Talk:Results (album)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bombsliza.jpg
Image:Bombsliza.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Liza-Results.jpg
Image:Liza-Results.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sosorry.jpg
Image:Sosorry.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Painsliza.jpg
Image:Painsliza.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Losingliza.jpg
Image:Losingliza.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Visible results
The video album was originally released on 20cm Laserdisc and VHS. Don't know how to incorporate this info into the article, so will leave it up to someone else. ◦◦derekbd  ◦   ◦my talk◦◦  17:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

'Kissoon' not 'Kisson'
I think that must read 'Katie Kissoon' not 'Katie Kisson'. --84.177.90.169 (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The title "Results"
The title Results came from a comment Janet Street-Porter gave to Neil Tennant about her dress. All according to page 153 in the book "Literally" by Chris Heath from 1990. 14:58, 27.07.2012 (DRF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.142.163.45 (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2012 (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: No consensus. While we enjoyed a wide-ranging array of comments about the general value and notability and primacy of generic nouns versus proper nouns, and the disambiguation value of plural titles... very little information was provided about why result should have primary topic over Results. This quote by Dohn joe is extremely appropriate: "We here already agree that this is okay for things like "Friends" and "Windows", so like any PT discussion, it's a matter of consensus - the principle is already established." Yes, like any PT discussion, we need consensus and not a general re-establishment of principles. Assertions like "The primary topic of 'results' is the plural of result" or "A mainspace plural should only be a redirect to the singular if the only possible alternative is a red link" were not compelling, since they had no clear backing in policy or data.

Theoretically, if the album were way more important (compared to the common noun), people would have no problem with the status quo (see Windows); if it were way less important (compared to the common noun), people would have supported the move (see Airplanes). But nobody really talked much about the actual album's long-term significance and there's nary a mention of pageviews, which are our two main primary topic criteria. Therefore, unfortunately, there's not enough policy-based or data-based arguments to figure out any sort of consensus here. Red Slash 03:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Results → Results (album) – The primary topic of results, if there is one, is the plural of result. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The primary topic of "results" is this Top Ten UK album by Liza Minelli. The title has been stable for seven years, and there is a hatnote to result (which, incidentally, is in pretty poor shape - not much more than a glorified dictdef). Our readers are clearly interested in getting "Results". Dohn joe (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NOTDICT. Result is the primary dictionary meaning of results but result is not an encyclopedically(Is that a word?) notable topic.  —  AjaxSmack   15:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: If Result is not notable then it should be AFDed and Result (disambiguation) moved over the space. But that still wouldn't prevent articles like Dynamic financial analysis from mislinking to this album. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nor would directing Results to Result prevent any of the 150+ links to this album being misdirected. Dohn joe (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference is that those links are likely to be static (and largely duplication from 2 templates so easily fixed), wheras linking the word "results" in Dynamic financial analysis is a mislink likely to be productive, to be added in future. There's also the factor that the RH top search box doesn't indicate [Results.... (album)] so autofill won't be recognisable as an album. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support "result" is an encyclopedic topic, not just a dicdef. And the primary meaning of the term. WP:ASTONISH at the album using the plural. Results are a key part of life, work, and particularly studies, and their creation and biases of results are heavily studied in statistics, sociology, maths and sciences. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, per nominator. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  09:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and redirect to result.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible Oppose Editors should learn to wp:pipelink properly, like this: result  s, instead of lazily relying on redirects that may or may not exist. Or are redirects for every single article that can take the plural the results we want? walk  victor falktalk 19:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe editors should learn to pipelink properly, but the issue is not simply pipelinking, as at Dynamic financial analysis but also how Results appears in RH search box.
 * In relation to the question "are redirects for every single article that can take the plural the results we want?" - well, yes. How many articles for films, books, albums, are there that are simply titled by a common plural?? I would guess that there would be many, up to 100 probably, but if someone can offer specific examples I think we will find that they are super-notable, or cannot, unlike "results" commonly occur as a plural set. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:NOTADICT and WP:TITLECHANGES. There is no reason, much less a good one, to change this stable title.  These repeated RM proposals from User: In ictu oculi, which fly in the face of policy and convention, are arguably WP:Disruptive Editing.  --В²C ☎ 05:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you are welcome to your opinion, but generally I would say that activities such as e.g. undiscussed editing of policy pages and then citing those same edits as policy is a nearer case of disruptive editing than questioning whether in some cases titles with generic plurals such as results should not reasonably redirect to the singular result. For better or worse I do contribute to the Article Space area of Wikipedia, creating and improving articles, so I hope I'm informed enough about article title reality to propose a RM such as this. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What on earth, В²C? That was completely uncalled for. Wow. Red Slash 03:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * support per IP. It is wrong to have a surprising article at this subject. Agathoclea (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. A result is a very common concept that is capable of being reported in an encyclopedia, and the primary meaning of the plural form of a common noun is almost always going to be the singular form of that common noun. bd2412  T 14:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. It is almost astonishing to have the link to results load this article.
 * Commercial products, like an album, should not displace generic concept topics. Results, as in the data from a survey, or an experiment, are naturally expressed in plural. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no commercial/noncommercial divide on WP. Either it's encyclopedic or it's not. I assume you would recognize there are plenty of cases where a commercial product is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for an otherwise generic concept? Dohn joe (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. Compare WP:CORP against WP:PROF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I wish Wikipedia had a "like" button. This is absolutely correct - I can't even envision a circumstance in which a commercial product should displace a general concept. This certainly isn't one. bd2412  T 22:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe coke? The commercial product displaces the fuel as PT, but we should be very averse to letting commercial products claim PT over things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I found Catch-22, Friends on very quick inspection. I don't know why the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC question would be too much affected just because a topic has a commercial aspect to it. Isn't this album as much a creative endeavor as a commercial one, just like the novel by Heller? By the way, try to "like" something:  Dohn joe (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * coke is a dab list, Catch-22 is not anything, but yes Friends is one of those mega exceptions (like anything related to Madonna or Michael Jackson) which will happen since neither the human concept of friends, nor all the 40 articles at Friends (disambiguation) put together offer no competition. Mega exceptions happen, I said above I'd expect to find up to 100. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "Catch-22 is not anything"? It leads straight to the book for me.... Dohn joe (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean it is not anything that exists as a common noun like result. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly is: see M-W. Dohn joe (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the 1961 book title having entered language in 1971 is not anything that exists as a common noun like result. It would be more helpful to produce some more examples like Friends to establish that it is common en.wp practice to have terms like apples nails songs trees gardens clouds directing to media products not to singular. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A "catch-22" is a common noun, though. It came from the book title, but it's in common usage today. I find myself in catch-22s all the time.... Dohn joe (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Or birds, bees, carts, cars, bicycles, beans, flowers, worms, insects, eagles, cows, buds, In ictu oculi (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok - windows, peeps, doors, turnstiles, wishes, tubular bells, the bends, bookends, parallel lines, dire straits, lifeforms, parachutes, celebrations, snickers, whoppers, planters, puffs, bugles, ruffles.... We make these decisions all the time.... Dohn joe (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Striking a couple per In Ictu. Dohn joe (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User:In ictu oculi: RSVP? Dohn joe (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is an interesting set. I said there'd be 100, that is probably a representative sample of what the 100 consist of. Some like Windows are justifiable, others like doors redirecting to The Doors and wishes redirecting to Wishes: A Magical Gathering of Disney Dreams are pretty ridiculous. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That set took me less than an hour to compile, from two or three main sources (albums and food brands). I'm confident that the actual number of plural titles would number much higher than a hundred. And it reflects our general convention: a plural title redirects to the singular of that term, unless there's something more worth linking to at the plural, in which case we can feel free to use the plural as a separate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We here already agree that this is okay for things like "Friends" and "Windows", so like any PT discussion, it's a matter of consensus - the principle is already established. Dohn joe (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please strike tubular bells, the bends, parallel lines from your examples please, as they don't do it. I've put in a RFD on doors, dire straits (no caps) and wishes for obvious reasons. And there is a related RM to correct Talk:Puffs. I agree with clarifying Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (plurals) to make it clear how exceptional and unusual a situation like friends is. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. I suppose those are plurals to begin with, aren't they? Dohn joe (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: 'Results' is a highly ambiguous topic name, and it's pretty obvious that if you asked random people what they would expect to find on Wikipedia in an article entitled "Results", practically no one (who had a suggestion) would expect it to be a Liza Minelli album (herself probably included). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, in conversation, and in general English usage, the dictionary definition of "results" is the predominant use. But WP is WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Have you seen the article on result? If it were such an important general-concept article, wouldn't it be longer than three paragraphs? Or at least have a single reference? This is a non-rhetorical question - why is it better to send our readers to an unreferenced article that is scarcely better than a dictdef? Dohn joe (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The primary topic of "results" is the plural of result. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Dohn Joe.  Calidum Talk To Me 02:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I think hit the head on the nail with this:

A mainspace plural should only be a redirect to the singular if the only possible alternative is a red link. walk victor falktalk 08:57, 27 May 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.