Talk:Nothing Has Changed

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Albums

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.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Requested move 3 February 2016

The following is a closed 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: Move. We have a clear consensus that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the phrase. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– The album is clearly the primary topic, none of the other topics have a shred of notability in comparison. Not only do none of the other topics have articles, but the articles of the people responsible for them barely feature any info about them either. Unreal7 (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it's a compilation album not a studio album. And this compilation album doesn't seem to have as many references in Google Books as the poetry collection by Rosmarie Waldrop. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say it was a studio album? I wish that for once you could actually give a valid reason for opposing and not state things which aren't even true. Unreal7 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that if it was a studio album the proposal might have merit, that's all. But compilations? They are just record company repackaging of previous artistic material. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too am befuddled by your non sequitur distinction between studio albums vs compilations. All that matters is the likelihood of this use of the name being sought compared to other uses of the same name which have articles on WP. Whether this use is an album, much less what kind of album, is totally and completely irrelevant. --В²C ☎ 20:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unreal7 can you please explain why repeatedly muddling the books into the songs on the dab page was an improvement? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary subtitles look extremely messy. Unreal7 (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. No other use of this name is even sufficiently notable to have an article on WP. This is beyond WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; it's the only topic. --В²C ☎ 20:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your contention for years, but you need to organize a RFC to change what WP:DISAMBIGUATION says (that we do not disambiguate by title) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The fact that there is only one WP:NOTABLE topic at the moment is essentially all we need. This is primarytopic by default. Dohn joe (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's the only ostensibly notable topic for this right now. While at least one of the books likely is, I suspect that the Bowie comp would remain the primary topic anyway (for better or worse; one consequence of us being so statistically minded about these things instead of more WP:COMMONSENSEical is that trivial crap like a compilation album can trump an original notable work, simply because it's temporarily popular after someone famous died.)
I don't think this case is really a good application of the "naturally ambiguous" clause in the guideline. It doesn't mean "coincides with various comparable things that will shortly enough be vying for the same title". It means hopelessly confusing by its very construction. Probably the "canonical" cases for disambiguation in the absence of an extant article conflict (which is rare, but we definitely will do when necessary, per WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE) are of two types:
1. If the undisambiguated name is almost certain to be misunderstood by any reasonable person not intimately familiar with the topic, and mistaken for another valid topic. Thus, Argentine Criollo → Argentine Criollo cattle, and Algerian Arab → Algerian Arab sheep, because both of the original names refer to real-world groups of people about whom we may have an article at any time, and because no one but a rare breeds expert would ever think those were animal breed names.
2. If the undisambiguated name is so vague as to be meaningless, especially adjectives or adjectival phrases for which any of a number of things qualify: Blue Grey → Blue Grey cattle, American Landrace → American Landrace pig, Nicastrese → Nicastrese goat
3. Or both of the above at once: British White → British White cattle; Welsh Black → Welsh Black cattle

(sorry all my examples are animal breeds; these are the ones I bothered to keep a log of, and there are a lot more of them). Anyway, no one is going to mistake "Nothing Has Changed" for something real, radically different, and more important that we just forgot to have an article about yet; there is no country by this name, nor is it a science, or an Olympic sport. It's also not an adjective phrase that could apply to a zillion things; there is no Nothing Has Changed albatross, Nothing Has Changed cucumber, and Nothing Has Changed dance style. So, while it is true that disambiguation means "make unambiguous" not just "prevent article title collision" (and more RM participants need to absorb that), this kind of case doesn't need to be made unambiguous until there is a collision, because no one's going to have a "WTF?" reaction to it. It's not naturally ambiguous. A hatnote atop the Bowie album article, pointing to the DAB page, will be sufficient. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: no evidence that the album is not Primary Topic, as is suggested by the fact that it's the only usage for which anyone has created an article. PamD 23:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PamD et al. Calidum T|C 01:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This damaging "primary topic" garbage is back again to infect WP with user-unfriendly changes—apparently driven by B2C's radical naming ideology? Tony (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an opposition? I can't tell. Unreal7 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is the only topic with an article and the other uses seem too obscure to be even notable. Seriously poetry collections by non-notable authors?Dimadick (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. Widr (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nothing Has Changed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]