Jump to content

Talk:Tommy (The Who album)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Cover Art Variations

Aren't there slight variations in the cover art over the years? In particular, I'm thinking of how at one time each member of the band appeared somewhere on the cover art (at the behest of the record company...?), but in later releases they were removed in order to keep with the spirit of the original intent. zappafrank2112 (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Some CD releases had the band edited out, but that's the only major difference that was ever made to the main cover, as far as I know. We really should be using the original cover in the article though. We could add the other version, but it's more than likely to be removed. Generally alternate covers are only kept in articles if they're vastly different, which wouldn't apply in this case. Friginator (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverend Simpson?

In the "Synopsis", where does "a reverend's daughter, Sally Simpson", come from? Possibly the movie? Others are under the "reverend's" impression, but on the album he's referred to as "Mr Simpson", "her father's", and "her dad". The article is about the album, so "a reverend" is out for now. Objections? Sammy D III (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Progressive rock?

Is a rock opera, so is a progressive rock album? Amb1997 (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to back that up, and if so, do you really feel that it's important enough to bring up in the article? Friginator (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Both Rate Your Music and Allmusic have Tommy as a progressive rock album. Amb1997 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Who dies- father or lover?

In the album Tommy's father kills the lover. In the CD blurb, the words of 1921 have "Mother and Father" saying "You didn't see it...". Not familiar with the movie, that may be (probably is?) reversed. Similar to Sally Simpson above. And why does the movie change it? Sally's father is just expanding the character, the father/lover deal has it completely reversed. Hollywood always knows better than the author? Thank you, Sammy D III (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In the movie it's reversed, but in all other productions, including the Broadway musical, the father kills the lover. Friginator (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the (film) screenplay writer(s) felt that seeing Tommy's biological father killed by his step-father would heighten Tommy's psycho-trauma. It also allowed Tommy's father to appear to his son in fantasy sequences (i.e., as the guide in "Amazing Journey")--something which "the Lover" obviously wouldn't be plausible doing. Hollywood always tries to simplify complex plots and tie the seperate peices of a story as tightly as possible (cf. the film Beowulf vs. the original poem). Similarly, the 6 extra songs by Townshend in the film and its soundtrack album are largely expositional--to explain (in song) elements of the plot that are key to the story but not sung about in the 1969 original. RobertGustafson (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"1921" is also titled "You Didn't Hear It"

At least on the cassette version. I think (but I'm not sure) that it became titled "1921" in 1989 or the 1990's--when the Who did a "Tommy tour", and shortly before the Broadway musical version came out. RobertGustafson (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it was titled "1921" on the original album. Friginator (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"Characters"?

Would it be of use to remove the "Characters" section from the beginning of the article? It doesn't seem to impart any information that isn't featured in the "Plot" section immediately thereafter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caligula's Left Boot (talk • contribs) 04:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense to me. I don't see any real reason for it being there. Friginator (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

US Release date

Can I get a consensus on something? A while back, Dan56 (talk · contribs) cited the original release date to 31 May 1969, citing Jon Atkins' book. ([1]) All perfectly verifiable, no problems. However, Andy Neill & Matt Kent's book, Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere (not in the Google Books preview) states it was released on 17 May, while Dave Marsh's Before I Get Old (great book, if a bit old, but no coverage at all available on Google Books) says the album was out by the time the Who played the Kinetic Playground, Chicago on May 29. What should we do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh, and also can somebody tell me if this link (marked as uploaded by "TheWhoHD") is some sort of "official bootleg" channel (in which case, since it features a typical 1969/70 Tommy live set, it'll be a good external link), or just a bootlegger trying to look like one (in which case, they'll get a slapped wrist). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tommy (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: In ictu oculi (talk · contribs) 13:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Title needs fixing - the title is currently at odds with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). I don't really see how an article can be a good article if it is titled contrary to the project's titling guidelines. More on lyrics re content the body of the album could use some more judicious mention (and citation) of the actual lyrics. It's not wholly a rock opera, but near enough that the convention of musicals/rock operas that the lyrics be given more attention than on a themeless bundle of songs which is what most albums are. Otherwise it's an example of the best an album article can be. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If you have a stance in the ongoing naming dispute, you should probably recuse from doing GA review on it, if you're going to make that an issue in the GA review; it's a conflict of interest (in the normal sense, not our special WP:COI sense). GA is for reviewing article content. Any GA (or FA) can be renamed in ways that conflict with WP:AT or a guideline, without any effect at all on GA/FA status, since it's an unrelated problem to be fixed by a different process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I have a view on increase of lyrics in all music articles, this is a better example than most others. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The excessive paranoia of some WMF legal people needn't translate into a general Wikipedian fear of quoting lyrics, which seems to be why there is so much reticence to do this throughout the project. About 90% of our song and album articles studiously avoid lyrical analysis and only address production and public/critical response.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • A title renaming dispute can affect the "Stability" section of the good article criteria only if it affects the article itself - constructive talk page comments (which the RM discussion is) are okay. I've added a bit more about the lyrical content, though there's not much to say other than a general feeling of "it's complicated". When Abbie Hoffman tried to stop the Woodstock gig to say "I think this is a pile of shit while John Sinclair rots in prison", he probably wasn't talking about the confusing narrative! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
What's happening with this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My $.02 (and that's all it's worth) is that I would prefer to see all the lists (including the track lists) below the prose. That's what I'm used to seeing in other articles (usually about less prominent albums). I am still learning album article standards, so I don't know if that's a real standard or just my preference. Second, there are a few stylistic and grammatical writing issues that I would be happy to clean up. As a copy editor I am much better than a writer, and I think I can help out there, but I'm always hesitant to make changes like that on major album articles because it seems someone is always following right behind to revert things, and I just don't want to get into that over stylistic issues. But I think these issues should be addressed before GA status. (One example is the ending of the last sentence in the first lead paragraph: "...that tells the story about a deaf, dumb and blind boy, including his experiences with life, and the relationship with his family." I would rewrite as "...that tells the story of a deaf, dumb and blind boy, his vulnerabilities to abuse, his family's attempts to find a cure, and his role as a spiritual leader after he is cured." The phrase "including his experiences with life, and the relationship with his family" doesn't add anything very meaningful to the description of the album. It also has an unnecessary comma.) Dcs002 (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I've put the track listing at the bottom. Stuff like misplaced commas are exactly the things a GA review should pick up (it's a matter of taste whether you do minor uncontentious things yourself or ask the nominator to do them). I don't agree with expanding the description of the plot, which is well known for being vague anyway, and is only one of several important facets to put in the lead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I can shrink that: "...that follows the life of a deaf, dumb and blind boy, his cure, and what becomes of him after he is cured." I'd just like each sentence to mean something, to be accurate, and to be easily readable. (I've been sick lately & haven't been around to participate much.) I agree on keeping the plot minimal in the lead. Thanks for moving the list. Dcs002 (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought the review was already open and I was just commenting. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd expect a reviewer to provide a list of improvements that have to be made to the article for it to pass the GA criteria? Right now I barely see any suggestions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
As I said I thought the review was already open and I was just commenting. It's easy to do with a transcluded template. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not how it works, by starting the review, you commit to reviewing the whole thing. If you only want to comment briefly, you have to wait until an actual reviewer starts a review. Note that you are listed as the reviewer at the top of this page. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
There's an trap in the template footer that makes inadvertently (re)starting a review possible. I didn't realise this as I hadn't been caught by it before. Do you understand what I'm saying? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, the review needs to be reset then. FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

FunkMonk, if you want to reset this and take over the review, I've got no objections. We can either carry on using GA1 as now and just change the templates, or I can "fail" this review so it can be renominated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Album Importance

Shouldn't we add Tommy to Top importance on the WikiProject Albums Importance scale? I mean, after all it was the first rock opera. Who's Next is listed under top importance and Tommy is just as, if not more important than Who's Next. Semancion (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Tommy changed everything. It made rock music a viable alternative to Gilbert & Sullivan for mainstream stage shows. It was the album that changed The Who from a pop band to an album rock act. And it was what got Pete Townshend noticed as a composer outside the world of rock music. It wasn't the first rock opera, but it was the first one that was referred to as such - in the press anyway. This was one of a very few rock albums that truly changed rock history - like Sgt Pepper, Dark Side of the Moon, Nevermind - there was a clear before and after. The music wasn't quite as innovative as what some of the prog acts were putting out, but the cross-cultural public response to the album makes it of profound importance. It didn't happen overnight either, but it happened. Top importance. Dcs002 (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The album is number 96 of WP:ALBUMS/500, so "top importance" seems appropriate. While we're here, Who's Next, at number 28, should also be top importance for the same reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tommy (album)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Ah well, with that out of the way, I guess I'll take over from here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Under Sales certifications, you have citation for one number, not the other two. Any reason for this?
That's because the sales figures for the UK and the US are approximations based on the certification based on the source. We could remove the "units" column entirely if that would be better. I suspect this table was once bigger but the reliable source police probably paid a visit ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Could the middle two paragraphs under get citations? I know the source is above and below, but it would keep anyone from wondering if a citation was missing.
Okay. Normally plot summaries are verifiable to the work in question, but for Tommy that's not the case as the story is so vague. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the synopsis here a direct quote?
No, it's based on the reproduction of the synopsis in Atkins' book, but rewritten to avoid close phrasing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be easier for uninitiated readers if the synopsis came after the background section? This isn't a film article, after all, though I can see why you would structure it similarly.
Interesting question. The synopsis was up front when I first started work on the album, and I did think of moving it, but I recall when I first heard Tommy about 30 years ago (crikey, time flies) the first thing I noticed was the connection between songs (ie: "deaf, dumb and blind" and "pinball"), and the second was, "what's the storyline". It wasn't until a long time later that I realised that I was far from the only one who didn't understand the plot! So with that in mind, I figured it would be an important bit of information that readers would be looking for, and hence go reasonably up front. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The opera was abandoned after a single song" What is meant? After a single song was recorded?
Not so much recorded as written and recorded. Changed to "written", the mention of "hit single" implies it was subsequently recorded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly sure contractions are considered unencyclopaedic writing, so will remove them as I encounter them.
  • "got so fed up of" Seems a bit too informal?
Changed to "impatient" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The group were still coming up with new material; Lambert insisted that the piece should have a proper overture,[34] while Townshend wrote "Pinball Wizard" so that Nik Cohn, a pinball fan, would give the album a favourable review in the New York Times." The three issues seem rather unconnected, but not sure how else to write it, certainly better than three short sentences.
I'm not sure what I can do about that other than redo the entire paragraph. The information needs to be in there to be "broad in coverage" - the overture and Pinball Wizard were written fairly late in recording, which supports the narrative that the group were working things out as they went along. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "and that The Who would make a more substantial version with Quadrophenia" Version of what?
Rewritten this bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Tommy did not mix rock with European music" Is classical meant by European? Is this a common term?
I think "classical" will do - I have seen "European" used to mean anything that isn't based on the blues in any way shape or form. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Daltrey's voice had improved substantially" Since/compared to what?
The source doesn't say, but I've gone with "since the group's early tours". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Townshend plays some guitar, but otherwise the music is predominantly orchestral" Everything else is in past tense, so why present tense here?
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "A cover of "One Room Country Shack" was also recorded and considered for inclusion" Why is this under the deluxe edition tracklist?
I think the idea was it was an outtake, but still not included on the rerelease. I've moved it up to the "recording" section. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The film was released with a multichannel hi-fi soundtrack and many major cinemas" I'm not sure what is meant, in?
Rewritten this bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The film and its soundtrack album feature six new songs, all written by Townshend, and an alteration to the general sequence of existing songs is also changed. The CD reissue of the film soundtrack also included an additional Overture." Another weird mix of tenses.
Rewritten this bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "In 1998, the album was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame for "historical, artistic and significant value"." This is only mentioned in the intro, but there should be no unique info in that, so needs to be added to the article itself.
Good catch. I've reorganised this, and trimmed down the mention in the lead as the body now covers it more fully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Changes look good, is there a way "Though later released as a single, "See Me, Feel Me" was not a track in its own right on the original album." could be incorporated into the text? It kind of irks me a bit that there's a single footnote hanging there, which seems as important as many other details of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
How's that? I think I originally anticipated a few more footnotes, but none turned up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Alright! Then I guess I can't do much other than pass this article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for a quick and diligent review as ever! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you guys! I was away longer than expected. Thanks for all the work! Dcs002 (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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: Page not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 02:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Tommy (album) → Tommy (The Who album) – per WP:Naming conventions (music). Tommy (soundtrack) and Tommy (London Symphony Orchestra album) also feature The Who but are various artists albums. Less notably, but covered in Google Books there are also Tommy (The Wedding Present album) and Tommy (Dosh album). Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but where was WP:Naming conventions (music) rejected by the editing community? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Ritchie333, hi, this is the relevant bit in the guideline:

Unless multiple albums (or songs) of the same name exist, they do not need to be disambiguated any further. For example, Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) is fine, because there are many other albums named Down to Earth,

As for the question, why is ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea? It is a bad idea because it's ambiguous, it doesn't do what disambiguation should do. José Martínez (footballer) doesn't help between [José Martínez (Chilean footballer)] [José Martínez (Salvadorean footballer)]. We could have one of them without nationality, strike out "Chilean" on one article or strike out "Salvadorean" on the other, but why would we? (in fact we don't, the footballer naming convention is exactly the same as the album one). In ictu oculi (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
If you can put a strong case together, with page counts and google searches of how one is orders of magnitude more likely than the other or any others, then absolutely, you should. If, say, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band had been called Down To Earth but had an otherwise identical commercial and critical performance, the above quoted example may well hold false. "It is a bad idea because it's ambiguous" is a non-answer - you can't say "'x' is 'y' because of 'x'". We need to think in terms of "Do we do what the user would expect? And if not, do we do what they are most likely to expect?" As I said, you can cherry pick just about any example you like to fit a policy and prove what you want it to prove, but we need to consider all usability terms on their own merits. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no, page counts are irrelevant. WP:Naming conventions (music) states that multiple albums with (XXXX album) should include the artist name. If you're !voting saying "I oppose WP:NCM in this case, so I oppose this move", then fine, you're but if you are claiming that WP:NCM doesn't say to give the artist name please read it again. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I did read it (particularly the phrases "it is best treated with common sense" and "use further disambiguation only when needed"), I just don't agree with your interpretation of it. Sorry. I would note that a far more severe problem with this article is the unsourced original research in it, and that is where I would strongly advise focusing your efforts. And do you really want to break several hundred links, not to mention the various templates that include the article? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, okay, what you're now saying is an acceptable opinion. Which is different from the claim that the guideline wasn't clear above: "which can prove black is white if you want it to". Thanks for having changed your reasoning. Yes as proposer I would expect to fix the template and redirect links. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
How many readers wanting to read up on a best-selling rock album will be thinking "By definition, this is the primary topic of nothing"? Probably none, unless they thought they were the lyrics of a Yes song. ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Mostly per WP:Naming conventions (music) (cf. even Thriller (Michael Jackson album), at long last). An already-disambiguated title cannot be a WP:PRIMARY topic, just by basic common sense. The question of whether this album is the primary topic of Tommy has already been decided (against). Given that multiple albums exist by this name (two of them even directly related to this one and very easily confused with it!), that leaves only Tommy (The Who album). A disambiguation that doesn't actually disambiguate, like Tommy (album), is worse than useless, as it confuses readers on purpose just to push a fannish PoV. As for PDAB, its raison d'etre and exact wording were disputed, and the dispute unresolved long enough that it was removed from the guideline. But the policy and actual practice behind it have not changed: WP:PRIMARY uses zero half-assedly disambiguated pages like Tommy (album) as examples; meanwhile, all attempts to add one as an example, to get in an "anti-PDAB", are rapidly reverted and have been for ages. PDAB wasn't and still isn't wrong, it was redundant and hard to agree on about its wording (because it's hard to write something redundant without its redundancy being obvious and annoying, and readily apparent and bothersome, like that).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose When I hear arguments like "just by basic common sense" I cringe. To me, just by basic common sense, "Tommy (album)" means the 1969 Who album unless otherwise specified. Common sense is as subjective as personal preference unless there is a consensus on the matter. This article is not the primary topic of "Tommy", but this is overwhelmingly the primary album called Tommy. SMcCandlish ☺, do you really believe readers are being confused by this article having its current title? Not this type of disambiguation in general, but this particular article, with it's massively overwhelming popularity compared to others? If that is your point, I disagree, but thank you for putting the reader's experience first. IMO, if the average reader is looking for an article about an album named Tommy, by several orders of magnitude, they almost always want this one or at least know enough to expect this album will be the result of their search if they don't qualify their query any further. They should reasonably expect to get this album if they search for "Tommy (album)". I think we agree that the reader's experience has to be the litmus test for everything we do here, and that is how I think we are serving readers best - giving them the article they are looking for on their first query. Rigid interpretation of what is meant by "primary" is putting pedantry before purpose. This is exactly why we have WP:IAR and WP:BURO. We have flexibility with these policies and guidelines. I don't think this will improve the typical reader's experience. I just don't see the confusion argument as adequate against the counter-arguments others have made. All I see so far is a major headache that tries to solve a problem that I don't think exists. I mean, are Dosh fans actually having a hard time finding their article because of this? Are Who fans having problems getting here? Dcs002 (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Your expectation isn't reasonable for everyone, though, Dcs002. To a large (and probably growing rather than shrinking) number of people, Tommy, like The Wall, is primarily a rock-opera film rather than a music album that later inspired a film, and had music re-done by the band (in some cases the way they'd intended it all along). The soundtrack is a plenty-likely expectation of many readers' searches. Given the star-studded nature of the production, and the fact that it will match viewers' recollections of the film, some actually prefer it to the original album. The Elton John version of "Pinball Wizard" from the soundtrack was a hit single, remember. It's more important that three Who-related albums by this name be clearly disambiguated for readers' benefit, than the original album sit alone at Tommy (album) just to make a fannish point. Avoiding names that may mislead readers, even a minority of them, is a more important goal that being as convenient as possible for a subset of users, even if it's a high percentage of them. I.e., to rework what you said: The readers' [note the plural there] experience has to be the litmus test for everything we do here. The objective to provide the best experience has more than one aspect to account for, and expediency takes a back seat to clarity.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"To a large (and probably growing rather than shrinking) number of people, Tommy, like The Wall, is primarily a rock-opera film rather than a music album that later inspired a film" - in whose opinion? According to statistics, Tommy (1975 film) was viewed 7,769 times in the last 30 days. Therefore the album is still, based on viewing figures, about two and a half times more popular than the film, so this claim is provably incorrect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
As has been said in surely 1000 other RMs and XfDs before this, you can't use WP itself as a reliable source. Any number of extraneous effect can grossly affect WP page hits; even one link from one post on a single popular blog can shoot any given page's stats through the roof. Any count of pages hits in the low-tens-of-thousands range, over a time span as short as 1 month, on what is in the top 5 most used, most re-used, most linked-to, most mirrored/plagiarized, etc., sites in the world is statistically meaningless and you know it. And it doesn't matter for this debate anyway. The only question of importance here is whether it's more important that three Who-related albums by this name be clearly disambiguated for readers' benefit, than the original album sit alone at Tommy (album) just to make a fannish point, and we already know the answer to that question. I note that you've avoided addressing it and every other concern raised here, always returning (in a way that smacks of the fallacy of special pleading and WP:ILIKEIT) to a popularity-based argument that has nothing to do with how and why we disambiguate in cases like this. When multiple works in a franchise, series, or other group of related works share a similar name, we always disambiguate them. (I'll forestall you the effort of desperately trying to find a counter-example - it will simply be the next thing I or some else RMs to fix the ambiguity problem presented, in turn, by that new case).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
You make a few good points, but not all of your points are, well, on point. First, The Wall is an album, Pink Floyd – The Wall is the film. Different titles, and no soundtrack was released, so not really a valid comparison. That was really all supposition anyway, wasn't it? Second, Tommy is not part of a "franchise, series, or other group of related works [that] share a similar name." Tommy is the parent work, and the other works are derived from it. They don't share the name so much as inheriting it. Third, you argue against popularity as a valid deciding factor, yet you then argue how popular the soundtrack album is. (I remember how popular Elton John's Pinball Wizard was - one of my favorite covers.) But even your argument for popularity is pretty weak. Yes, there might be the odd reader here or there who wants to know about the soundtrack but doesn't know the work derived from the original 1969 album, but I can't imagine there are more than a handful (nor that they are a growing group, given how much easier it is nowadays to find information about the original album and the film), and they might actually be grateful to learn about the album that the film and soundtrack were based on. (I would be.) Consider too the state of the Tommy (soundtrack) page. Five years old yet still a stub class. I wonder if it should be merged with the film article. It looks like that's where it started out 5 years ago, and it still hasn't expanded beyond a stub. It just has more lists.
But then, the issue of the soundtrack is moot because it has a different disambiguation entirely. It's not disambiguated as an album. It's called Tommy (soundtrack), not Tommy (soundtrack album). Really, this is about the LSO, Dosh, and The Wedding Present albums and their disambiguation from The Who's album. Regardless of your arguments against the validity of using page hits as an indicator of reader interest, this page came out 267 times higher than the Dosh album, 299 times higher than the LSO album, and 753 times higher than the Wedding Present album, or 117 times more hits than all three combined. It is meaningful data, and the method could easily be made statistically valid. Two orders of magnitude is a lot to overcome.
And I think you do us all a disservice by dismissing opposing viewpoints as "fannish". The fan in me would be served either way. It's more about the links all over WP and around the web (which we can't change ourselves) and better serving the vast majority of readers who want to learn about this album that profoundly changed the music world. Dcs002 (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm a Who fan, too. I'm not dismissing your viewpoint, I'm criticizing as fannish a class of over-focus behaviors that surround popular culture articles when people fail to separate their love for something from logical arguments about how it should be treated in the encyclopedia for people who are not familiar with any of the relevant works and might come to found out about them via a different path than fans did. That this album is the parent work is irrelevant; notability isn't inherited or cumulative, and it's often the case that a derived work is more notable/primary than the original. Many people are not aware that the film was based on a pre-existing album which differs from the soundtrack, and that number will only increase over time, because people's music listening habits have shifted away from an album-based to at track-based mode, and the film has a legendary rock opera status that entices people to view it who are not fans of the The Who and thus do not know the band's music release history. Your notes about the true full name of the film version of The Wall, and about how other pages are disambiguated are missing the point. It's more important to disambiguate clearly between all of these uses of Tommy than to pay fannish homage to this one in particular as "primary", especially when there are so many albums by this name, including three different ones by or related to The Who. "Tommy (album)" is just a piss-poor disambiguation. Even "Tommy (The Who album)" isn't ideal, but perhaps you are right that "Tommy (soundtrack)" will be sufficiently clear.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
(Apologies for the continued lengthy posts. Brevity is not my strong suit!) Thank you SMcCandlish ☺ for your explanation of what you mean by "fannish". I'm still not sure that's happening here because the Who album is still so overwhelmingly more popular than anything else, and there has been a hatnote link to the soundtrack for some time. (I recently modified it for clarity, but it's been there since before I became involved in this discussion.) Maybe it's a reflection of my age (nearly 48), but "rock opera" is something I have always heard applied to The Who's album, though the opening film credits do, I think, indicate the film is based on the rock opera Tommy (by Pete Townshend, not The Who). But that indicates there is a pre-existing rock opera on which the film is based. If people come to the rock opera through Elton John's "Pinball Wizard" cover, with it's status as a major hit for Elton John, I can see a case for your argument, if they somehow also learn that the single is from the rock opera Tommy with no reference to the 1969 original. On the other hand, aside from the soundtrack vs. album disambiguation, a major mission of Wikipedia is to educate, and by routing such people through this page, I think a good argument could be made that we are educating them about where the music they want to learn about actually came from. Learning about the music and the rock opera should IMO include learning about its origins, and the reader would be well served to learn that there is a hugely popular and highly influential album on which the film music was based. I hadn't considered the song-oriented nature of the music market today, and that made me stop and think. That does tell me you might be right about it being a growing segment, though it argues plausibility without supporting actual fact. But plausibility, IMO, is a valid reason to consider user intent, if not actually changing WP content to cater to that plausible segment of users.
You said "it's often the case that a derived work is more notable/primary than the original." Clearly that is not the case here by a long shot. Not at present anyway. You also said, "Many people are not aware that the film was based on a pre-existing album which differs from the soundtrack." I still don't see that as being "many people." A few perhaps. Yes, I see it as plausible that the number is growing via song-based interest in the Elton John cover, but yet again, the soundtrack disambiguation and my education arguments I think still stand. Most of my concerns about moving to Tommy (The Who album) would be addressed if a redirect for Tommy (album) sent the reader to this article, perhaps with a hatnote saying "for other albums named Tommy, see Tommy#In music." But again, the Primary album named Tommy is this one by The Who, and I don't think we can get around that. To the extent that consistency in disambiguation is important, with the primary remaining non-disambiguated, I think the status quo still preserves the spirit of that standard. (I think it might truly be "fannish" to dig my heels in on that point, though the argument about what is considered Primary was debated earlier in this discussion.)
I should also say that I am really now largely playing a devil's advocate role if we can leave a redirect as I described. By that I mean that I want to make sure we consider all aspects of this decision, while my preference is not as strong as my arguments might make it appear. As long as we leave that redirect, I'll be content either way, though I still think leaving the article name alone is the best option. Dcs002 (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Understood; I may be devilishly advocating a little, too. E.g., I'm not making the argument that in this particular instance a derived work is more notable/primary than the original, but rather that the "this album came first so it must be primary" reasoning isn't applicable (and we know it isn't from many previous discussions of this sort). Moving on, the purpose of article titles and their disambiguation is getting people to the article they're looking for as fast as possible, not "educating"; that's what article prose is for. Don't fall for the fallacy of composition; that some X is among the purposes of Wikipedia does not mean that X is also among the purposes of every feature, process, or aspect of Wikipedia, just as my car existing to transport me and my stuff around does not mean that my car stereo's purposes include transportation.

I argue that over-focus on the original Tommy album is in fact fannishness, or some other form of figurative myopia, for a reason. I know that it's plausible that someone could be unaware that the film and its soundtrack were based on an older album, because I was one of those someones, well into my early teens. In my 40s now, I grew up when The Who were still touring, when album-based rock and singles from albums formed the music format of the Western world, when all of us pretty much were at least somewhat familiar with The Who and their music. Yet I saw Tommy the film around age 11, and got the soundtrack, but didn't know about the original album until after I saw The Kids Are Alright around age 13; to me, it still seems like a "beta version", a draft. >;-)

Anyway, the main argument for disambiguating further here (not just my stance - it's one I picked up from an earlier commenter) is that the entire notion of something being the primary topic for an already-disambiguated article title is nonsensical to begin with and can't be supported by anything in policy. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to the undisambiguated name. Parenthetical disambiguations are not names, they are conceptual categorizations added to names, for narrowing one's search for an article. If there are 5 things different people, from different backgrounds and realms of media experience, could sanely think of when they think of the name "Tommy" and the concept of a music album, which is the case here (if I'm counting correctly), then "Tommy (album)" should be a DAB page, not a redirect to an article. I would agree that the original album by The Who should be at the top of the list on it. The DAB hatnote at the top of the original album article should probably DAB between it and the soundtrack and the other Who-related one; I'm skeptical anyone arriving at that article would have been looking for either album by the other bands. That is, unless we do presumptive things that push people to the article on the original Who album out of biased views that it surely must be what people are looking for, never mind that most people under 20 barely know who The Who are and probably aren't looking for anything by them, unless it's the film. Seriously, I know people who hear a Who song and ask "why are they playing the CSI theme on the radio?" Sad but true. They're irked that I have no idea who their favorite dubstep "artist" is (to me, it mostly sounds like robots farting, to steal a description a friend of mind came up with). The point being, we can't assume people are surely expecting this or that in a case like this. Thus disambiguate without bias, other than maybe what's at the top of the list of DAB targets.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Let's apply WP:SONGDAB and isn't the present title sub-primary anyway? --Richhoncho (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment If we do move this page to Tommy (The Who album), I think we need to leave a redirect behind so a search for "Tommy (album)" leads to this page. All of the external sites (and internal pages) that link to this WP article can have their links preserved that way, and again >99% of the readers looking for an album called Tommy are looking for this one. That would alleviate my concerns greatly though not completely. This album is clearly primary among albums named Tommy. There is gray area in how we define primary is situations like this. I don't think this situation was envisioned when those guidelines were written. I think the spirit of the disambiguation guideline says we treat this one as primary among albums, even though there is no primary Tommy article. Just put this in a hatnote "For other albums named Tommy see Tommy#In music." Dcs002 (talk) 05:39, 2 September 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.

Who murdered who?

There seems to be endless debate about who murdered who, but let me try and summarise. On the 1969 album: (from Atkins 2000 pp. 122-123)

  • The murder takes places in 1921 (hence the song)
  • The captain comes home from war and murders the lover, which scars Tommy

In the 1975 film, however :

  • The murder takes place in 1951
  • The captain (played by Robert Powell) comes home and is killed by the lover (played by Oliver Reed), which scars Tommy

The reason there is confusion is relatively straightforward, because a coherent plot has never really been necessary to enjoy the work. Now, can we all stop the slow burning edit war and check this is correct? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tommy (album). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Overture"/"It's a Boy" track times

I'm aware that on the original UK version of the album, the track times for "Overture" and "It's a Boy" are listed as 3:50 and 2:07, respectively. With those track times, the "Captain Walker never came home…" lyrics would be part of "It's a Boy" (go to 3:50 here; the lyrics start after that). In the booklet that came with both the original UK and US versions of the album, however, the "Captain Walker" lyrics are listed as part of "Overture" (the track times on the original US version are of no help – the two tracks are simply listed as having a combined time of 5:58). In light of that and the fact that the track times were changed on at least the more recent reissues, I think it's safe to assume that someone made a mistake with the track times on the original UK version and that the actual track times are 5:21 and 0:39. I'm also aware that on the "See Me, Feel Me" single, the track time for "Overture" is listed as 4:00, which is obviously a full ten seconds longer than that on the original UK version and thus may represent an edited version created specifically for the single – could someone who has the single verify that? Esszet (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Friginator? Esszet (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

What you're arguing is basically original research and I'm saying that regardless, the info that's listed is verifiable. It seems pretty straightforward. Friginator (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The fact that the "Captain Walker never came home…" lyrics are listed under "Overture" and not "It's a Boy" in the original booklet that came with the album is not original research; it is entirely verifiable with the booklet as the source. If you look at that video, it thus becomes entirely obvious that somebody made a mistake somewhere on the original LP; the "Captain Walker" lyrics start after the 3:50 mark, and the fact that they do can thus be attributed to the album itself. Although, on second thought, the idea that the times for the two tracks are definitively 5:21 and 0:39 may constitute original research, the fact that there is a contradiction between the track times and the booklet in the original album is entirely verifiable and should thus be included in the article. I suppose a definitive source may be necessary for us to definitively change the track times for the original release. Esszet (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a source you want to cite for any of this? Friginator (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, but have you even seen the booklet? If you look at the pictures here, you'll see that the booklet itself is the source. Esszet (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and what source is it that says there's a contradiction? You can't just tell readers "see the booklet and listen to the music and figure it out for yourself". You have to have a source. I've heard the "The track times listed on the original record are wrong!" argument over and over again, and I'm not refuting it. But see WP:PRIMARY. The policy states, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so," and "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Both apply here. You're coming up with original research based on two primary sources. Friginator (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
See WP:CALC. Routine calculations such as this one do not count as original research. Esszet (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2016


when is the 30/500 protection expire, i know its not an edit request.

Lgccap (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You can see this in the page history; if you have an edit request, feel free to make it here. ~ Rob13Talk 23:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 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: not moved since there is clear consensus that this is the primary topic of albums with the name "Tommy" Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


Tommy (album) → Tommy (The Who album) – Should we apply the Thriller and Twilight principle per WP:PDAB? More specifically, this album is clearly the primary topic for albums called "Tommy" but there are other albums with articles listed at Tommy#Music so the title needs full disambiguation with the band's name, while the redirect from Tommy (album) ensures stability and least astonishment for readers. — JFG talk 22:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2016

I was thinking that you might want to add details about The Smithereens 2009 cover of the Tommy LP. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smithereens_Play_Tommy

Mbodayle (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


Mbodayle (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Track Length Queries

For some reason the time listed for the track "Pinball Wizard" is 3:50. This seems like an error made when entering the times (particularly since this is the same length as another track, "Go To The Mirror!", but regardless of cause is most certainly not the right value. The track length for this is 3:01 as on the digital release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.223.53 (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

My copy also shows 3:01 - fixed. My original vinyl copy is in the studio so I can't cross check against that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


Another issue is that of the two tracks Amazing Journey/Sparks. While I find some versions agreeing with the track listings given in the article, some sources (track listing on Spotify, this page) state the songs' lengths as 5:04/2:02 respectively. I believe this to be a case of the more recent releases having this as the official track length while the older releases (such as the specific releases cited) had the track lengths shown on the page. While this means that the listings on the page are accurate, I believe there is some call to make a note of some sort remarking that some more recent releases of the album have the different track lengths.

The track lengths were listed on the back of original album the way they are in the article. Images are pretty easy to find online. You would have to have a source that trumps the album itself to change them. And keep in mind, this album has been remixed, remastered and reissued on various formats time and time again. The original UK vinyl issue on Track Records from 1969 is what the article should go by. Friginator (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I never said you should replace the value, as the original vinyl is definitely that length as I acknowledged myself. But I believe that the variance in track length of Amazing Journey/Sparks in official copies is a significant enough difference to justify some sort of footnote that acknowledges that more recent reissues have included this quite different track length, much like the different lengths of the titular track of Television's Marquee Moon being noted within the Track Listing subheading.
Also, changing Pinball Wizard's track length back to the clearly incorrect 3:50? That's just blatant misinformation and in pretty poor form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.223.53 (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Simply having a source isn't enough - you need to apply common sense. If the time is obviously wrong (there's not an extra 50 seconds on the vinyl release) then it shouldn't be used. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2016

In thr certifaction table could change the 2x platinum to a 3x platinum status as Tommy was certified 3x platinum by riaa.[1] 2600:1006:B15F:E4DB:64FB:A63F:509B:DEAF (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Not according to this. The little icon still say 2X. If you have a different reliable source, the edit can be incorporated. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=the+who&ti=tommy&lab=&genre=&format=&date_option=release&from=&to=&award=&type=&category=&adv=SEARCH#search_section

First Paragraph Issue

I noticed that the first paragraph of the article has the phrase "deaf dumb and blind" to describe the boy the album is about. This is a quote from the lyrics of the song Pinball Wizard. I think the wording of that part of that sentence should be changed to "that tells the story about Tommy, a boy suffering from deafblindness." The use of a quote from the lyrics of one of the songs on the album, especially without using quotation marks or linking to the Wikipedia article about the condition, makes that part of the article gibberish.PADEP80Tstr (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

All the book sources used in the article refer to "deaf, dumb and blind", which was also the original album's working title. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Songwriting Credit for "The Hawker" aka "Eyesight for the Blind" should be changed to Sonny Boy Williamson II

The article cites Mose Allison as the original writer of this song, but as noted in the WP article Eyesight to the Blind, it was actually written by Sonny Boy Williamson II (aka Rice Miller, there are a lot of aka's in the blues). Allison covered it, but didn't write it. The Tommy version uses Williamson's lyrics over a Townsend melody, but the Who have consistently credited Williamson as the sole songwriter. VAMark (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The article cites Mose Allison as the original writer of this song - no, it doesn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tommy (album). 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) 23:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-Confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2017: "Deaf, Dumb and Blind"

The phrase "deaf and dumb" is generally considered antiquated and rude[1]. I understand that it is a quote from the album and used by the sources. That doesn't mean we have to perpetuate its use beyond quotations. Until I'm extended-confirmed, a more-full edit of the page will have to wait. However, I propose we change the first paragraph's use of "deaf, dumb and blind" as soon as possible.

"a rock opera that tells the story about a deaf, dumb and blind boy, including his experiences with life and his relationship with his family."

to

"a biographical rock opera about the eponymous and fictional deafblind and mute Tommy, his life experiences, and his relationship with his family."

Other proposals for change are welcome. Mathmitch7 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: It may be considered "antiquated" now, but it was the language used at the time by the source and part of both the media itself and the historical record. To indicate that this is the language of the media concerned and not Wikipedia's voice, I have placed the phrase in quotation marks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Though I agree that including "deaf, dumb and blind" in quotations is certainly better than the current practice, I would still appreciate it if we included a link to deafblind and muteness. Perhaps "a 'deaf, dumb and blind' (that is, deafblind and mute) boy" would be an appropriate edit. Mathmitch7 (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Redundant, and frankly unnecessary. Although antiquated, it's fairly obvious what it's referring to. ProgrammingGeek talktome 18:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Just to note: The reference given by Mathmitch7 from the National Association of the Deaf given to support their proposed change says: "Deaf and hard of hearing people have the right to choose what they wish to be called..." Tommy is a fictional character and cannot choose anything nor has any rights to self-identification. The identification of Tommy within the narrative is accurate to the time it was created and documents part of the historical discrimination that the Deaf community has faced. Substituting anachronistically modern preferred terms removes the necessary context from Tommy's story - that he is considered less than fully human because of those labels placed on him. I would not recommend that this request be repeated for these reasons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Community and Culture – Frequently Asked Questions". National Association of the Deaf. 2016-12-06. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
This is a relatively nuanced take that is not reflected in the article or the reviews it cites, but should be included if we leave omit any editorializing of the use of "dumb". Would you (or another extended-confirmed user) like to make the appropriate contributions? Mathmitch7 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I was re-reading WP:BRD and was thinking back to this discussion. I'd like to re-open it. I think that in the context of the article, it makes sense to point out that The Who did indeed use the phrase "deaf, dumb and blind," though contemporary style would instead use Deafblind instead. I think that not explicitly pointing this out for the reasons people outlined above ignores MOS:INUNIVERSE, and at present the article's use of it (e.g. in Tommy (album)#Synopsis) fails to meet the requirements of WP:OM. This article should treat the phrase "Deaf, dumb, and blind" in an encyclopedic manner, which I believe means that it should put it in explicit quotes whenever it is used, and use Deafblind and Muteness in other places. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 23:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I could argue both ways but lean towards leaving it as is. Aside from the above reasons, it's also in the lyrics. North8000 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, but this is what I was trying to say about MOS:INUNIVERSE. The use of the phrase as it appears in the lyrics should demarcate it as such, not present it uncritically. Imagine if the song had used some far more egregious slur as you may define it... would we not demand that it be presented in "an encyclopedic manner?"- - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 00:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
For places where it is not quoting the lyrics I don't have a strong opinion either way. Although mos:universe would not be one of my reasons to change it.....I think that mos:universe is more about distorting reality than choice of words. If we're talking about commonly used terms, I think mute has replaced dumb, and dumb does sound rude. But I don't think deafblind has replaced deaf and blind, and the latter terms are not rude. North8000 (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah my concern is definitely more with the use of "Dumb." I think "Deafblind" is important at least to link to, since it is a distinct condition at the intersection of the other two. That change is much less important than replacing "dumb" with "mute," which is definitely more descriptive. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 18:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Record label.

"Tommy is the fourth studio album by the English rock band the Who. It was first released as a double album on 17 May 1969 by Decca Records."

It was Track Records in the UK as far as I am concerned... Aejsing (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Aejsing: This is correct, it was released on Track Records; the version that passed a GA review mentions no record company, so I've reverted to that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 November 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have a clear consensus here to go with the fully disambiguated title. There are a few things to consider. First, there have been other RMs in the past which have closed as either no consensus or no move. However, consensus can change and in this case, the current RM was more active than the previous ones. It's also worth noting that while a recent RfC and changes to WP:INCDAB allow for cases where a partially disambiguated title is appropriate, it is clear that that's decided on a case by case basis. In this case, the consensus is obvious that this article should no longer be an exception to the usual practice. Cúchullain t/c 20:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


Tommy (album) → Tommy (The Who album) – as with Endless Wire (The Who album) per WP:DISAMBIGUATION; there is also Tommy (London Symphony Orchestra album), 1972, Tommy (soundtrack), 1975, Tommy (The Wedding Present album), 1988 and Tommy (Dosh album), 2010. See also Talk:Thriller (Michael Jackson album). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Busy work for the sake of being busy. This came up before; I ignored it and improved the article to GA status. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as per WP:INCDAB. Regardless of what I consider to be an invalidly closed WP:RfC on this subject, it is clear that WP:INCDAB is the "law of the land", and there should not be "primary subtopics" but in all of the rarest of cases. P.S. I am disturbed by a growing trend I see in which people try to use WP:GA or WP:FL status as some kind of shield against doing things like moving articles to correct article titles – that should have zero bearing whatsoever on questions such as these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
What I mean is that having an article that is well written, factually accurate and reasonably complete is more important than what the title is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
One has nothing to do with the other, you can have an article that is "well written, factually accurate and reasonably complete", and still have it be at a sub-optimal article title... But like I said, I've seen this same argument used elsewhere – that basically keeping, say, WP:FL status was more important than moving an article to a correct title – that should have nothing to do with the RM request. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
It's more a case of Parkinson's Bicycle Shed Effect - having an opinion on the veracity of sources is difficult, having an opinion on the grammar and spelling is a bit easier, and having an opinion on the title is super easy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
But there's two (Who) albums here, Tommy (album) and Tommy (soundtrack). The average user would type "Tommy" into the search box and end up at the disambig page. If this album was the primary topic, it would simply be at "Tommy". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The pageviews linked in the previous comment show approximately 7 times as many readers want the original album compared to the soundtrack, making it primary among albums titled "Tommy". This proposal would not affect anyone typing "Tommy" in the search box; they'll still get the dab page either way. It would affect only those few searching for or linking to "Tommy (album)"; they would be unnecessarily redirected to a dab page instead getting directly to the album as at present. Station1 (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Station1, have you read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (which you linked as Primary Usage)? The term "Tommy" does not have a Primary Topic.
"there are multiple topics (even just two) to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at Is there a primary topic? there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term. For example, John Quested is a disambiguation page for the two people by that name who can be found in the encyclopedia:"
Is there a primary topic for the term "Tommy"? Yes or no? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
That's a red herring, I'm afraid. As noted immediately above, we're not discussing the term "Tommy", we're discussing the title "Tommy (album)". Yes, there are "multiple topics ... to which a given title [i.e. "Tommy (album)"] might refer" but this album is the clearly primary topic for that title, definitely by usage, and, I think most people would agree, also by long-term significance. Station1 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Repeat..........Is there a primary topic for the term "Tommy"? Yes or no?
It's not a "red herring" it's what the guideline says. And which you have persistently and disruptively not read. By definition (disambiguator) cannot be a primary topic according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so why are you arguing that it is? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's simply not what the guideline says. It says, "A parenthetically disambiguated title may have a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying one is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation." As you know, this has been discussed extensively in the recent RfC. This easily meets that higher threshold. The two identical previous move requests resulted in no move. Station1 (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Easily? I don't think so, maybe 30x or 50x or 100x might be enough but in this case its less that 10x for only the next most popular one in addition to the fact that there are 3. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
That's a matter of opinion, of course, and why these proposals need to be decided on a case by case basis. But 78% of users seems like plenty to me (99% if you don't count the two derivative albums). Coupled with the fact that few if any of the minority looking for any of the other albums titled Tommy are likely to search for "Tommy (album)" or be astonished to find the original Who album at that title, and that this album shows up on the first page of a Google search for "Tommy", and that there are hundreds of currently correct incoming wikilinks that the proposer will need to change if this proposal goes through, and that this album is one of the most significant of the 20th century, makes this an obvious primary topic in my opinion. Station1 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
100%. As there's no such thing as a partial primary topic, so if this was the PT, it would be at "Tommy". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
If you'd like to try to overturn the recent RFC that found otherwise, be my guest. If not, see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Calidum 18:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Calidum: the Who album gets around 8.2x the views of the London Symphony Orchestra one, the 1st part of PT#1 is "much more likely than any other single topic". I'd interpret "much more" to generally mean 10x or more and the RFC for PDABs was that the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foo's that are Bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator so I'd expect more like 30x or 50x the next most. I personally think that PT#1 should generally be 10x the views should be against all the others but that hasn't gained consensus yet. Given the addition of the 2nd criteria I think that gives enough flexibility to specifiy a specific amount for PT#1. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Tangential comment: Thriller (album) is not a redirect anymore. The article about the Michael Jackson album was moved to that name on 13 November 2019‎. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
It was moved by a non-admin who refuses to undo his close, and is going to move review when this one is refused. It really underlines the disruptive nature of the perennial campaign by a handful of users to have a few super-albums disobey general titling principles. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2019 (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.

"Captain Walker (character)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Captain Walker (character). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"RAF Group Captain Walker" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect RAF Group Captain Walker. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"Tommy Walker(The Who)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tommy Walker(The Who). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tommy_(The_Who_album)/Archive_3&oldid=1186711996"