Talk:Live 2012 / Volume II

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: irrelevant/merge. Further discussion has ended in a consensus to merge to The Rasmus (album), so where the history lives is irrelevant as long as all plausible search terms have redirects. Looking at the article it is currently unsourced and it appears this article has failed to find any reliable sources discussing the album, despite the good efforts of many. So once I've closed this I'll simply redirect this article to The Rasmus (album), as no referenced content means there is no mergeable content and straight up redirecting will suffice. Jenks24 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Live 2012 / Volume II → The Rasmus Live 2012 Volume II – [as cover, alternatively The Rasmus Live 2012 Vol.2 as band's official website "Our new Fan DVD “The Rasmus Live 2012 Vol.2” is available NOW! You can't buy this anywhere else, here is the link.", note also other CDs and DVDs at Live 2012. added 1 July per comment below ] The current title hides the artist. This is over application of a project guideline (in this case WP:SONGDAB though this is a DVD) against a policy WP:AT Recognizability. Evidently "Live 2012 / Volume II" is not a standalone self-standing title such as Gone with the Wind (film) or Titanic (film), but a subtitle without which The Rasmus concert is unrecognisable and would never appear without the name of what "Live 2012" refers to. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have amended RM to take on board Cuchullain's comment below. May therefore require relisting. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We cannot make up titles for our articles. The proposed target is not the title of this album. Dohn joe (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By definition a subtitle is not a title. But anyway we'll see what WP Film editors think. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See also question below about who benefits from stripping a DVD of the band name when the subtitle already directs to it. Removal of the band strikes me as grossly inconsiderate to Rasmus fans and non-Rasmus fans alike. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support MOS:SLASH, WP:SUBPAGE ; articles should not appear like subpages, slashes should be avoided. This should not appear as a subtopic of Live 2012 (which itself should be converted to a dab page) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE are good.< Red Slash 08:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Red Slash, but (1) what about MOS:SLASH? (2) If Live 2012 / Volume II redirects to The Rasmus Live 2012 Volume II anyway who exactly benefits from removing the name of band? Those who want it don't benefit. Those who don't want it don't benefit. Isn't this title being deliberately obstructive to both groups? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question. Why is WP:CONCISE policy, anyway? I don't want to substitute my own personal thinking for the original, consensus-based reasoning. Red Slash 03:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that is the question. Aren't we meant to be making life easier for readers not constantly making life difficult for them? WP:CONCISE says


 * So the guideline is designed for cases like Rhode Island. It doesn't say to move a DVD titled The Rasmus Live 2012 Volume II to Live 2012 / Volume II. "sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject" - nobody except a couple of record company executives in Helsinki could possibly identify The Rasmus Live 2012 Volume II from Live 2012 / Volume II. I can't identify it, you can't identify it, Dohn joe can't identify it, not a single WP Film editor can identify it. Honestly Red Slash you even heard of the Finnish band The Rasmus before this RM? This isn't Gone with the Wind (film) or Titanic (film), why are we being such WP:DICKs? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, you struck out on this one rather unluckily--I am vaguely familiar with The Rasmus Face-smile.svg, though definitely not with this DVD. (Well, okay, I'm familiar with one song of theirs, "In the Shadows", and I did remember that this was the band that did that song. I would not have been able to tell you that they were Finnish, or anything else about them, really.) I still don't see how it hurts to keep it shorter--no one would arrive at this page except by searching for this DVD thing--but your appeal to WP:RECOGNIZABLE has definite merit. I will then only weakly oppose, because not only is the proposed title natural disambiguation, it's a more recognizable title and probably a more common title; I still prefer a shorter title but I recognize your argument's merit. Red Slash 02:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Current title is not recognisable (WP:AT of course). If current guidelines and policies leave any doubt as to this move, then the guidelines etc need to change. Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a made-up title that fails WP:COMMONNAME (there are only 20 Google hits for this, and most don't even format it this way, and nothing in Google News or Google Books). Other solutions may be workable, but the better question is, is this subject even notable? The article's uncited and no reliable sources seem apparent.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Made-up title seems to be an emotive and increasingly common turn of phrase, and some such titles are discouraged by policy on various grounds, but not all of them. Andrewa (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry if you're bothered by my phrasing; but the point stands. The proposed title isn't widely used in reliable sources (or at all) and as such isn't an appropriate article title. --Cúchullain t/ c 04:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this phrasing hides an error of logic, so the point does not stand at all. Andrewa (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The phrasing, and more importantly, the article title policy, are actually quite clear on that point.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:Recognizability. I can see many people searching for Live 2012, seeing Volume II, thinking, "Great, MY band has released a second volume" only to be disappointed to find The Rasmus (who they may or may not have ever heard of!). Noting what Cúchullain says above, I would happily support an alternative, more common disambiguation format. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We should follow sources, not inventing new names. A couple of dozens of Google hits, almost exclusively from unreliable sites, are too few for justifying the change. --Cavarrone 08:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Cavarrone the onus is on someone accusing (I'm afraid it is an accusation, and I for one don't like being accused in this way to be honest) other editors of "inventing new names" to explain what sources they themselves prefer. You don't consider (1) the Rasmus fansite and (2) official merchandise retailer reliable sources, no normally I wouldn't either, but what's the alternative, what other source are you pointing to? Then you can accuse me of inventing names to your heart's content but first, what are your sources that the band's name isn't part of the DVD title? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm you are incidentally raising a very good question... before discussing about the title, is this DVD minimally notable? It was ever covered/reviewed by reliable secondary sources? I'm tagging for notability the article and nominating it for deletion in a couple of days after an extra-search, but apparently it has no potential sources outside fansites, retailers and a few personal blogs such as this one. If I'm missing something please point me the RS. Cavarrone 19:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy close per discussion here. Blatant lack of secondary reliable sources to justify a moving discussion. Let's stop this waste of time. --Cavarrone 07:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, this RM could be closed immediately as not moved, consensus to merge instead or similar by any uninvolved admin. Non-admin close probably not advisable IMO, but I would not contest it. As this RM is already in the RM backlog, it's not even a speedy close as I understand it. Andrewa (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
From the poll above ''...is this subject even notable? The article's uncited and no reliable sources seem apparent...''

The Rasmus have sold 4 miilion albums according to the article, so I'd guess that a deletion proposal for this article (on one of their DVDs) on notability grounds would have no chance whatsoever. At best it might be a merge and redirect result, but even that is unlikely IMO. Andrewa (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that the band is notable doesn't mean everything they've ever done is notable enough for its own article when there are no sources to support it. In this case this seems to be the second of 2 videos of footage from a tour; neither the other video nor the tour has an article. Conceivably both videos could be covered in an article on the tour, assuming sources are identified.Cúchullain t/ c 04:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's all true, but that last sentence is honestly and explicitly speculation.
 * It would have been better to test it in a merge discussion before raising the RM, but that's hindsight. We now have an RM to decide.
 * The question for the RM is, assuming that the article is to continue to exist rather than be merged and redirected (or deleted), what should its name be?
 * If merge or deletion is the end result, then of course we'll have wasted our time on this RM. The question is, how to now waste the least amount of time? I think it's by focussing on the question at hand, and leaving discussions that are irrelevant to the move decision aside for the moment.
 * The alternative, it seems to me, is to raise a merge discussion and keep relisting this RM unitl that is decided. That's messy, and I think just wastes more time than we need to, especially considering that merge proposals often languish undecided and even undiscussed for years. But if you wish to follow that course, it's open to you. Andrewa (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't wish to "follow a course" you just came up with. But the question of whether this subject is independently notable is a valid one, and one that probably should have been determined before the RM opened. Either way, the notability question is not a justification for using a name that doesn't appear in any sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't proposing anything novel. You seem to want to discuss notability, and there are procedures for doing this. It's your call entirely whether you follow any of them up.
 * Agree that the question of whether this subject is independently notable is a valid one, and glad you agree with me that it's one that probably should have been determined before the RM opened.
 * And agree that the notability question is not justification for using a name that doesn't appear in any sources. It's not relevant to the discussion either way, and that's what I've been trying to say all along. Andrewa (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A question of logic
Premise 1: The proposed title isn't widely used in reliable sources (or at all)... Premise 2: Some article titles that aren't widely used in reliable sources are not appropriate article titles * Conclusion: ...and as such isn't an appropriate article title

The problem is, that's invalid by undistributed middle. Andrewa (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, a question of policy
WP:TITLECHANGES: "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Invented titles are only appropriate for descriptive titles where there is no real-world title - see WP:NDESC - which is not the case here. Dohn joe (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dohn joe, can I please again ask, as others have also asked, not to use this emotional "invent" "made up" rhetoric. This title is how it is described by fans Friday, November 22, 2013 1:53 at www.therasmus-hellofasite.com


 * So evidently the fans aren't vested in hiding the name of the band as some of us are. If we're going to make charges of "invent" "made up" then this argument would demand Live 2012 (Coldplay album) Live 2012 (The Cranberries album) Live 2012 (Thin Lizzy album), and how are these not "invented" "made up"? The actual covers have no brackets, no "", no "album", but instead have Coldplay Live 2012, The Cranberries Live 2012 (redirect), Thin Lizzy Live 2012 (redirect), as The Rasmus Live 2012 per WP:NATURAL. Our "" and "album" are not WP:NATURAL but a construct "invented" "made up" by en.wp style. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Policy cannot overrule logic (at least not here, in some law courts (-> one does wonder). I'm afraid Dohn Joe has repeated exactly the same logical error, just in different words.
 * If the bolded clause had no qualifications, the argument would be valid. But it does have a qualification, in the very next clause. It's not about all invented names, it's only about names invented as a means of compromising between opposing points of view... that is, some invented names.
 * And the most common (perhaps the only, I'm not sure) reason that Wikipedia does invent names for article titles is for purposes of disambiguation. We don't ask whether any reliable source uses the exact phrase Flight of the Phoenix (2004 film), and from the look of the first few hits it's possible nobody else does. The case of natural disambiguation is a little more complicated than this example, but the same principles apply. Andrewa (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Andrew, but that comes off as wikilawyering. The policies are quite clear that the WP:COMMONNAME as found in reliable sources should be used and invented names (like this) should be avoided. The fact that some exceptions to the usual practice exist doesn't mean this is one of them, let alone that this proposed title is better for other reasons. Since we're all so concerned with "questions of logic", perhaps those who want to change the status quo should explain how this move does fit one of the exceptions to the usual naming guidelines, rather than insisting that opposers demonstrate that it doesn't.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In ictu, a natural title WP:AT is one that's actually used in the sources, "one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English"; or at least "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English". WP:NATURALDIS specifically says "Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names." Your proposed title isn't natural as no reliable sources use it. The fan site www.therasmus-hellofasite.com isn't a reliable source, it doesn't use your proposed title, and in fact in other entries it gives the name as Live 2012 / Volume II.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (Replying to Cuchullain 13:42, 30 June 2014) Reading the essay you cite, it seems strange (and rather uncalled for) to accuse me of wikilawyering: a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of judging other Wikipedians' actions (my wikilink added). My motives are simply to apply the policies as they were intended to be applied, which is what the Wikilawyering essay was specifically written to encourage. Andrewa (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:AT is very clear that articles should use common names found in the reliable sources, and should avoid invented names. You're claiming the policy can't be used to say that, based on a pretty sophistic interpretation, and that editors who do are in fact guilty of making "logical errors" and "invalid" claims. At any rate, you haven't given much argument for why this proposed title should be an exception to the standard common name practice, though you seem to expect others to show why it shouldn't.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME does not address the subtitles of artist compilations, so for example we don't find: People
 * Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)
 * Bono (not: Paul Hewson)
 * Cat Stevens (not: Yusuf Islam or Steven Georgiou)
 * François Mitterrand (not: François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand)
 * John F. Kennedy (not: Jack Kennedy)
 * Lady Gaga (not: Stefani Germanotta)
 * Liberace (not: Władziu Liberace)
 * His Very Best (not: Willy Nelson His Very Best) (sic)
 * Horowitz (not: Vladimir Horowitz) (sic)
 * Stalin (not: Joseph Stalin) (sic)

The examples from WP:COMMONNAME are evidently considering a different issue. They do justify (for example) dropping maternal names for Spanish sportspeople (which es.wp uses, but New York Times doesn't). This section of WP:AT is also badly written and unbalanced as has been discussed many times on the Talk page but always blocked by 1 or 2 editors who are advocates of absolute possible concision in titling (advocates of extreme crypticness and user-unfriendliness in my opinion, but that is evidently a personal opinion). Be that as it may, there's no justification in WP:COMMONNAME for making subtitles of artist compilations into titles that obscure the title. Citing WP:COMMONNAME is about as relevant as citing an eggplant, since it doesn't address this case. Of course WP:NATURAL (which is part of WP:COMMONNAME same page) doesn't say "Coldplay Live 2012 not Live 2012 (Coldplay album)" (sic) either. But WP:NATURAL is part of the same WP:AT and would suggest following the "natural" fan website quoteboxed above and Billboard Spin etc. listings which give the name of artist. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, WP:COMMONNAME is absolutely relevant, here as anywhere. As with anything we go with what the available reliable sources say. Perhaps the common name is something else, but to date no one has provided any reliable sources indicating that (or any reliable sources of any kind).--Cúchullain t/ c 04:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What do the reliable sources say? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you've found any, please share. This is your RM after all.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going by the quotation marks on the official band website The Rasmus News "Our new Fan DVD “The Rasmus Live 2012 Vol2” is available NOW! You can't buy this anywhere else, here is the link.", plus the DVD cover, the fansite, and the official retail site. What are you going by? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Until actual sources are presented, I'm going by the DVD cover, which says "Live 2012/Volume II". As I pointed out to you, your "therasmus-hellofasite.com" fan site is inconsistent; for instance, here it gives the title as "Live 2012 / Volume II", no "The Rasmus..." And of course it's not a reliable source, being a self-published fan site. The official retail site doesn't use your proposed title at all, it lists the DVD under "Live-2012 DVD" and refers to the item as "the new The Rasmus Live 2012 disc" in the text. This is confusing given as there's a first volume, "Live 2012/Mysteria", which apparently isn't for sale there. And it's not a reliable source either. Even the band's official website, which you didn't mention before, doesn't give your proposed formatting ("The Rasmus Live 2012 Vol2" is not your "The Rasmus Live 2012 Volume II" nor the "[The Rasmus] Live 2012/Volume II that actually appears on the DVD.) I haven't located even a single English reliable source for this that would challenge the DVD cover as the common name (or establish notability for this DVD).--Cúchullain t/ c 18:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

On "made-up names"
The crux of the discussion seems to be: "Is the proposed name a made-up name in terms of WP:AT and other policies and guidelines which discourage or prohibit their use?"

WP:NATURALDIS, cited on discussions above, is a shortcut to a section of the the policy at WP:AT, and reads in part Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names. Note the wikilink, to neologism.

The proposed name is not a neologism. It's normal, natural English expression. There's nothing creative or original about it.

Perhaps the policy needs clarifying. If it's to be interpreted that we need to find online occurrences of the exact phrase of every proposed article title, regardless of the naturalness of the expression and its usefulness in terms of reader experience, then we have a problem. Andrewa (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If it doesn't appear in any sources, and is instead made up by editors, it's a "made-up name". And in this case it's not more natural, let alone useful, than going with the subject's actual name.--Cúchullain t/ c 02:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Long-standing WP policy is that article titles, like article content, are based on actual usage in reliable sources. This is based on WP's pillars: WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. They're at the very foundation of what makes WP possible. We follow the sources. This is such a bedrock principle that it troubles me that we even need this discussion among longtime WP editors. Is "The Rasmus Live 2012 Volume II" a "normal, natural English expression"? Sure - but it's not the name of the album. It's WP:OR and it's not WP:VERIFIABLE. WP:NATURALDIS is only meant to apply when there are multiple names of a subject actually commonly found in reliable sources. We harm the encyclopedia when we substitute our "common sense" over what we can verify. We say this, in different ways, over and over and over at WP:AT:
 * "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources."
 * "It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view."
 * "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject."
 * "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English."
 * "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."
 * "(Wikipedia) prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."
 * "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."
 * "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English."
 * "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names."
 * The only place the policy talks about the acceptability of an invented name is for descriptive titles of topics that have no set name in sources. Otherwise, folks, we are bound to follow usage in reliable sources. How many more times, and in many different ways does this need to be said? Dohn joe (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To try to put it another way, while there are some cases where invented names work (non-judgmental descriptive titles or parenthetical disambiguation in situations call for it), this doesn't mean that any and all invented names should be used, let alone that this particular invented title should be used.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course it doesn't mean that that any and all invented names should be used. That straw man borders on the ridiculous, frankly.


 * But it does mean that cases should be taken on their merits. Why does this particular one not work? Andrewa (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, because it fails WP:COMMONNAME and most other points of the article titles policy, it's unverifiable original research, being as it's an invented or extremely uncommon name not found in even one reliable source. But frankly I'm tired of repeatedly explaining why we shouldn't go against standard practice when you haven't given any real reason why we should.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not original research as Wikipedia uses the phrase. That policy reads in part A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. This proposed title meets those criteria, as would most if not all proposals for natural disambiguation of a record album title.
 * I can understand your frustration, but can you see mine? You are making some good points, but also wasting a lot of time with points such as that and worse (any and all invented names should be used, indeed!) and it's a lot of unproductive work to sort them out, particularly as it's doubtful whether anyone will ever read this discussion other than the participants.
 * We need to somehow be more concise, rather than repeating points already made. I admit I have probably done that too. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've said just about all I care to here. You continue picking around the edges of the policies and you still haven't made any good argument for making this proposed change to the status quo.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that enough has been said.
 * I'm not wishing to be picking around the edges of the policies, just the opposite, the policies are there to help us to present accurate, verifiable, encyclopedic information in a way that maximises reader experience.
 * The case that the proposed move achieves that has been made. Against it, we have illogical arguments, complaints that I'm wikilawyering when I point these out, misquoted policies, straw men, and now a vague charge that I'm somehow misquoting policies by picking around the edges.
 * And mixed in with these, some valid points. I've answered some but probably not all of them, it's all too much work to sort it out. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 1 July 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.

Preliminary issue: notability
As said above, before discussing about the title, is this DVD minimally notable? Where are the multiple reliable secondary independent sources which justify the existence of this article? If I haven't missed something we have just fansites, retailers and blogs. Cavarrone 19:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, those are good points, and have all been made and answered above. I'm not quite sure where to go from here, however. Andrewa (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see, but the only valid answer here is to provide reliable sources proving what we are discussing is a notable subject. Making my searches I was unable to even find a trivial mention in a RS about this dvd, let alone significant coverage. Frankly, it's a waste of time discussing about moving an article that (very likely) should not exist at all. --Cavarrone 22:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also looked quite a bit and I can't find any reliable sources at all, in English at least. This DVD was one of two recorded for the band's 2012 tour (neither the first DVD nor the tour have articles). The tour was primarily to support The Rasmus (album), so we might could just add a brief mention of the DVDs to the tour section of the album article and redirect the names to there.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. If the result of a merge (or delete) discussion is merge (or delete), then the RM is moot. I'm still interested in some of the policy points raised above, but we don't seem to be making any progress with them here.


 * I would not oppose a merge and redirect, and The Rasmus (album) seems a good place for the content. The other possibility I suppose is The Rasmus, but that would seriously disturb the balance of that article. Andrewa (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, what do you know? We may all be in agreement. Merge and redirect to The Rasmus (album). Dohn joe (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added the merge flags to the articles, pointing discussion here, which is a bit unconventional since this is a subsection of the open RM, which can't then be closed until we either resolve the merge discussion or move the discussion elsewhere . But I expect discussion here to be short, and we can relist the move once I think to allow the discussion... does that work for everyone? Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and Support a (speedy) merge and redirect to The Rasmus (album), as neither the first DVD nor the tour have articles. There is not too much to merge, anyway. Cavarrone 07:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I see this section has now been restrung to be an independent discussion to the RM... it's a bit messy either way but also acceptable either way, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Obviously I support a merge (or rather a redirect). I've added notes about both DVDs to The Rasmus (album) here, sourcedentirely on the band's website (a poor source, but the about the best anyone's found). Once the RM closes (perhaps we can get an admin to do it now) we should just redirect this article.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge to The Rasmus (album)
I think we have consensus to merge and redirect, well, to redirect now that the merge has occurred (but I'm not sure it's complete yet).

I've added the new heading Merge to The Rasmus {album} mainly to aid in people in the future searching for this discussion, suggest that we leave the main heading Preliminary issue: notability as it is, remembering that this is where the old versions of the two merged articles will point even if we were to update the flags on the current versions, so let's keep it as simple as we can.

I've posted some heads-ups  just to see whether any of the others involved in the move discussion wish to comment. Andrewa (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Andrewa makes sense to me, and I'm fine with this as long as redirects exist. I'm just a little iffy about how we got here. Fundamentally we have a problem of unhelpful titling where derivative products His Very Best At Her Best - Live are being pressed with an application of one (of several) criteria, which we don't do for much more important topics like WP:USPLACE. And then when we get into a discussion we often find, well the specific media product isn't encyclopedic anyway - which we'd probably find for [pick a percentage%] of song and album articles. And then we delete an article on a media product by Universal Music Finland's biggest property. But in this case your merger suggestion is elegant and sensible. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree that the process hasn't been the best. I think we would have strong consensus on that too. (->


 * Finding consensus on exactly how to improve on it may be trickier... Andrewa (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. Actually I was expecting that this RM would pass with no trouble knowing that WP Film operates slightly differently from WP Albums, and it would be treated as a film. For example on 30 December 2012‎ RazorEyeEdits moved page Coldplay Live 2012 to Live 2012 - following the WP Albums style, but on 19 January 2013‎ Status reverted Live 2012 to Coldplay Live 2012 over redirect: with edit summary "The film (which is the main part of this article) is called Coldplay Live 2012. The CD is simply Live 2012." I have to say it makes me think twice about any RM to increase WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, I'm hoping there are no editors who would sooner see content deleted before recognizable. Otherwise Coldplay Live 2012 is at risk of AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think everyone agrees about the process. But it's not being merged because of the title, it's being merged because no one has found any sources for the topic despite several people searching for several days.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not completely true. There's never been a question that this information is accurate, verifiable, and encyclopedic. The question always was just where to put it. To close the RM as move would have done absolutely no harm, we'd have reached the same end result, and probably a little faster and with fewer ruffled feathers.


 * Our bottom line is reader experience. Readers want to get accurate information that they can trust with a minimum of fuss. And at the risk of broadening the discussion, even bad information that's suitably presented is better than none, for example rumours identified as rumours and sales pitches identified as sales pitches make for a better reader experience than drawing a blank, provided they are forewarned so they can use the information appropriately. Of course what we want is good information, but if it ain't there to find we can't produce it, or even if it is but we ain't found it yet.


 * A positive experience for editors is a secondary, but still important, consideration; We can't deliver the reader experience without it. But contributors' feelings, previous experiences in grammar classes, cultural sensitivities and aspirations, political views etc. don't count for much more than any other readers' (sometimes a little more, sometimes not at all), and their (our) natural desires to enforce these personal preferences count a little the other way if at all. I may yet convert you both to Andrew's Principle and/or the whole creed. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have little dealings with the redirect project, but my understanding, per this the redirect discussion is that they prefer a fuller disambiguation for redirects. On balance, for a redirect, that seems appropriate. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP, so I assume all plausible redirects would remain. Dohn joe (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It did remain, but the upshot was Beef Jerky (song) was redirected to Jerky and a new redirect created for Beef Jerky (John Lennon song). The Rasmus Live 2012 Volume II is a plausible redirect so, imo, Live 2012 / Volume II would be unnecessary, or it will be appropriated by another album with the same title and those that discussed this move can start all over again... --Richhoncho (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Struck inappropriate comment. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I may one day write an essay WP:hypotheticals and cite several posts from this discussion as examples of arguments better avoided, and I'm afraid that last post contains an example. Is there any material risk that there will ever be another notable album with the title Live 2012 / Volume II? If so it might be a (weak) argument in favour of the proposed move above, but there isn't, and the further away from 2012 we get, the less the risk becomes. It can safely be ignored. The other blatant hypothetical above (not in that last post) is the threat of AfD for this article... that was always going to end up as a merge, there was no material risk of deletion, it's exactly the sort of AfD nomination that WP:AfD already explicitly discourages (clause C4), but it made a good (and unproductive) threat in the heat of discussion.


 * Am I being too harsh here? Our time on earth is finite. One thing all serious religions seem to agree on is that how we choose to spend it is important. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Andrewa for your gentle chiding. It was deserved. I should use a little more thought. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrewa, as the reference to an "unproductive threat of AfD" was clearly directed to me, I kindly disagree with your arguments. I'm fine with the redirect, but the article was/is clearly deleteable for its blatant lack of notability, as you first were unable to provide a single reliable secondary reference to save it. And your merging was indeed quite "forced", we are merging a second part concert-dvd not to the first dvd nor to the relevant tour (both of them apparently non-notable as well) but to an album under the thin link that many songs played in the concert were based on that album. Not that kind of obvious solution which comes immediately in your mind when you consider alternatives to deletion. And if you are arguing that this genre of contents are regularly (always!) merged at AfDs, I can point you several hundreds of similar music-related articles deleted at AfD in spite of having more obvious targets for an eventual merging. I have not your overconfidence this one would ever survive at AfD. My best, Cavarrone 00:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Cavarrone, the only reason I favored a merge here is the possibility that some manner of reliable source exists in Finnish (or another language), at least enough to source a mention in a different article. I always try to give the benefit of the doubt with non-English subjects. Otherwise, you're totally right, there's definitely a very good case for deletion. This is a very obscure subject (a very limited concert video sold only in the band's online store, the sequel to a video sold only at shows, documenting a tour that has no article, and neither of which are even mentioned on the Finnish Wikipedia) and no one turned up even trivial coverage in English reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I even looked for sources about the two albums in Finnish (via Google.fi) and in other foreign languages, without finding anything close to a decent RS. I haven't dug in depth about the tour, but frankly it is not my priority just now. If there wasn't this merge proposal I would had certainly made an extra search before nominating the article for deletion, but in the circumstances I can live with a redirect. Cavarrone 18:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This suggests to me that AfD may be busted. But perhaps that's too harsh, no process is perfect, and as you give no examples (but seem to claim that they are nor hard to find) it's a bit hard to say. Can you give an example of a similar article that was deleted rather than merged?
 * The AfD instructions which I quoted seem quite clear and specific, and this proposed nomination seems to be in violation of them. That was the basis of my claim that the threat was unproductive rhetoric. If the nomination itself is better avoided, then surely the threat of one is even worse? Andrewa (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles that lack coverage in reliable sources are deleted all the time, that shouldn't be surprising. In music, this was just deleted today for exactly that reason. Like I said, this obscure topic would probably be a good candidate for deletion, but I suggested merging on the off chance that enough coverage exists in foreign-language sources to justify mentioning its existence in another article.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrewa, what Cúchullain said. First, I already explained that merging a second part concert-dvd not to the first dvd nor to the relevant tour but to an unrelated album is not the first thing which comes in your mind when you consider alternatives to deletion, so I admit not having had the idea. Second, you seem not having too much confidence with music-related AfDs (and I am referring to the concrete practice, not to a biased interpretation of WP:BEFORE), just check the WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs archives and you'll find HUNDREDS THOUSANDS of similar cases. I'm even talking about albums which charted, let's figure a non-notable concert-dvd sequel of another non-notable concert-dvd documenting a very likely non-notable tour! Sorry but the only "blatant, unproductive hypothetical" I see here is your claim that an AfD "was always going to end up as a merge, there was no material risk of deletion". Cavarrone  19:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Both of the links provided by Cavarrone point to Articles for deletion/Calore umano. Interesting discussion, or rather lack of it.... relisted twice, with no comments either time, then closed as delete thus leaving redlinks from both Nek and Nek discography, and several related articles. The article on Nek has had a notability tag on it for a year now. Surely, that was the issue to decide first? If Nek is notable enough to have a separate article on his discography, then surely a redir from Calore umano would do no harm, and some good? Or, if he's not even notable enough for an article as suggested by the hit and run banner, why are we wasting time discussing articles on his individual albums? Discuss and delete the other article first, surely? Either way, that deletion discussion resulted in a bad decision, on the evidence. If this is the best example that we can find, then the prosecution rests.

The link from Cuchullain is more interesting. Articles for deletion/Solution 7 states ''Not notable. Lacks reviews, charting, gold'' (my emphasis, and that's the entire rationale). This contradicts http://acharts.us/song/6711 which wasn't hard to find and says it peaked at number 5 in Finland. The AfD was relisted once, there was a strong consensus to delete, but no evidence apart from the bland and false rationale by the proposer, and a comment I had no luck finding sources showing this meets WP:BAND, WP:GNG, but which gives no indication of which searches were attempted, and I can only guess they didn't include a Google web search. The song doesn't even so meet WP:NSONG, in my opinion, but again a redirect would be appropriate. The biggest hit single by a band with three charting albums deserves some mention, surely.

I take the point that people aren't thinking of redirect as an option... although the editor who proposed the deletion of Solution 7 obviously did, as the AfD was only proposed as a result of their earlier attempt at redirect being reverted by an anon. Perhaps the notability guidelines should be tweaked to give that option a bit more prominence.

If we really are deleting thousands of similar entries, where a redirect would do a little good and no harm, and thereby needlessly discouraging probably hundreds of potential editors, then isn't that worth thinking about? Andrewa (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh gosh, I was too hasty in posting my reply and I have lost the second link (however it was a similar discussion, well, I will eventually post it when I will find it again). About Nek, while his article is basically unsourced he is obviously notable as an artist who charted n. 1 on several charts, outside of newspapers/magazines even many printed encyclopedias have a entry about him, I'll improve the article as soon as I can to remove the notability tag. To apologize for the wrong link above, other examples of mergeable&redirectable articles which were deleted in the last two weeks or so:,, , , , , , , . Cavarrone 10:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it's good to have the examples in the history even if I'm quite prepared to take your word for it... the more interesting question now is whether Wikipedia is better, or worse, for these becoming redlinks rather than redirects? I would have thought the answer was obviously that it's worse, that both editor and reader experience are going to be the poorer, and that there's no compensating benefit whatsoever. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Redlink or redirect
In my opinion it's time to move the discussion above to a more general forum.

Just to summarise:
 * 1) We are regularly deleting articles with the following characteristics:
 * 2) The topic of the article is a musical work such as an album or single
 * 3) The work itself is non-notable
 * 4) The artist is notable
 * 5) An article exists on the artist (and in some cases even a separate article on their discography)
 * 6) The work is specifically mentioned in one or more articles on the artist
 * 7) A redirect would be of benefit to Wikipedia
 * 8) Improved reader experience
 * 9) The information is encyclopedic (it belongs in the other article(s) on the artist)
 * 10) Readers wanting this information will find it more easily
 * 11) There's even some risk of information being lost in the deletion
 * 12) Improved editor experience
 * 13) Less discouraging to editors who have worked on the article to be (redirected or) deleted (remembering WP:AGF)
 * 14) Less chance of reinventing the wheel
 * 15) The talk page remains available
 * 16) Preservation of significant history concerning previously merged edits is easier as the article page history remains available
 * 17) I even suspect that we often lose such history, in violation of our copyleft licence if so
 * 18) There is no compensating benefit of deletion rather than redirection, none whatsoever
 * 19) The number of articles so deleted rather than redirected is in the thousands, with many ongoing examples each week

Others have given specific examples in the discussion above, as I say there I have checked the first two and they both seem to meet these criteria, and there are now several others given in a later post.

Even if the loss of each such redirect is in itself a small thing, the loss of so many small things seems to me to be a big thing. When I think of the completely pointless annoyance and frustration this must represent to so many potential editors (I'm guessing hundreds at least, many of them newbies, but have not checked), it looks even bigger.

Comments of course very welcome. I recommend that you comment below and cite the particular point you wish to discuss rather than editing the numbered list. You can quote the text of the point eg Improved reader experience or the number eg 2.1 as you prefer. (And as another example I even suspect... would be 2.2.3.1 while There is no compensating benefit... is just point 3 - The numbered list is a bit of an experiment, we'll see how it goes.)

I say again, am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)