This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michael Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Michael Jackson on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Michael JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Michael JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Michael JacksonMichael Jackson articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Primary Topic by definition is something with no ( ) parenthesis after. WP:PRIMARYALBUM does not exist, Thriller is a disruptive sore thumb sticking against the way en.wp works simply to hide the name of Michael Jackson from readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unnecessary ambiguity, given that this isn't the primary topic. I don't support the Thriller setup either, but at the very least none of the other albums called that are especially well known. Here, there is at least one other album that was fairly notable: Dangerous (Yandel album), and a cursory search shows Dangerous: The Double Album is often rendered as simply Dangerous. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's better to be less ambiguous than more ambiguous. Jackson's Dangerous might be the most notable album by that title but it doesn't have the iconic reach and history of Thriller. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me21:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you'd allow for Thriller but not Dangerous. Notability is the only thing that matters here, not iconic reach or history. Dangerous is either the most notable album by that title or it isn't. Popcornfud (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning, when someone refers to an album called Thriller even a non-music fan who knows little about pop music is going to associate that with Michael Jackson. If someone mentions an album called Dangerous, not a lot of people are automatically going think Michael Jackson. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me09:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, though, how many people automatically think "Michael Jackson" when they hear the album name Dangerous is not the same thing as whether it's the primary topic. Popcornfud (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jackson has 3 of the top 20 top selling albums of all time. 'Dangerous' rank at number 20 with about 30 million pure worldwide sales and when taking in account equivalent album sales(EAS), 'Dangerous' sits at about 44.4 million units moved. It also appears to certainly be far more notable than the other 5 subjects as the nominator says. Ambiguity certainly does not apply in a case where notability should in fact be the only thing that matters here.TruthGuardians (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This album is the very definition of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The fundamental question is whether a given PDAB title should be used as the title of an article (or should be a redirect to one specific article) in cases where there is one topic that is arguably the "primary topic" for the PDAB title. This is a primary topic. Plain and simple. As shown here [1] and here [2], Google searches for "dangerous album" and "dangerous album wiki" link to this article, 'Dangerous (Michael Jackson album)', first. Israell (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the nominator. Per this latest RFC PRIMARYTOPIC takes precedence over INCDAB. Like many have said above, Google searches for "Dangerous album" and Wikipedia views of the other five subjects of the same name shows Jackson album is the most popular one with that name by far.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A stricken Support suggests someone decided to rescind their support. That’s misleading. I edited it to say Comment instead of a stricken support. —В²C☎16:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Support. The other albums are far less relevant, Jackson's album is by far the best selling among albums with this title, it is the primary topic Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ambiguous. Fails WP:PRECISE. Also, these changes help no reader. Readers who think that it has to be Michael Jackson will not be hindered by having that in the title, but all others will be hindered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:PRECISE failure here; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is explicitly listed as an exception at WP:PRECISE. And not all moves are about helping readers. Another good reason to move articles is to bring titles in line with community consensus guidance. That's what this one is about. --В²C☎21:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Michael Jackson's Dangerous is by far the most well known album among those mentioned, so I don't think it's ambiguous to make it the primary topic in the Dangerous titled albums. If it's not an issue for other albums like the Thriller's example I don't see why it has to be an issue for this.GiuliaZB (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Ambiguity alone is not in and of itself good reason against using a given term as a title. That’s the point of PRIMARYTOPIC. And, yes, PRIMARYTOPIC applies to partially disambiguated titles in cases like this. This Dangerous album is among the top 20 albums of all time — all the others are relatively obscure and this distinction is reinforced by page view counts all noted by the nom. That’s the point of WP:INCDAB. Opposition ignores all this community consensus established in policy and guidelines, and their JDLI !votes should be unweighted accordingly in determining consensus here. —В²C☎16:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, the weak consensus with the PDAB RFC was clearly that the standard is tougher and the community has almost always been reluctant to find consensus for them, the views (of Dangerous: The Double Album) I have provided don't support the claim that this is primary by the tougher standards of PADBs. The move will cause more confusion than the small benefit of a few readers getting directly here and this having a more concise title, its not worth it so leave as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This album has almost three times the views of Wallen's Dangerous: The Double Album, and Wallen's isn't even most commonly known as just "Dangerous". Furthermore, the page views for Wallen's 2021 album are already waning, while views for Jackson's album remains rock steady. It's clear where this is going. That's way beyond than the minimum primary topic standard: "much more likely than". 1.1x is "more likely". 2x is "much more likely". 3x is way beyond that. It easily meets the tougher standard required by INCDAB. It's not confusing to treat primary topics as primary topics. Seeing that we put this topic at Dangerous (album) demonstrates that this Dangerous album stands out among the other albums named "Dangerous". And it does. What's confusing is not treating it like that by leaving it where it is, fully disambiguated like the others. --В²C☎19:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so I'd expect more like 97-99% before considering PDAB, putting it at Dangerous (album) will cause confusion since it suggests its the only album with this name which it isn't when it would be easier to take them to the DAB as we do where they have access to the 7 albums with articles and 2 mentions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
putting it at Dangerous (album) will cause confusion since it suggests its the only album with this name - If this logic holds up, then we have an awful lot of primary-topic articles out there causing confusion. I doubt it, really. Popcornfud (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Whether intended this way or not, it's an argument against all primary topic article titles, or almost all of them. And a 97-99% threshold implies almost 100 times as many views as all others combined. That's not community consensus. Not even close. Remember, 3x is 300% as many! That makes it far beyond "much more likely". --В²C☎21:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus appears to be that partial disambiguation is generally only used in exceptional cases especially noting that there was a back of consensus for Parasite (film). Even if the Double is only sometimes called "Dangerous" it would still likely prevent the very might threshold for partial disambiguation, if this is moved I'd expect it to end up at MR as well. Its far easier for readers to just select this one (or a different one) from the DAB when they search for this than confusingly having a partially disambiguated title which per the views I can't see its worth the confusion. If a topic is primary for a term then yes it should be at the base name but as we know we're much stricter with partial disambiguation so it shouldn't happen here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop exaggerating to make your case. It’s not “only used in exceptional cases” nor are we “much stricter”. We do have to meet a “higher threshold” which we easily do in this case especially if we appropriately discount the 2021 Double album both for not being named “Dangerous” and for its page view counts already waning. —В²C☎15:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be the consensus, see the result of the MR of Parasite, the community has been very reluctant to use partial disambiguation and the only case this has passed (as far as I'm aware) is Thriller where the shorter title already redirected to it unlike Parasite and Dangerous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not consensus. Plenty of counter-examples to your one Parasite anomaly at WP:PDAB. Yeah, once in a while enough of the pro-descriptive-titles brigade minority shows up at an RM to throw a local consensus, but that's hardly a reflection of community consensus. --В²C☎16:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No its that most people realize that its almost always ridiculous to do and creates unnecessary confusion for readers and editors for very little benefit. Thriller even has always been controversial. Without it readers would largely be better served and there would be fewer debates like this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's unclear what the expected benefit is (either for the project or the reader) of partially cutting the disambiguation for a single article title that is not the primary topic for the term. SmokeyJoe's earlier DAB page example nicely illustrates the kind of odd inconsistency that the move would create, something that I can easily see being confusing to readers. ╠╣uw[talk]09:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it is time once and for all to have a vote on whether or not PRIMARYTOPIC applies to disambiguated articles (in other words, is there a primary topic for a title that still has a parenthetical disambiguator?) I hold that there is no sense in partial disambiguation. RedSlash04:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
