Talk:MobySongs 1993–1998

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on MobySongs 1993–1998. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/m/moby/mobysongs.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 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. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

MobySongs 1993–1998 → Songs 1993–1998 – "Moby" is not part of the album title according to the artist's offical website. Additionaly, this seems to be the more common way to format the album title. – Dream out loud (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the title helps readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? What does that have to do with WP:TITLE? – Dream out loud  (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It means what it says. WP:CRITERIA's objectives are to help readers. Removing the most easily identifiable part of the title will not help readers. Plus this is how print sources name the album, per Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll p660: "Elektra, tried to cash in on Moby's new fame with the compilation Mobysongs 1993-1998, a survey of his earlier work" In ictu oculi (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. On Google Books, "MobySongs 1993-1998" is a bit more common than "Songs 1993-1998" and other variants. It appears that high quality sources are split, some using "Songs 1993-1998" (and close variants), others using "MobySongs 1993-1998" variants, and some using different titles entirely. Is there other evidence that one version is more popular than others besides the Google Books returns?--Cúchullain t/ c 16:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. IIO has nailed it... either title seems acceptable in terms of guidelines etc, but the current title is clearly superior in terms of reader experience. Andrewa (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2016 (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.