Talk:1978–1990 (Go-Betweens album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:1978–1990)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Music (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 1978–1990 (Go-Betweens album) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (marked as Low-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Albums (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]

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. 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: moved to 1978–1990 (Go-Betweens album) (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 09:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

1978–1990The Go-Betweens 1978–1990 – Apologies for burdening RM with another year title, but the biography of the band and the Mojo Collection treat "The Go-Betweens 1978–1990" as the full title David Nichols The Go-Betweens p.217 "July 1990 saw the release of The Go-Betweens 1978-1990 on double LP, 217 218 CD, and cassette (each with a slightly different track listing) in a number of key territories. This collection marked the first album release of several tracks which Forster and MacLennan clearly thought of as important to their story including "The Sound of Rain" which they had recorded for Beserkley twelve years earlier" and The Mojo Collection: 4th Edition p.530 "Further listening: Liberty Belle And The Black Diamond Express (1986); Tallulah (1987); Go-Betweens 1978–1990 (1990); Robert Forster – Danger In The Past (1990)." Likewise Colin Larkin The Virgin encyclopedia of eighties music 1997 Page 210 ...also per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY that the subject of the article be recognizable to the generally informed reader, not the absolute specialist. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The short title clearly predominates. Per WP:AT, we should choose the title that is more recognizable, more natural and more concise. As to recognizability, that is the title that people are more likely to encounter outside of WP. As to naturalness, the fact that the proposed title is a redlink speaks volumes to its naturalness. And conciseness speaks for itself. Nothing silly about using the actual title of a topic for the article on that topic. Dohn joe (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Did you say above "both titles are found", did you say that? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Obviously I did. And then showed that reliable sources use the current title more than 2:1 in Google Books. Dohn joe (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Right so you agree, "both titles are found", both titles are used, both titles are okay, yes? So of the two titles which is more helpful to readers appearing in search results: (A) 1978–1990 (B) The Go-Betweens 1978–1990? Each will redirect to the other so the only issue is which is more helpful. Which is more helpful? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, clearly the one that predominates in reliable sources. The one that our readers are more likely to encounter in real life. The one that they are more likely to search for, and that editors are more likely to link to. Again, if the proposed title were really more helpful, would it have been a redlink for nearly seven years? And as you say, the other will redirect. So why not the keep the one that is more helpful? The seven-years' stable title? Dohn joe (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Please continue, how specifically is (A) 1978–1990 more WP:RECOGNIZABLE to readers than (B) The Go-Betweens 1978–1990? How do you understand a reader recognizes an article on Wikipedia? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I thought I was being specific, but I'll try again. The album title that readers are likelier to encounter in the real world - "1978-1990" - will be more recognizable to readers as the title of the article. Someone going to the All Music Guide to Rock, p. 468, or the other 70% of reliable sources, will find a listing for 1978-1990, and will naturally expect to find the article at 1978-1990. Dohn joe (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question. Please read the question again: how specifically is (A) 1978–1990 more WP:RECOGNIZABLE to readers than (B) The Go-Betweens 1978–1990? Even the few dozen readers who hypothetically have gone to the 11 sources you prefer will have been reading entries that said "The Go-Betweens.... 1978-1990", they will have "The Go-Betweens..." in their mind and be looking for a "The Go-Betweens..." compilation. When they search on this and get (A) 1978–1990 or (B) The Go-Betweens 1978–1990 how specifically is 1978–1990 more recognizably The Go-Betweens compilation album than The Go-Betweens 1978–1990. Put another way, how does "The Go-Betweens" make recognition of the Go-Betweens compilation album more difficult for anyone? You seem to be arguing that there's a kind of album fan out there who wants to listen to a compilation of a band from these years 1978-1990 but can only remember the years not the band, and will be confused and obstructed by "The Go-Betweens" appearing before "1978-1990".
The question is how specifically is (A) 1978–1990 more WP:RECOGNIZABLE to readers as a The Go-Betweens compilation from those years than (B) The Go-Betweens 1978–1990? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Third time's a charm? From WP:RECOGNIZABLE: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." Here, "1978-1990" is the most commonly used name, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources. Thus, WP prefers its use, as "1978-1990" will be the most recognizable name to your readers. That, specifically, is why "1978-1990" is more WP:RECOGNIZABLE than "The Go-Betweens 1978-1990". Dohn joe (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
In some (or even many) sources, the shorter name may be used in context, where the band is mentioned along with the album, and it's obvious what's being referred to. Taken out of all context, such as in the name of a Wikipedia article, the current title is not recognizable as the name of an album. It's simply a range of years. So, no, the current title is not more recognizable than the proposed title -- rather, the reverse. Omnedon (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean, taken out of all context? A WP title is almost always found in context. It will be a direct link from another article discussing the band or album, in context. It will be a search result showing the first lines of the article, in context. People coming across this title will almost certainly know it belongs to the context of the Go-Betweens. Dohn joe (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia article titles should not depend that heavily on context for recognizability. They may not always need to be recognizable to someone unfamiliar with the subject matter, but they should not be completely cryptic or downright misleading when viewed outside of a narrow context. In fact, it may even be desirable for them to sometimes convey some information in addition to serving as a string label for computer program identification purposes. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Recognizability has long applied to only those who are familiar with a given topic, and this is precisely why. If we are going to try to make our titles recognizable to people who are not familiar with the topic, and especially out of context, we might as well start retitling almost all of our articles. Is that your desire? --В²C 19:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the titles of "almost all of our articles" on Wikipedia would qualify as "completely cryptic or downright misleading when viewed outside of a narrow context." —BarrelProof (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course "almost all of our articles" on Wikipedia would not qualify as "completely cryptic or downright misleading when viewed outside of a narrow context", simply because so many topics have such obviously recognizable names. However, a large percentage of our articles do qualify as "completely cryptic or downright misleading when viewed outside of a narrow context". You can verify this by clicking repeatedly on SPECIAL:RANDOM (skipping descriptive titles of unnamed topics and names that are obviously people or places). I get News TV Quick Response Team (cryptic and misleading), Just a Song About Ping Pong (okay, some kind of song), Entente Boulet Rouge (no idea - so cryptic not even misleading), Cheshmeh-ye Sabzi (totally cryptic again), Malik ibn Anas (cryptic), Brück (song? album? Place?, philosophy?), Nowtarki-ye Mokhtari (cryptic), 125 Liberatrix (cryptic and misleading, I thought it was an address - it's an asteroid), Teardrops on My Drum (misleading - I thought it was a song but it's a novel), Acantholambrus (something scientific; still cryptic. A genus of crab), Bratukhin Omega (No idea - turns out to be a helicopter), Eurocrack (cryptic - a Finnish rap act), Porkellis (cryptic), Tritik (cryptic and misleading - not a place in Eastern Europe as I guessed), Metriš (cryptic and misleading, this is a place in Eastern Europe, I thought it was band or song), Kalpana-1 (wanna guess?), Gory Blister (cryptic), Maryknoll (cryptic and misleading), Pie, Pie Blackbird (a type of bird? Nope. A film), TwinBee, ... The point is, Wikipedia is so full of obscure, cryptic and misleading titles you can easily find them just by clicking on SPECIAL:RANDOM a few times - that clearly demonstrates how common they are, and that the community does not generally disambiguate titles just because they are obscure, cryptic or misleading. There actually has to be a valid disambiguation situation (another article, or a dab page, not just a redirect to the article, is using that title). Don't believe me? Do your own test. But accepting the argument that cryptic or misleading titles need to be changed would mean changing thousands and thousands of our titles. And to what end? Our titles are rarely ever referenced out of context, so when they are cryptic or misleading, it doesn't matter. You're either looking at a link in article, dab page or hatnote text that provides context, or you're looking at the article where the lead provides context. Even if you're looking at a category list, the category provides the context (e.g., list of albums from fill-in-the-blank). So the fact that the title, out of context, is cryptic or misleading, is irrelevant to actual usability. --В²C 23:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
B2C what exactly does "You can verify this by clicking repeatedly on SPECIAL:RANDOM (skipping descriptive titles of unnamed topics and names that are obviously people or places). mean"? = does that mean cherry picking results so that only 20% that aren't blindingly obvious are counted? I am really seriously cheesed off by this. This section in black confirms to me at what was suggested by your previous citings of your SPECIAL:RANDOM test, which didn't line up with the painfully documented exercise of doing 100 checks of SPECIAL:RANDOM which only produced 2 or 3 in 100 as bizarre as the ones you supposedly immediately found.
Pluse as Barrelproof says "To me, at least none of those lead to a result that is a substantial WP:SURPRISE". Exactly. This is one of the most misleading exercises in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I have seen, ever, from any editor in any discussion. Beyond further comment. When are you going to contribute something to article space? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
To me, at least none of those lead to a result that is a substantial WP:SURPRISE, and I think part of the question is exactly how narrow to define the context of interpretation. Even among music fans, and even among Go-Betweens fans, I think 1978–1990 (without further disambiguation) would primarily be a span of time, not an album. (At first glance, Cheshmeh-ye Sabzi might benefit from disambiguation from Cheshmeh-ye Sabz (something about green eyes, or a place with a spring where greens grow? 'Sabzi' refers to green things or green vegetables, and I believe 'cheshmeh' is 'eyes' or 'spring').) —BarrelProof (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
But identify an actual context on Wikipedia where the title would be reference in a way that could be mistaken for a date range rather than an album. Nothing hypothetical. Identify an actual situation where that would happen. --В²C 07:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per BP. -- (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I feel a little personally invested in this one. Had I found the article titled "1978-1990", I would have clicked on it, wondering aloud, "What possible historical significance could such a periodization have?" Upon discovering that it was merely the title of an album I've never heard of, nor ever would want to hear of, I would have felt misled, my time wasted. I am someone who cares deeply about history, and the art of conceptualizing it; at the same, I care little for obscure music. I would be one of the victims of this current title, robbed of my valuable time by a hopelessly confusing name. Analysis of guidelines is not necessary for me on this one (though WP:ASTONISH obtains.) I know the encyclopedia would be better if people like me were not misled. This is true for any range of dates that might serve as an album title. Xoloz (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Lol. I like how your personal investment takes the form of a boilerplate post! Dohn joe (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    I'm a lawyer. I think there is a boilerplate form attached to my soul! ;) Xoloz (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dohn Joe's logic. There is no other article titled 1978–1990, a shorter title trumps a longer less used one. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Why, where does WP:AT say that? You do realise we are only talking about a redirect here? Both titles will still go to the same place whichever shows in the search box. Same as Harusame redirects to Japanese destroyer Harusame (1937); whom is your oppose vote helping by opposing the fuller title found in books? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
See Deciding on a Title:Conciseness, and Precision. The shorter title helps people who are looking for accuracy in wp.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
What WP:AT says is "For instance, the recognizable, natural, and concise title United Kingdom is preferred over the more precise title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (for more details, see Use commonly recognizable names, below)." - but a media product isn't a country, this is a The Go-Betweens compilation which derives it's notability entirely from The Go-Betweens. If this was [1978–1990, the Best 12 songs of 12 years 1978–1990] then the subtitle would have some meaning, but as it stands it is the "...of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", the less notable bit. The current title is unrecognisable in the normal sense of the word. User:Shaidar cuebiyar, seriously, what percentage of our readers could recognise the album 1986–1996 (this is actually an album), do you recognize "1986–1996" off the top of your head without clicking? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:AT defines both Precision and Conciseness:
Under the former we have "The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects" with 'precise' leading to "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". 1978-1990 is precise enough to meet these conditions. The section further describes use of naming conventions which provide exception to the Precision criterion. Is there a naming convention for this situation? Or, are you intending to create such a convention?
Under the latter we have "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". Later we have "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area". A person familiar with the subject, i.e. The Go-Betweens, has sufficient information with 1978–1990 to identify the topic, i.e. an album by that group. If there was another article with 1978-1990 then use a dab e.g. ''[[1978-1990 (album)|]]'' or similar. If there is an applicable naming convention being contravened then point to it.
As for your cute little test re: "1986–1996". The hover setting meant I saw BMW S38 without clicking: does this mean I pass? As for an album with that actual title (as opposed to say, Janet Jackson or Poison, compilations with it as part of their title) I don't recognise the album. I suspect that I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject area.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – using a date range to title an article on an album fails WP:AT's precision and recognizability criteria. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    I still don't see how using the actual title of an album is imprecise or unrecognizable. Dohn joe (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    To those of us who support this proposal, the current title isn't clearly (recognizably) an album. Yes, it is the actual name of the album, but that name is ambiguous (unclear/unrecognizable) in comparison to an historical range of dates. For the purposes of an encyclopedia, the actual title of the album is inadequate in certain key respects, so it must be disambiguated. Xoloz (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    If a disambiguation is required then the standard format is ''[[1978–1990 (The Go-Betweens album)|1978–1990]]'' not the proposal above.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Normally, yes, but as above WP:NATURALDIS applies since the biography of the band David Nichols The Go-Betweens p.217 and the Mojo Collection treat "The Go-Betweens 1978–1990" as the full title In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The image of the album cover actually says, "The Go-Betweens" and "1978-1990" below that. The article title "1978-1990" communicates nearly nothing about the content of the article. Omnedon (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The cover gives The Go-Betweens as the artist not as its title nor part of its title. The artists chose the album title to be 1978–1990, wp should accurately reflect the artist's preferred title which is also its most commonly referred title, unless a disambiguation is required e.g. ''[[1978–1990 (The Go-Betweens album)|1978–1990]]'' due to another article of the same name. There is no such need here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NC. What next? Albums listed by catalog numbers? I mean catalog numbers are original, easily recognizable (!) and completely avoids the need for disambiguation. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment Check 90125 which is an album named for its catalogue number. Why isn't this re-named Yes 90125 to cater for people who think 90125 is an area code? Note for Omnedon: the album cover has Yes printed above the numerals but this does not make it part of its title.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Response to shaidar cuebiyar. A date range can refer to anything, including, unfortunately, dates on tombstones, length a business was trading, a war, politics, literally anything, whereas 90125 is rather limited, and, I am pleased to say, does not affect me in the slightest. It's quite silly not to use alpha numerical for postcodes, at least that way we all know where we are (approximately)! BTW, The correct catalog number is 7-90125 for the American release of 90125! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Four digits dash four digits can refer to lots of other things besides dates: e.g. it could be an issn or even a range of post codes! As for Yes-related material see also Trevor Rabin's album, 90124 from 2003. While 90126 is part of the catalogue number for an album by four members of Yes.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Response to shaidar cuebiyar. Fair enough, I assume you will be striking your opposition to the retitling of this article in view of your comment above. I shall ignore the Yes album on the grounds that other stuff exists. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Nah. 1978–1990 is more precise, concise and recognisable than the alternative. Just as 90125 is better than Yes 90125 as a title for that album. Likewise just because other stuff exists for 1978–1990 that doesn't mean the article title has to be changed to a less precise, concise or recognisable form.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Response to shaidar cuebiyar. You wrote, "Four digits dash four digits can refer to lots of other things besides dates: e.g. it could be an issn or even a range of post codes!" which means you do think the present title is NOT recognisable. I despair. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I use recognisable per "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize". Somebody familiar with the subject easily recognises it as their compilation album. See also Dohn joe's discussion of context, above.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Coming at the issue from the opposite direction, isn't it possible that someone "familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in" the subject of the year 1978 (or the year 1990) could be confused by this title? That is my contention, and my reason for holding this title ambiguous. There is more than one possible subject signified by this title. Xoloz (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, the primary topic of the phrase "1978-1990" is the period of years itself. bd2412 T 15:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Which is irrelevant as there are no reliable sources on that topic, let alone a WP article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2cycle (talkcontribs)
  • Ultra Strong Oppose. This is the name of this topic, as referenced in reliable sources. This is therefore the ideal title for this topic. There is no argument based in policy or convention to change this title. It's a violation of WP:TITLECHANGES, really, as no good reason (based in policy or convention) has been given to change it. No one has invoked IAR either, much less provided a good reason for ignoring our rules. And ignoring our rules is exactly what this frivolous proposal is all about. And, no, it's not frivolous because I oppose it. It's frivolous because it's not supported by policy or convention. --В²C 17:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC) added Ultra. --В²C 16:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
While you're entitled to your opinion, the results of your previous chastisements should have made it clear to you by now that you are not entitled to a stronger opinion than others. I suggest you strike or remove that. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia policy supports changing this title. In particular, WP:AT instructs that "the choice of article title should put the interests of a general audience before those of specialists", and in this case it's clear that only a very specialized subset of readers (those already familiar with the album names of this one particular band) will recognize the current title as the name of an album. The general audience are likely to misunderstand the title as a date range. Clarifying the title has the benefit of eliminating this misunderstanding and serving the general readership. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think even the most general reader would be able to recognize that the current title matches the title on the album, don't you think? Dohn joe (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    As noted above, the album cover includes the name of the group, then the range of years. Not just a range of years. Omnedon (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    Many, if not most, album covers have the band name. That doesn't change the title of the album. And my question may have been unclear. A general reader would be able to recognize that the current title of the article matches the title of this album. Wouldn't you (or Huwmanbeing, who I asked originally) agree? Dohn joe (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    Then you will have no trouble in realising that albums are made by "bands" (or artists) and the album (or song) title and the band name are inextricably linked everywhere - except, if you had your way, Wikipedia. I would ask the question "why" but I have asked before and am still waiting for an answer. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    Dohn joe: If I scan down into the article, check out the visuals, etc., then sure, I will almost certainly understand what any article is about, regardless of any title that's used. Is that relevant? If you're suggesting that a questionable or deficient title becomes permissible if accompanied by supporting content in the article body (such as an album cover image in this case), then I certainly disagree with that, and see no support for it in policy.

    Again per WP:AT, the title must be considered for its appropriateness for a general audience, and I simply don't see anything to suggest that a general audience is served by title which is only likely to be correctly understood by specialists. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

    What do you mean, "specialist"? I'd never heard of this album (or this band, for that matter), but I'm perfectly capable of recognizing that the title of the album is "1978-1990". Most reliable sources - including other generalist sources - call it "1978-1990". Why shouldn't WP? Dohn joe (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    I don't understand: if you were unfamiliar with the album (and indeed the band), how did you recognize from the article title that the title referred to an album? (Remember, it's the title we're discussing, not the content of the article.) Someone with specialized knowledge — a fan of the band, say — might indeed correctly identify the current title as referring to an album, but that's not you, nor me, nor probably over 99% of our readers.
    Put simply, a title that's likely to be correctly identifiable only by a comparatively tiny specialized group, and likely to be misinterpreted by the much greater general audience, runs afoul of the clear instruction provided by WP:AT that we give more titling consideration to the needs of the general readership. ╠╣uw [talk] 23:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    Even if you pick someone within the tiny specialized group of people who spend nearly their entire waking hours listening to, studying and thinking about popular (and unpopular) music – someone who is actually familiar with this particular album – and you tell them you want to talk to them about 1978–1990, that person would be much more likely to respond by saying "yes, that was a very interesting period when a lot of cool things happened" than by saying "yes, that was a really great album by the Go-Betweens". Even among specialists, this title would need disambiguation. The current article title is just darn silly. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:CRITERIA: it's more concise (obviously), just as recognizable (anyone familiar with the subject area will immediately know what the article is regardless), more natural (obviously this is the more attested format), more consistent (most articles don't have disambiguators), and equally precise (there is only one possible topic that this title as it stands could describe, until and unless Miley Cyrus has a baby and names him "1978–1990" in an attempt to be weird). A tie in two, and a win in three out of five. Red Slash 07:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Date ranges imply a historical period of years, just as a four digit number in isolation implies a year. This album is referred to as "The Go-Betweens 1978–1990" when outside the context of the Go-Betweens precisely because it is obviously ambiguous. Calling "1978–1990" a more concise phrase than "The Go-Betweens 1978–1990" is an absurd misuse of the English work concise. The second is not inconcise, and the first has discarded important information. The difference between wordiness and concision is not information content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, but offer an alternative... the issue here is not conciseness, but the need for disambiguation. I think there is clearly a need for disambiguation (per nom). However, since the title is also the name of the album, I would suggest that 1978–1990 (Go-Betweens album) would be a more appropriate way to disambiguate. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally I'd be fine with that as a second choice not far behind. I'd rather go with Nichols, but the main concern expressed above per WP:AT is to correct what is obviously unrecognizable even to Nichols, as the expert who wrote the biography of the band. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, the current title is perfectly recognizable to the 70% of reliable sources that use it - and to the readers who encounter the title there. Dohn joe (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
On further analysis of the claim that the present title is recognizable to the 70% of reliable sources, I thought I’d look at the statistics a little more carefully. Two things I spotted straight away:- All the books are music-related so what might be required in a place like Wikipedia which has over 4.5m articles on every known subject - as opposed to a 396-page book (Christau’s) dedicated to music; and, for an example, “Young and Foolish” a 115-page book, says, “The Go-Betweens presented... (more text) 1978-1990 LP” So that book DOES, quite clearly, make the connection between artist and album.
I could extrapolate 396 pages –v- 4.5MILLION pages, suggests that 70% is nearer .007% but that would be as much Lies, damned lies, and statistics as the claim “the current title is perfectly recognizable to the 70% of reliable sources that use it”
I do suggest that the 70% claim is not substantiated, not supported, nor based on any known mathematical science.--Richhoncho (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
This one's pretty straightforward. I found 11 sources that use the current title, and 5 that use the proposed title. That's approximately 70% of the sources I found in a neutral Google Books search. We use that to determine what the WP:COMMONNAME of the album is. Dohn joe (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Then used that as "statistics" to append it to have a meaning in Wikipedia to support your opinion. No way, Jose! --Richhoncho (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. As has been done hundreds, if not thousands, of times in hundreds, if not thousands of RM discussions. Dohn joe (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
and it might work if you are comparing apples, sometimes it might work when comparing apples and pears, but it will never work comparing apples with elephants. Don't respond, just think about it for as long as you like! --Richhoncho (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It actually works fantastically well most of the time. I don't know why you're being so difficult about standard WP practice. If you have a better way to determine usage in reliable sources other than searching reliable sources, I'm sure we'd be glad to hear it. Dohn joe (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
If considering things logically is being "difficult" I am honored to be be called difficult. Thank you. If considering the minutiae and applying it globally is acceptable WP practice then it needs to change. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For the record, your so-called "statistics" omits the following abbreviated list which readers may be looking for :-

  • All Creatures Great and Small (1978–1990)
  • instruments of kraftwerk :) part 2 -1978-1990
  • American Hardcore, 1978-1990
  • Nicaragua: The Making of U.S. Policy, 1978-1990
  • Yara : 1978-1990
  • North Yemen (1978-1990)
  • This Woman's Work: Anthology 1978–1990
  • Aston Martin V8 Volante 1978-1990
  • Acoustic neuroma (schwannoma) surgery 1978-1990
  • The Genius Mixtape - 1978-1990
  • Campaign Expenditures in the United States, 1978-1990
  • Singles 1978-1990 - Big Al Downing
  • Foreign Trade and Economic Reform in China: 1978-1990
  • Stephen King Reviewed: The Stand (1978/1990)

--Richhoncho (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You are seriously missing the point. The Google Books search above has nothing to do with other instances of "1978-1990". The only point of that search is to help decide what the WP:COMMONNAME of this album is. The WP:DAB question is a separate inquiry. Dohn joe (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it's about, "WP:RECOGNIZABILITY that the subject of the article be recognizable to the generally informed reader, not the absolute specialist" as per nomination." With a consider number of alternative meanings what point in arguing "common name?" --Richhoncho (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
There are two separate questions in this, as in many RMs. First, what is the best title for this topic under WP:AT, which includes WP:COMMONNAME. Second, is this topic the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that title? The Google Books search helps with answering the first question. That's all. Dohn joe (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, we shall have to agree to disagree. You think non-song titles are an irrelevance in a general encyclopedia, I don't. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
You keep missing the point (and misrepresenting my position, which is understandable if you don't understand the point I'm making), but that's okay. I assume it's clear to everyone else. Dohn joe (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose RM as stated, but Support Blueboar's more wikified compromise of "1978–1990 (Go-Betweens album)." Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support either this move or parenthetical DAB, for precision and clarity. The current title is the most concise, but it also necessitates a hatnote disambiguating it from three different articles about similarly titled compilations. It could be argued that this moniker for the compilation is descriptive rather than nominal, but regardless of that question, the current title is ambiguous, does not have a primary topic, and is not the best one used for its subject in reliable sources. — (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
re above change, as nom obliged to comment: perfectly fine with Blueboar, Fyunck(click) 1978–1990 (Go-Betweens album), though prefer WP:NATURAL as album cover. The important thing is not to be pretending that the primary topic of "1978–1990" is a compilation LP of an Australian band, this is not what primary topic was designed for, or it would be on the WP:AT as an example. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2014 (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.