This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This redirect 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.
Both their main page and this page claim this album to be Synaesthesia's first, but this is not the case since virtually every other online Synaesthesia source asserts that this album was released in October of 1995, and Embody (their real first) was released on or about January earlier that year and was recorded in '94. Therefore Desideratum is their second release, not the "debut". I removed the debut albums category from the list on this page, and made sure they weren't listed there (they weren't, somebody just threw the debut albums category onto this page). Filter1987 19:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
Oppose. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY, so the fact that "desideratum" is a word is irrelevant here. What is relevant is what, if anything, named "Desideratum" has encyclopedic content. Apparently it's this album. If this album did not exist, there would be no need for any page (article, redirect) Desideratum. That makes this album, by default, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Desideratum". Dohn joe (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
Does this album pass either of these tests? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes on both counts. Again, we don't need to worry about the dictdef usage of "desideratum". We only need to worry about encyclopedic uses of the term. That's what
Look up desideratum in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
is for. Here, as I said above, if there were no album, there would be no Desideratum. It's the only encyclopedic usage to date, and thus primarytopic by default. Dohn joe (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Arguable, if volunteers had not created an unsourced album stub then it should have probably been redirected to the book by John Wesley. It may well be that an unsourced ambient album stub has more encyclopedic value than a book by Wesley, or a prize winning racehorse, or even the psychological concept of desiderata/desideratum - but what is at issue here is whether our editors believe that the album passes those two tests. You think it does, I think it doesn't, we'll see what others say. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per Dohn joe. I'd also like to point out that the article isn't unsourced. It's just missing a regular references section. There is a link to an Allmusic review. —Torchiesttalkedits 13:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose and speedy close, nonsense proposal. Cavarrone 17:59, 23 May 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.
User:Armbrust, happy with above close if that is the view of the community. I have added About template hatnote to link to the racehorse and John Wesley book etc on dab page. Does the article need a wiktionary box in your view? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
For the Allmusic review, the link is found in the "Album ratings" infobox. Dohn joe (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
6 sentences, 103 words (according to Microsoft Word), just 6 lines of text on my browser's view (with each line spanning less than half the screen width), with no mention of what anyone else thinks of the album. My impression is that Allmusic essentially tries to cover – well, basically all music, without much regard to notability. To me that's not sufficient to pass WP:NALBUMS / WP:GNG. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'd rather just pontificate. Besides, it seems so much easier to create articles on Wikipedia than to delete them, that for every instance in which people have bothered to spend their collective time and energy to follow the AfD process to completion, there may be 20 other articles created that will never be more than poorly-sourced stubs. Why bother trying? —BarrelProof (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Dohn joe, in fact I probably should have AFDed rather than put in RM since the base problem here is the completely unnotable album with nothing but an allmusic review occupying a primary topic seat. If it does go to AFD will you oppose? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know - is an allmusic review usually enough for notability? Dohn joe (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I've contested/reverted the move Desideratum (album) -> Desideratum as I see no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (PT) or discussion (per that). There's no reason to assume there is a PT per candidates at Desiderata (disambiguation) and even the term Desideratum (album) is still ambiguous so I've changed that to target the dab per WP:INCOMPDAB. I'm not sure of the state of titles/topics/dab when the RM above was formed, but clearly consensus can change, and the above RM is outdated. With current article names, and dab, in hindsight User:In ictu oculi seems to have the only position that's now tenable, and I suspect even during the RM looking into the ambiguous term "Desideratum" should have resulted in the current (now fixed) layout. It's an unusual one due to the Latin plural, but seems standard run-of-the-mill disambiguation so I've fixed everything. Just in case folk want a PT discussion for the album (does it even pass WP:NALBUM ?), ping RMers User:Dohn joeUser:CavarroneUser:TorchiestUser:Born2cycleWidefox; talk 12:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't care about this other than to point out that there was a source in the article, but it wasn't formatted properly as a reference. —Torchiesttalkedits 18:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The issue of notability is separate but still hangs over this with the one source per GNG / NALBUM. I've replaced the tag as I don't know. Widefox; talk 22:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It makes no sense to contest a move from 2 years ago, much less revert it. Start a new RM. --В²C☎ 00:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I also object to redirecting Desideratum to Desiderata. If someone is searching for Desideratum they're probably looking for something named Desideratum, not something named Desiderata. But the main objection is to your unilateral actions. Please revert what you've done and submit a proper RM proposal for the changes you propose. --В²C☎ 00:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)