Talk:The Balcony (album)
Latest comment: 9 years ago by BDD in topic Requested move 9 January 2015
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 9 January 2015
edit- 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 moved. --BDD (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The Balcony (Catfish and the Bottlemen album) → The Balcony (album) – Only album called The Balcony. 73.195.245.169 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose this isn't the only album, the much more notable The Balcony (soundtrack) exists. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support. There is no "soundtrack", only a non-notable audiobook version of a 1967 production recorded as an LP. See the WorldCat listing. An audiobook is not an "album". This is the only album with this title. Dohn joe (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support per Dohn joe. Only album with this title. Melonkelon (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Of course an LP is album, why is it so desperately important to hide the name of the artist here? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I could counter that with, "Why is it so desperately important to include the name of the artist here?" I am supporting this move because I believe articles should not be (in my opinion) needlessly disambiguated. There are no other articles on Wikipedia about albums named The Balcony. I just don't think adding the artist's name has much merit in this case. Could you explain what benefit it has when there are no conflicting articles? It would be like adding (Jean Genet play) to The Balcony, it's just unnecessary. Melonkelon (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's a case of retaining, keeping, not adding. This is the way the article was created. I would say it is important to keep the name of the artist because since release on 14 September 2014 this is a WP:RECENT item of popular entertainment with a current audience and current popularity, which inherits notability from being by a notable band. Notability is inherited for most pop artist products since the globalisation of the music market in the 1970s and the end of different artists launching the same song in different markets.
- It's also likely enough to end up with the artist name restored even if removed eventually anyway, as new albums with generic names come out each year. This has been the pattern with RMs which succeed in removing artist names from songs and albums; that the removal is often reverted by a new song or album within a year or so. User:Quidster4040 in creating the article with the artist name is helping grant some stability as well as recognizability to the article.
- And again another album exists - the LP soundtrack with the play and music by conductor Howard Sackler from 1967 - and that fact that Howard Sackler's LP doesn't have a standalone article is irrelevant, since the play does. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- If it's "likely" to end up with the artist's name restored then why not create it as The Balcony (album) and wait for that to happen? Should we disambiguate every single article because another song/album/movie might or might not be released sometime in the future? As of typing, there are no other albums named The Balcony on the disambiguation page. There's only one film and one painting. Should these entries be moved to The Balcony (1964 film) and The Balcony (Manet painting) because of the possibly another work might be released? I just don't follow the logic. Even in cases where there might be many works of the same name, if they are not notable, then I don't think all articles should be needlessly disambiguated to accommodate them. Melonkelon (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- (1) Because of the dozens of broken links an incomplete album or song title causes when the next album comes along. (2) As for the second point, if you disagree with WP:DISAMBIGUATION then a RFC to change the guideline is needed. For the time being however en.Wikipedia disambiguates against article content not titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- If it's "likely" to end up with the artist's name restored then why not create it as The Balcony (album) and wait for that to happen? Should we disambiguate every single article because another song/album/movie might or might not be released sometime in the future? As of typing, there are no other albums named The Balcony on the disambiguation page. There's only one film and one painting. Should these entries be moved to The Balcony (1964 film) and The Balcony (Manet painting) because of the possibly another work might be released? I just don't follow the logic. Even in cases where there might be many works of the same name, if they are not notable, then I don't think all articles should be needlessly disambiguated to accommodate them. Melonkelon (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I could counter that with, "Why is it so desperately important to include the name of the artist here?" I am supporting this move because I believe articles should not be (in my opinion) needlessly disambiguated. There are no other articles on Wikipedia about albums named The Balcony. I just don't think adding the artist's name has much merit in this case. Could you explain what benefit it has when there are no conflicting articles? It would be like adding (Jean Genet play) to The Balcony, it's just unnecessary. Melonkelon (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Of course an LP is album, why is it so desperately important to hide the name of the artist here? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support this is the only album of this title, as stated by Dohn joe. The "much more notable soundtrack" doesn't have its own article, isn't mentioned in the article The Balcony, doesn't come up on a CD search on Amazon, and quite possibly is actually an audiobook - and even the audiobook only rates one line on the main play article, no article in its own right. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2015 (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.