Talk:Dangerous (Michael Jackson album)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleDangerous (Michael Jackson album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 10, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
February 29, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Requested move 27 May 2021

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: No consensus, with typical love/hate attitudes towards WP:INCDAB. No such user (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous (Michael Jackson album) → Dangerous (album) – Primary topic by far. One of the best-selling albums of all time and it pulls up overwhelmingly more results than the other five subjects of the same name combined..— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Topic by definition is something with no ( ) parenthesis after. WP:PRIMARYALBUM does not exist, Thriller is a disruptive sore thumb sticking against the way en.wp works simply to hide the name of Michael Jackson from readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edited the above comment to strike !vote, as nominators should not vote on their own proposal. 162 etc. (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A stricken Support suggests someone decided to rescind their support. That’s misleading. I edited it to say Comment instead of a stricken support. —В²C ☎ 16:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. Have not seen valid arguments how primary topic does not apply here. It's undeniably the most famous album with this title PinkSlippers (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dangerous: The Double Album gets 8,601 views compared to 22,287[[3]] for this one and subtitles are often omitted, see WP:SUBTITLE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Ambiguous. Fails WP:PRECISE. Also, these changes help no reader. Readers who think that it has to be Michael Jackson will not be hindered by having that in the title, but all others will be hindered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - clear primary topic.  Mysterymanblue  21:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Michael Jackson's Dangerous is by far the most well known album among those mentioned, so I don't think it's ambiguous to make it the primary topic in the Dangerous titled albums. If it's not an issue for other albums like the Thriller's example I don't see why it has to be an issue for this.GiuliaZB (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Ambiguity alone is not in and of itself good reason against using a given term as a title. That’s the point of PRIMARYTOPIC. And, yes, PRIMARYTOPIC applies to partially disambiguated titles in cases like this. This Dangerous album is among the top 20 albums of all time — all the others are relatively obscure and this distinction is reinforced by page view counts all noted by the nom. That’s the point of WP:INCDAB. Opposition ignores all this community consensus established in policy and guidelines, and their JDLI !votes should be unweighted accordingly in determining consensus here. —В²C ☎ 16:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, the weak consensus with the PDAB RFC was clearly that the standard is tougher and the community has almost always been reluctant to find consensus for them, the views (of Dangerous: The Double Album) I have provided don't support the claim that this is primary by the tougher standards of PADBs. The move will cause more confusion than the small benefit of a few readers getting directly here and this having a more concise title, its not worth it so leave as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This album has almost three times the views of Wallen's Dangerous: The Double Album, and Wallen's isn't even most commonly known as just "Dangerous". Furthermore, the page views for Wallen's 2021 album are already waning, while views for Jackson's album remains rock steady. It's clear where this is going. That's way beyond than the minimum primary topic standard: "much more likely than". 1.1x is "more likely". 2x is "much more likely". 3x is way beyond that. It easily meets the tougher standard required by INCDAB. It's not confusing to treat primary topics as primary topics. Seeing that we put this topic at Dangerous (album) demonstrates that this Dangerous album stands out among the other albums named "Dangerous". And it does. What's confusing is not treating it like that by leaving it where it is, fully disambiguated like the others. --В²C ☎ 19:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so I'd expect more like 97-99% before considering PDAB, putting it at Dangerous (album) will cause confusion since it suggests its the only album with this name which it isn't when it would be easier to take them to the DAB as we do where they have access to the 7 albums with articles and 2 mentions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    putting it at Dangerous (album) will cause confusion since it suggests its the only album with this name - If this logic holds up, then we have an awful lot of primary-topic articles out there causing confusion. I doubt it, really. Popcornfud (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Whether intended this way or not, it's an argument against all primary topic article titles, or almost all of them. And a 97-99% threshold implies almost 100 times as many views as all others combined. That's not community consensus. Not even close. Remember, 3x is 300% as many! That makes it far beyond "much more likely". --В²C ☎ 21:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus appears to be that partial disambiguation is generally only used in exceptional cases especially noting that there was a back of consensus for Parasite (film). Even if the Double is only sometimes called "Dangerous" it would still likely prevent the very might threshold for partial disambiguation, if this is moved I'd expect it to end up at MR as well. Its far easier for readers to just select this one (or a different one) from the DAB when they search for this than confusingly having a partially disambiguated title which per the views I can't see its worth the confusion. If a topic is primary for a term then yes it should be at the base name but as we know we're much stricter with partial disambiguation so it shouldn't happen here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop exaggerating to make your case. It’s not “only used in exceptional cases” nor are we “much stricter”. We do have to meet a “higher threshold” which we easily do in this case especially if we appropriately discount the 2021 Double album both for not being named “Dangerous” and for its page view counts already waning. —В²C ☎ 15:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be the consensus, see the result of the MR of Parasite, the community has been very reluctant to use partial disambiguation and the only case this has passed (as far as I'm aware) is Thriller where the shorter title already redirected to it unlike Parasite and Dangerous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not consensus. Plenty of counter-examples to your one Parasite anomaly at WP:PDAB. Yeah, once in a while enough of the pro-descriptive-titles brigade minority shows up at an RM to throw a local consensus, but that's hardly a reflection of community consensus. --В²C ☎ 16:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No its that most people realize that its almost always ridiculous to do and creates unnecessary confusion for readers and editors for very little benefit. Thriller even has always been controversial. Without it readers would largely be better served and there would be fewer debates like this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Lugnuts. If the album was the primary topic, it would simply be at Dangerous. If it's not, then it must be disambiguated from the other Dangerous albums. (As far as I know, parenthetical disambiguators don't have primary topics; would we have Pepe (footballer) and Pepe (footballer, born 1983)?) —  AjaxSmack  03:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:PDAB. Plenty of examples there. —В²C ☎ 04:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's unclear what the expected benefit is (either for the project or the reader) of partially cutting the disambiguation for a single article title that is not the primary topic for the term. SmokeyJoe's earlier DAB page example nicely illustrates the kind of odd inconsistency that the move would create, something that I can easily see being confusing to readers. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it is time once and for all to have a vote on whether or not PRIMARYTOPIC applies to disambiguated articles (in other words, is there a primary topic for a title that still has a parenthetical disambiguator?) I hold that there is no sense in partial disambiguation. Red Slash 04:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Dangerous_(Michael_Jackson_album)"