Talk:Happy Hollow (album)

Imagery
Either this section needs to be removed, or verifiable sources need to be added. Moonty 03:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what sources could we cite? Obviously, the section is discussing the lyrics featured on the album. The lyrics are, in fact, quoted. So, ultimatums aside, what would you like to see here in terms of specific constructive criticism? Nietzscheanlie 04:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The interpretation of the imagery, without verifiable sources, constitutes original thought, something not covered by WP. Now, if one were to write an essay or article, or something similar, on the matter, that would be a different matter. Moonty 15:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the imagery section now, it definitely constitutes original thought and has no place on Wikipedia (which isn't to say that it has no place in other places, mind you.) Moonty 06:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ted Stevens, Vocals
Ted Stevens definately sang some tracks on The Ugly Organ; perhaps the "atypical" comment should be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.45.7.200 (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Cur00.jpg
Image:Cur00.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2008 (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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Articles do not have to be able to take the title in order to factor into considering what the primary topic is for that term. The amusement park is a contender even though we didn't name that article Happy Hollow. Whether subjects without articles can contend for primacy is an interesting discussion, I don't think wp:PRIMARYTOPIC indicates that they can not. In any case, there doesn't seem to be any consensus that there is a primary topic for Happy Hollow. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

– No clear primary topic. I have listed it as controversial, because the name of the album used to be "Happy Hollow (album)" and moved in June 2010 with this edit. I think that sufficient other uses of "Happy Hollow" for the dab to be at "Happy Hollow". Snowman (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy Hollow → Happy Hollow (album)
 * Happy Hollow (disambiguation) → Happy Hollow


 * Oppose. There are no other articles currently on WP that could take the title "Happy Hollow". Station1 (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Other meaning of Happy Hollow are listed on the dab for Happy Hollow. Snowman (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I call on Station1 to withdraw an unintentionally false claim. There is also Happy Hollow Park & Zoo; and there are other entities to consider also (like at least one Happy Hollow School, so far without an article here). Regardless of principles that might be adduced from WP:TITLE for mercilessly strict application, why would anyone object to "Happy Hollow (album)"? It informs the reader; it treads on no one's toes; it is not too long; it fits with the titles of similar articles. This Wikipedantic quest to minimise specificity at all costs is getting out of hand, and does no one any good. N oetica Tea? 06:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy Hollow Park & Zoo would not take the title Happy Hollow even if that title were available, any more than London Zoo would be at London if that were available. Both Happy Hollow Park & Zoo and Happy Hollow are at their best titles (i.e., what they are actually named) and there is no conflict between the two, therefore no need for artificial disambiguation. Station1 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Transparently wrong, Station1. For one thing, London Zoo is named after its location, and Happy Hollow Park & Zoo is not. And then, even if the cases were more comparable, in some contexts either could be abbreviated to London (in communications among zookeepers!) or Happy Hollow (among students of the school, contrasting it with other schools). Do you also think that Harvard University cannot properly be referred to as Harvard? N oetica Tea? 23:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Harvard University is not at Harvard, even though that title is available, because it's not its name, just an informal shortening. Station1 (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, unlike you I grant that there is no stand-out candidate to be the natural bearer of the name Happy Hollow. I readily concede that Happy Hollow Park & Zoo should not be allowed to appropriate that name as its title on Wikipedia. But I include also this utterly ephemeral cultural statement by an obscure American band. It too has no natural claim on the short title. There is no "primary topic" for "Happy Hollow". Why would anyone imagine there must be one? Perhaps (at a stretch) that album temporarily has a stronger claim than some other candidates, like this book, or this one which bears the title "Happy Hollow" with no qualification at all. But why would we bend over backwards to have ambiguous titles, destined to change as fashions change, when we can easily be specific and keep everyone happy? Except perhaps the fans of "the American indie rock band Cursive", whose wretched fifth album (2006) is called "Happy Hollow". Honestly, let's get some perspective. And even if we did want to do Cursive a favour, how would we be doing that by omitting "(album)" from the title of an article about that album? It beggars belief, to think that anyone considers such a folly to be encyclopedic, helpful to readers, or appropriately disinterested. N oetica Tea? 06:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we may be looking at this from different perspectives. You seem to be looking at the name in the context of the world at large, and I'm looking at it in the context of Wikipedia. I'm glad we agree about Happy Hollow Park & Zoo. That being the case, I say Happy Hollow does have a "natural claim on the short title" because (a) it's its actual name and (b) there is no other article currently on Wikipedia about anything else whose actual name is "Happy Hollow", therefore the title is not ambiguous among article titles on WP. Since it's not ambiguous on WP, the concept of primary topic does not even come into play. I agree the situation might change in the future, but as of right now the album is named Happy Hollow, there is no other article on WP about anything else named "Happy Hollow", so per WP:PRECISE we should not create an artificial article title when a natural one is available and not in conflict with any other title on WP. Believe it or not, I do think it's encyclopedic and disinterested to title an article with its natural name whenever possible, and helpful to readers to get them to the article they seek without going through a dab page unnecessarily. Editors' opinions about whether or not the album is ephemeral or wretched or the band obscure, should have nothing to do with it. Station1 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The 2006 LP was named after the locality Happy Hollow in Omaha, Nebraska, USA. WP:RECENTISM would not support the LP taking the primary topic. The Wiki is too biased towards modern culture. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The album is the primary topic. I must remind Noetica that you shouldn't use things that aren't Wikipedia articles in determining a primary topic  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  15:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I must remind PB not to pretend, against the clearly stated details at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that there is always a primary topic, for any given term. Also, not to pretend that the guideline takes this to be the decisive consideration. It's more complicated than that. N oetica Tea? 23:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that user Noetica has applied his common sense. The page was moved from "Happy Hollow (album)" to "Happy Hollow" at 14:46 on 27 May 2010. The page counts for May 2010 (see counts here) went up a lot after 27 May 2010. It seems to me that very few people (about 8 to 10 per day) viewed the LP article named "Happy Hollow (album)"; however, August 2010 saw 1170 hits (about 39 hits per day) to the page renamed to "Happy Hollow". I think that the increase in views it mostly people who were looking for another meaning of "Happy Hollow" (other meanings are listed on the dab page for Happy Hollow). To me the common sense interpretation of these page views is that the LP is not a primary topic for "Happy Hollow". Snowman (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow, do me a favor...check how the other things named "Happy Hollow" were effected. If most of them get or few or no hits, as I suspect they do, the album is still the primary topic.  Having other things named something isn't enough alone to deny a primary topic, you need those things to account for 40% or more of the views to deny a primary topic  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  15:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Prior to May 2010, when the album was at "Happy Hollow (album)", both pages on which the two place-names feature received a lot more hits than the album, so I think that the article move to make the album the primary topic was controversial, and should be reversed. Please also consider WP:RECENTISM. Snowman (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support moves, as nominator. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.