Talk:How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul?

Comments

The article currently states that this "album is one of their more critically acclaimed albums of the decade." However, it doesn't give a source to back that statement. 24.131.94.66 (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC) This album has the stupidest title ever. I've seen it on a list of the stupidest album names, should we include that in a section of the article?

Request 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: not moved —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

---

How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul? → How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul??? — The extra ?s are part of the entire title.—Dan56 (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The inclusion of the additional question marks are a style choice and are not necessary. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:TM, however the other title should be a redirect. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 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.

Requested move

{

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was do not move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul? → How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul??? —

How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul? → How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul??? — The album clearly has three question marks on the cover, the spine and the interior booklet. It's an artistic choice, not a simple interrogative. All other mentions of the title on the page reflect this. Also see allmusic, Robert Christgau and other official critical sites that refer to the album with three question marks intact (iTunes quotes the allmusic review and Rolling Stone, I believe, quotes the Christgau review but both lazily use only one question mark in the title. Do we really want to follow this kind of example for Wikipedia?) Wikkitywack (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose - as one can see, a significant number of the sources in this article either use 1 question mark, or omit it entirely. There is no valid reason to ignore WP:MOSTM (for example, the iPod validly follows the trademarking, because no one spells it "Ipod." That's not the case here). Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose style choice. The extras are question marks are unnecessary.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: per the above and the outcome of the previous, very recent, request. – ukexpat (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Parsecboy, I investigated your claim that "a significant number of the sources in this article either use 1 question mark, or omit it entirely," and came to the conclusion that you didn't do your homework. AllMusic, Robert Christgau, The New Yorker, Pitchfork, Record Collector and USA Today unquestionably use 3 question marks in their reviews. iTunes & MSN used the AllMusic review and Rolling Stone used Christgau, and so use 3 question marks by association. Discogs also uses 3 question marks. What does that leave us? 3 review-sites (Blender, LA Weekly & NME) that use ZERO question marks (which is obviously wrong), and ONE review-site (Tiny Mix Tapes - which I had never heard of) that uses 1 question mark (unless you count the title for AllMusic's review, which is corrected in the review itself). One underground website does NOT equal "a significant number of the sources". Wikkitywack (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't forget Metacritic and Billboard. They only use 1 question mark as well. Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, no. Billboard uses the AllMusic review, which uses 3 question marks as stated above - and Metacritic is not a review site, it just compiles them (and it, apparently, did not pay attention to the 3 question marks used by most of its reviews). That leaves 1 review website, not counting AllMusic's review title (which I don't, because, as I said above, this mistake is corrected in the review itself). Wikkitywack (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not talking about the review, I'm talking about the Billboard listing, which uses only 1 question mark. Parsecboy (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Further Support: As to the comments by Labattblueboy and ukexpat - did you not read my request? To reiterate: the album has 3 question marks on the cover. 2 small, 1 large. If this were all the information we had, I would understand your opposition. Perhaps the 2 small question marks were meant as artistic flourishes for the cover only. HOWEVER, the spine and the inside booklet also tell us that the proper title contains THREE QUESTION MARKS (yes, I own the CD!) What more evidence do you need that this is an artistic choice, not a simple interrogative??? The rest of my request is made stronger by the above rebuttal to Parsecboy's claim. And ukexpat, in case you didn't notice, my request is significantly different than Dan56's rather meager offering of "The extra ?s are part of the entire title" - which initiated the previous discussion. Wikkitywack (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That the CD's proper title has 3 question marks is largely irrelevant. Please read WP:MOSTM. And you didn't rebut anything above; you merely illustrated that about half the sources use 3, and half don't. That proves nothing but my point: there isn't significant coverage to warrant an exception to MOSTM. Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I read WP:MOSTM. It talks about trademarks. An album title is not a trademark. These rules do not apply. It's an artistic choice, and therefore something any self-respecting encyclopedia should respect. An example: The Roots - Do You Want More?!!!??! Wiki page presents the title in all its messy glory. In sum: in the above paragraph, I have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the use of 3 question marks was the artist's intent, and that this was acknowledged by a vast majority of mainstream review publications. By my calculations above (including Billboard and Metacritic), almost ALL the sources on this very webpage respect the artist's wishes. That's 11 websites to 2. (The 3 websites that used zero question marks can be ruled out, as they did not offer an opinion on the matter.) This is a landslide majority that would by itself call for a reevaluation - but this is largely irrelevant, as the artist has spoken and there is no conflict with WP:MOSTM. Wikkitywack (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Then you didn't read it closely enough. It gives the examples Se7en and Alien³, which are as much artistic choices as the title of this album. That other articles are titled that way is irrelevant; if the vast majority of sources refer to that album with the extended punctuation, then it's perfectly in line with policy. That is not the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Really? Se7en and Alien³ are comparable to simply adding 2 question marks? I don't think these examples apply to this situation in two ways. Firstly, did you ever see Se7en or Alien³ in the newsprint/reviews of the time? Probably not, because, in the case of Se7en, it just looks funny and confusing in print and, in the case of Alien³, the whole ³ thing is not a standard keyboard feature. (In fact, I didn't even notice that the "v" in the Se7en poster was a "7" until many years after I saw it.) The cases against these titles are much, much stronger. I believe these are two examples of what I mentioned earlier to Labattblueboy and ukexpat: "artistic flourishes for the cover[/movie poster] only." Secondly, How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul??? is not part of a franchise. I repeat, an album title is not a trademark. Wikkitywack (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Neither is a movie title, and yet it is included as an example. And as for "Se7en" not appearing in other works, there are 667 books that refer to the movie with the 7, and 10 scholarly journal articles that do the same. Conversely, there are five books that mention this album. Two of them use only 1 question mark, one doesn't use any, and the other two aren't viewable. The one scholarly journal article to cover this album omits them entirely. If anything, the case for this article to use non-standard punctuation is much weaker than that of the film. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I did read your request but you must realize that there a number of guidelines associate with article naming and that sometimes results in punctuation or presentation that is different that the artist intended. This often results in a balancing act between proper English, artist intent and popular usage. I generally get the impression that WP:NCM, MOS:MUSIC and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD leans towards proper English.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the extra question marks are stylized punctuation, WP:MOSTM applies. Anyone that says "it's not a trademark" has missed the point entirely. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• precedent?. Isnt this article's title, Do You Want More?!!!??!, an example of stylizing?, but its allowed in this article's case. Also, what harm is there to allow the actual title to be used as the name of the article? If there is harm, then just note in the article of the album's actual title (which shouldnt depend on how publications refer to it as) by saying that the ??? part is a stylization. Dan56 (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No. Precedent only arises from the outcome of discussions. That article has to date never been discussed. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, what harm is there to allow the actual title to be used as the name of the article? If there is harm, then just note in the article of the album's actual title (which shouldnt depend on how publications refer to it as) by saying that the ??? part is a stylization. Dan56 (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Heard that one a few times before. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so then just note in the article of the album's actual title (which shouldnt depend on how publications refer to it as) by saying that the ??? part is a stylization. Dan56 (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose We do not include stylised punctuation in page titles. And why on earth are we discussing this again just 21 days after an identical move request was defeated? Skinsmoke (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments: Wikkitywack (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on How You Sell Soul to a Soulless People Who Sold Their Soul?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091012054246/http://www.blender.com:80/guide/new/54794/how-you-sell-soul-to-soulless-people-who-sold-their-soul.html to http://www.blender.com/guide/new/54794/how-you-sell-soul-to-soulless-people-who-sold-their-soul.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081008003305/http://blogs.usatoday.com/listenup/2007/08/this-weeks-re-3.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/listenup/2007/08/this-weeks-re-3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)