Talk:Appetite for Destruction (disambiguation)

Why should the Guns and Roses album do not have any "(album)" tags when there is another album? It would be better to move it to "Appetite for Destruction (Guns 'n Roses album)". --Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 10:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contested move request

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Dekimasu よ! 00:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The request has expired and has been removed from that page. Dekimasu よ! 00:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Appetite for Destruction (disambiguation) → Appetite for Destruction - There is three uses, two albums and one song. The more famous album is having the one without "(album)" etc... tags. The other one is "Appetite for Destruction (artist album)" and the song is "Appetite for Destruction (song)". So to make it look better the album that is "Appetite for Destruction" without band name should be moved to the band name and move the disambiguation to "Appetite for Destruction". --Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 10:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or move Appetite for Destruction to Appetite for Destruction (Guns N' Roses album). Many people have not heard of either album or the song. Anthony Appleyard 21:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I mean, the Guns N' Roses album should be moved to the "(Guns n' Roses album)" tag and the disambiguation to simply Appetite for Destruction. Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Guns N' Roses album album sold over 26 million, it's clearly the primary topic here, so should be the article without disambiguation. Crazysuit 05:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in complete agreement with Crazysuit. Someone went ahead and made this move a few weeks ago, and I asked for everything to be put back where it was. --Bongwarrior 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about how much it sold, I know it's more notable, but to make it uncontroversial I think it should have been with the "tag". Woop-Woop That's the sound of da Police 17:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]