Jump to content

Talk:HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Studio albums

Please people, the studio album is called ... HIStory Continues, and not HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. Obviously the latter is the name of the full album, but not the studio album. It's making me go insane!--213.83.125.225 (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you check the musical cover? TbhotchTalk C. 15:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's own page: 'A Studio album contains newly written and recorded or previously unreleased or remixed material, distinguishing itself from a compilation or reissue album of previously recorded material,'

Two of the tracks in HIStory's (mostly new) second disc are covers, therefore not 'newly written'.

I propose describing HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I as a *greatest hits* album.

Which better fits this definition (also from Wikipeadia):

Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

'A Greatest hits album, sometimes called a best of album or a catalog album, is a compilation of songs by a particular artist or band. Most often the track list contains previously released recordings with a high degree of notability. However to increase the appeal, especially to people who already own the original release, it is common to include remixes and/or alternate takes of popular songs; even new material (previously unreleased).' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.66.253 (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Retain at current title. Usually one would move this per under MOS:TM if it was a stylisation of History. However, it is "History" and a portmanteau of "His story". I considered HiStory but it is really a solution that master's neither argument. As such I feel the status quo should remain. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I → History: Past, Present and Future, Book I — MOS:TM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'." –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • As far as I know, "HIStory" is basically the same as "History" with more emphasis on the first three letters. It counts as the non-standard capitalization that falls under MOS:TM. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC
  • Furthermore, "History" here looks to have a double meaning, one of which is the standard form of the word "history" and the other, which can be explained in the article if notable. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The fact that it can be explained in the article is no reason to change the meaning of the title. We allow CamelCase titles for a similar reason -- because sometimes it makes the meaning of the words more clear. If this was "HiStory", to emphasize the two parts of the word equally, this would clearly be allowable. Under the same principle, this title should also be allowed. This is one of those cases that WP:IAR was made for. Powers T 10:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
You have a point but Se7en still having the same context as Seven, unlike this that the meaning of the album pass from "HIStory..." to a nonsense History. TbhotchTalk C. 02:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see "History" as nonsense, especially when taken into consideration that this is a greatest hits album. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore the words "album" or "song" are never mentioned on WP:TM. TbhotchTalk C. 02:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
My point is that MOS:TM does not extend solely to trademarked terms. For example, a film title (which may or may not be trademarked) is referenced. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Also have you seen E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)? TbhotchTalk C. 02:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Mentioned in MOS:TM: "Using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually, even if they don't stand for anything." The album title is pronounced "E equals (=) MC squared (²)", thus no change to the title is necessary. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
But regardless, the album article explains that E=MC² is acronymic, so it would be capitalized anyway. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
checking the logs you moved E=MC2 for E=MC², if you won't follow the policy in x pages and follow it in others, do not use it as shield. TbhotchTalk C. 03:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Explain to me how that title fails MOS:TM? The album title actually includes a superscript instead of a standard "2", as seen in the album cover. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
as this:
Yet that Mariah Carey album title was in reference to a mathematical formula which uses a superscript... regardless, stay on topic please. We're not discussing that album or its article title. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Is within the topic 1) you made an "illegal move" yeterday, last week, 3 years ago, whenever, but you did it, so you cannot use a rule as a shield when you not follow it. 2) as I said above unlike se7en, Toys Я Us, or Ke$ha, the title is in reference to MJ's history NOT a bored history, and 3) nowhere EXPLICITY states that the trademarks rule must be followed in albums, single or other pages, when it does, you can discuss freely. TbhotchTalk C. 03:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
You said it yourself: "the title is in reference to MJ's history". So how would using standard capitalization change the meaning? The title "History" without non-standard capitalization still carries the double meaning of his personal history and his career history. And please stop discussing articles that are not relevant to the topic at hand before I remove all off-topic comments in reference to the Mariah Carey album. Stay on topic. If you have a problem with the Mariah Carey article title, discuss it at that talk page. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Do not make threats about removing or refactoring other comments, or you will really know me and again history is not the same as history. TbhotchTalk C. 03:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It is the same. It just happens to have the first three letters capitalized. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Fortunatly I won't buy your propaganda, specially because you never answered to my third point. The rule is about trademarks, this title has copyright until 2080 but nowhere a ® appears, and the MOS does not state that films (using the article se7en is a WP:SYNTHESIS violation, if you want to use it) albums, films, tv programms and other pseudotrademarks must be followed by the rule. TbhotchTalk C. 03:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is not a case of CAMEL. The album name is not written as HiStory, whence the move would have been plausible. And yes, this is not a trademark, whereas E=MC2 can be considered one per Einstein. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • First of all, I'm pretty sure mathematical formulas aren't trademarked (though I could be wrong)... second of all, MOS:TM has been used in determining article titles for non-trademarked phrases, such as the singers Kesha (Ke$ha) and Pink (P!nk). I also did not say it was a case of camelcase... MOS:TM does not just apply to that. It also applies to non-standard capitalization, such as the capitalization of HIStory here... –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the moment. Don't see any reason to change this apart from "to comply with MOS", but I don't think anything in MOS was written with this kind of case in mind. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but it looks to me as if "HIStory" is deliberately intended to have the double meaning "his story", so a substantial meaning is being lost by changing to simply "History". Unless it turns out that secondary sources mostly use "History", in which case OK.--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Kesha is not styled Ke$ha because of this, not MOS:TM policy. TbhotchTalk C. 02:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
It actually is titled "Kesha" per MOSTM. This was brought up in numerous discussions at Talk:Kesha. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
this request where you argue the same? or this comment that point why Kesha is not Ke$ha: Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, There's a difference between Ke[money]ha and HIS[s]tory. TbhotchTalk C. 03:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
They are however similar in the fact that unconventional spelling/capitalization is used, which MOS:TM frowns upon. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
But this, as stated many times change the meaning of "HIS history [or story]", to a history. TbhotchTalk C. 03:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Very strongly oppose If this is redirected, which it shouldn't be, then these will have to be redirected also:
HIStory World Tour
Video Greatest Hits – HIStory
HIStory on Film, Volume II

Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And? What is the problem with those articles also being retitled? –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You should first ask yourself, "What isn't the problem?" Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why it is a problem. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you should explain: What's the problem? Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
How am I to explain why there is a problem if I don't see one? If you don't wish to explain your point, it frankly is not valid. Please back your statement on why there is a problem with moving those other articles. It's not difficult by any means. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
That's absolutely correct: "it frankly is not valid". This is why the redirects will not happen. If it's not broke, then it doesn't need fixed. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You have not addressed my question: what is difficult about redirecting those articles? Also, WP:BROKE does not apply when there is (possibly) a violation of the MoS occurring. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
As I already stated, "What isn't the problem? If someboby looks at History on Film, what do you think one's going to find? Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(←) There isn't an article titled History on film so I don't think there will be any confusion between that and History on Film, Volume II. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Which specifaclly means "history on film". Film buffs will sure be disappointed. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:HAT, if it turns out to be an issue. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
If it turns out to be an issue. Which is why we're going to make sure there isn't one. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Lo, I see what you are doing Discographer, but it woul be best to discuss it. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This title (HIStory) serves as a double-meaning word: HIS-story, referring to what MJ is saying to us through his songs, with which each song is its on "story", sang by him as being "his story"; and history, referring to, of course, his earlier music, which is represented as his "history". Thus, his "history" too is "his story". One not without the other. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Taraborrelli

The article uses the Taraborrelli book, The Magic, Madness, however it can't be found in the bibliography section. Concerned editors please add this. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

INCONSISTENTCY BETWEEN MICHAEL JACKSON PAGE BEST SELLING ALBUMS (HIStory Past Present Future)

RECENTLY - the album History Past Present Future was taken out of the best selling album page (because no one looked for sales references to keep it there),,,,,,,,,,,how can this Michael Jackson page claim ....Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad, and History as the best selling albums , when History is not on the list,,,,,,,,,,,either 1. get references for that albums sales to put it back on the best selling album list,,,,,or 2. take it off this list,,,,--65.8.191.220 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done The page is not fully protected, and you haven't provided a reliable source. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

– "HIStory" has not been proven to stand for anything, it's just a special way of styling the word "History", for the purposes of the single and the album, per WP:MOS. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:AD8A:28D8:74E9:C18E (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it supposed to be like "his story" but in some weird, corrupted portmanteau? I think HIStory is correct since it conveys that meaning. AlphaOkami (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it's suppose to be a play on HIS Story and history, but there isn't a source to say that specifically so that isn't mentioned in article. The issue is how do we title it. All WP:RS refer to the album as HIStory, but from what I couldn't find anything about stylizations on albums titles on MOS:MUSICCAPS or MOS:CT. MOS:TM/STYLE mentions stylizations in titles, but not sure if that applies here. WikiVirusC(talk) 01:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's the correct name of the album, has been stable since April, 2004, and we are an encyclopedia. Since it can be written with the upper-case, and has been at this name for so long, just leaving it as is may be the best way to go. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

So is it settled that it's gonna be left as-is and we forget there was ever a debate? AlphaOkami (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose – It has always been styled as 'HIStory...' – in all the MJ literature and any magazine at the time of the album's launch. I don't think I've ever seen it written as plain 'History...'. --Geach (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2017 (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.

Infobox genres

@Blueberry72: Should rock should be in the genre - D.S., Come Together and Scream? Also, I think funk could be appropriate too - Money, Tabloid Junkie, 2 Bad. Isaacsorry (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Three songs in a tracklist of 30 songs aren't enough to add rock or funk in the infobox. We need sources which say that the album is funk or rock. Of course, even in the tracklist of disc one there are some funk and rock songs, but I think we should discuss whith other users before add those genres. Blueberry72 (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HIStory:_Past,_Present_and_Future,_Book_I/Archive_1&oldid=1163331698"