Talk:Boomania

Merge proposal

Article Doin' the Do: The Best of Betty Boo makes clear that album is effectively just a reissue of Boomania with a couple of extra tracks. Doesn't really warrant a separate article; it can have its own section. Ubcule (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I would support that merge. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - They are different albums. If one is not notable enough for inclusion, it should be deleted. Merging for this reason is inappropriate. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mister Sneeze A Lot: This is primarily a question of overlap, which is a generally-accepted reason for merging articles.

Plenty of things that don't warrant a separate article- either because they're not *that* notable on their own *or* because there's too much overlap with very similar and closely-related items (which would otherwise still be notable) can be included and covered in a satisfactory manner in a merged article. We don't have to get rid of that information and pretend it doesn't exist.

Ubcule (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no overlap as they are different albums that contain a few similar songs. If you want to argue for deletion of one on the grounds of notability, do that, but there is no grounds for merging whatsoever. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mister Sneeze A Lot:

Regarding your attempts to rewrite the intro and close the merge proposal.

"2 months is enough time to discuss merge. looks like it failed."

If there was any consensus at all, then it was two-to-one in favour of the merge. While I'd say that this wasn't particularly strong, I'd still argue that attempting to close it just three days after I posted my last comment when it's clear that you're very partisan on the subject was not a good faith attempt to follow the closure guidelines.

"Misleading intro probably led to the merge discussion. fixing."

Wow. That was a really blatant attempt to force your personal opinion onto the article, wasn't it? You haven't explained why the statement

"It only contains tracks from her debut album Boomania with the addition of two extended versions of singles from Boomania, a remix and a megamix."

was incorrect; you've only claimed- without explaining why- that it was somehow "misleading". "Misleading" in what sense?

"Misleading" in the sense that someone might see that factual assertion and (in most cases) conclude that it was basically a reissue of the "Boomania" album with a couple of extra tracks? Yes, I can see why you might not like that.

Ubcule (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional; I've made a number of neutrally-worded invitations to people who have edited the Boomania and Betty Boo articles in the past year to eighteen months or so in an attempt to get some further (hopefully) unbiased opinion. Ubcule (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Here is an example of how two closely related albums were presented in the same article: Welcome Here Kind Stranger was the studio album, and The Missing Liberty Tapes was a live album recorded during the concert that promoted Welcome Here Kind Stranger. Even though there are more differences between them than the two albums discussed here, they were still covered in the same article. And here is another example of an album that was re-released later with only one track added: Parallel Lines. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^(guestbook) 20:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think. I understand both sides of the argument but seeing as the Best of article isn't exactly filled with interesting or useful info - it's not exactly a notable album - and the track listing is pretty much the same as Boomania all it perhaps requires is its own section within the Boomania article. A similar article I've edited is the 1985 album Despite Straight Lines by Marilyn, which was re-released in 2008 with the title Despite Straight Lines: The Very Best of Marilyn, featuring pretty much the same track listing but with added B-sides and remixes. Although at least that had the same cover as the original, unlike this Betty Boo album. (EDIT: I've just realised it's the Boomania photo reversed!) I'd still be in favour of merging it with its own small section. --Geach (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - "I'd still be in favour of merging it with its own small section" - Which is exactly what I wanted to do, personally! Ubcule (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think it's quite clear at this stage that a stable consensus has been reached and that it's in favour of merging the content into Boomania; this has now been done, but please feel free to raise any issues if you dislike *how* the merge has been done. Thank you for everyone's contributions. Ubcule (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I've just tweaked a few things hopefully to improve it a bit. --Geach (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline abuse of process and vandalism by User:Mister Sneeze A Lot

@Mister Sneeze A Lot: Following comment was originally posted to User talk:Mister Sneeze A Lot:-

For the second time you have attempted to remove legitimate information from the "Doin' the Do" article having given no clear explanation or justification.

Last time you claimed that this was because the information was "misleading" without trying to explain why. (See above) This time you simply removed it, quite clearly to support your own point of view as discussed in the merge proposal at Talk:Boomania.

I don't intend getting into a revert war over this; if you remove this information again without giving a proper explanation, I'll consider it vandalism and proceed accordingly.

Regarding the merge discussion, this is clearly ongoing. Your last attempt to shut it down just three days after the last contribution to the discussion was bordering on partisan abuse of process to suit your own agenda; (again, see above for more details), your second attempt while it is quite clearly ongoing certainly is. Ubcule (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing; I'll point out that it's blatant hypocrisy for you to start picking and choosing time limits like "two months" to suit your own point of view.

The closest thing to a limit is the 30 day guideline (which as can be seen here isn't a hard limit at all). After thirty days, there were two people in favour and no objections. I'd have been quite entitled to merge it at that point; I didn't rush the merge through because there was no hurry.

Your illegitimate attempt to force the closure as "failed" a week later was blatantly partisan; as a result, I attempted to get a number of neutral parties involved to form a clear consensus, so the merge discussion is once more ongoing as a result of your actions. Ubcule (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's just completely and utterly false. I was correcting the article. Take your bullying elsewhere. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]