2009‎ Saveourcity (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23 bytes) (-3,744)‎ . . (←Redirected page to "Singles") (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 15:21, 9 October 2009‎ Saveourcity (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,767 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Singles (The Long Blondes album) to "Singles" (The Long Blondes album) over redirect: Trying again. This is the real name of the album. See - http://thelongblondes.co.uk/news.php Thanks!) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 06:51, 23 September 2009‎ Jafeluv (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,767 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved "Singles" (The Long Blondes album) to Singles (The Long Blondes album): requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:41, 21 September 2009‎ Saveourcity (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,767 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved "Singles" (The Long Blondes album) to "Singles" (The Long Blondes album): eeeek, got it wrong last time) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:41, 21 September 2009‎ Saveourcity (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,767 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Singles (The Long Blondes album) to "Singles" (The Long Blondes album): previously had wrong title, the "quotes" are a requirement.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 06:01, 15 April 2009‎ Sj (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,623 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved "Singles" to Singles (The Long Blondes album): quotes not needed in title. Not to be confused with Singles (Deacon Blue album), Singles (Jimmy Eat World album), Singles (Alison Moyet album), Singles (New Order album), [) (undo | thank)

There seems to have been a cut and paste move on 14 Oct 2009. May need a history merge repair? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Singles" → Singles (The Long Blondes album) – Restore per User:Sj above and per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Not to be confused with Singles (Deacon Blue album), Singles (Jimmy Eat World album), Singles (Alison Moyet album), Singles (New Order album). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Singles has been viewed 1511 times in 201407. [1]

Singles (Deacon Blue album) has been viewed 273 times in 201407.

Singles (Jimmy Eat World album) has been viewed 486 times in 201407.

Singles (Alison Moyet album) has been viewed 666 times in 201407.

Singles (New Order album) has been viewed 1338 times in 201407.

Singles (disambiguation) has been viewed 80 times in 201407.
--В²C ☎ 23:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Though this use does not meet strict WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria for Singles per the above page view statistics, I just don't see any harm in leaving it here, and no good reason to move it, particularly given the very low hit rate on the dab page. Confusion? Out of about 4,000 views overall per month, about 80 go to the dab page. That's 2%. So I oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES (no good reason to change title) and WP:IAR (shutting down pointless RM proposals improves Wikipedia). --В²C ☎ 23:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC) See below for revised reasoning. --В²C ☎ 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A title should not be disambiguated solely by inverted commas. — AjaxSmack 02:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ditto to AjaxSmack's comments. Further I believe it leaves the situation a bit too ambiguous. Users will benefit from parenthesis disambiguation in this case.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Labattblueboy, if "users will benefit from parenthesis disambiguation in this case" is sufficient valid justification for "parenthesis disambiguation", there is a sufficient valid justification for "parenthesis disambiguation" for almost every title on Wikipedia. Can you justify a move in this case with reasoning that does not also apply to the vast majority of our article titles? --В²C ☎ 16:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:DIFFPUNCT. This is the only use of "Singles". Anyone who bothers to search for "Singles" (with quotes) is certainly looking for this topic. Why not make it easy for them to do this? Why make it more difficult for the user? --В²C ☎ 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:DIFFPUNCT which reads, inter alia, ...While each name in such a pair may already be precise and apt, a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other, so use appropriate disambiguation techniques,... which in this case, bearing in mind there are several albums with the same name and taking into consideration WP:SONGDAB means a disambiguation page.--Richhoncho (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support either Singles (The Long Blondes album) or "Singles" (The Long Blondes album) - quotes are often part of search syntax. Peter James (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

For what it's worth cf. Youthquake (album). Any other cases out there? — AjaxSmack 02:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Couples" also by the Long Blondes? — AjaxSmack 02:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well WP:SMALLDETAILS would apply there too, not all sources use the " " for Couples, so it really should be at Couples (The Long Blondes album). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that all sources have to use the " " for Couples in order for us to favor it as a form of natural disambiguation over parenthetic? --В²C ☎ 18:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's what WP:SMALLDETAILS requires. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:39, 17 August 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.