Talk:Watershed (South African band)

Some reasons the article should be kept/restored to Watershed (South African band)

 * 1) Disambiguate by country when necessary - Naming Conventions clearly gives examples of disambiguation by country "(for example X (U.S. band), X (Australian band)." in cases where disambiguating by more than just "(band)" is necessary (as is the case here because there are two Watershed bands)
 * 2) Be precise when necessary - Naming conventions (precision) says "Be precise when necessary; don't title articles ambiguously when the title has other meanings". In this case the term 'African' has other meanings, and "band in Africa" is less precise than "South African band".
 * 3) Article titles should be intuitive - To disambiguate them by their country (South Africa) is both intuitive, accurate, fair, and is a foreseeable way to identify the article - I might personally enter Watershed (band) or else Watershed (South African band) in the same way I would try U2 or U2 (band) or U2 (Irish band). The alternatives are counter-intuitive.
 * 4) Most other bands / musical groups on Wikipedia are disambiguated by their country. Some examples include: Play (Swedish band), Why? (U.K. band), Hi-5_(Australian_kids'_band), Untouchables_(D.C._band)) Sources:
 * 5) No other bands / musical groups disambiguated by continent - indeed nothing I could search for. Sources:, , , , ,
 * 6) To disambiguate them by "African band" would be inaccurate because 1) They are not African (read: black) they are caucasian, 2) Their music is not African its alternative rock. and 3) they're in South Africa
 * 7) To disambiguate them by "band in Africa" would be inaccurate because 1) it is more notable that they are a South African band than the fact that they are in Africa -- which is purely incidental and could change and 2) They have released records in Germany and the UK, and toured there too, therefore they are not just "in Africa", and 3) it would be unencyclopedia if we labelled bands by the continents they are, for example U2 (band in U.S.A).

Please place your comments below
Re "This Issue Briefly": Lest anyone think i've led Rfw to think my adminship makes my opinion count more in this, my assumption is that they understand its relevance as simply my ability to shortcut to a request-free solution, should they convince me it's called for. --Jerzy•t 08:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Re "Important Notes": I am in agreement with all three points. --Jerzy•t 08:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC) '''Re "Some reasons..." for moving it back to the "...(South African band)" title
 * 1) "Disambiguate by country when necessary" merely hedges "use '(band)' " by saying country is an acceptable way of further disambiguating, when something further is "necessary". In the event that the example of such existing bands as Writhen and The Bothy Band, or mere coincidence, gives rise to imitators or tributes in Eire or California, respectively, Writhen (Irish band) and The Bothy Band (U.S. band) would surely not be preferred over Writhen (Eire) and The Bothy Band (U.S.), as a similarly literal reading would imply. Nor does the quoted imperative require use of country and "band" when there are identically named bands within only one country, nor on the other hand when use of country is neither necessary nor expedient, bcz something terser and less precise will do the job. --Jerzy•t 08:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may comment here (move it if necessary). You said "Writhen (Irish band) and The Bothy Band (U.S. band) would surely not be preferred over Writhen (Eire) and The Bothy Band (U.S.)," -- actually, yes, The Bothy Band (U.S. band) is preferred over The Both Band (U.S.) because you should not omit the use of the word 'band' just as the naming convention states, and indeed I would have a problem with it. Don't get me wrong, if I compare it with something other than a band, perhaps a company, like The Widget Company (U.S.) then it's fine, but because it is a band, and the naming convention asks for the term "band" we should not be omitting it. Rfwoolf (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The quotation of
 * Be precise when necessary; don't title articles ambiguously when the title has other meanings.
 * omits its context, which is the rest of the box containing it: "This page in a nutshell: ...". But what we are trying to do is here understand how to carry out the mandate of that vague 14-word summary, and the relevant (Dab-related) portion of the roughly 700-word project-page (which is essentially devoted to titles requiring no Dab'n) pretty much amounts to a reference to another page, which does not repeat any call for precision. (IMO, bcz precision is intended for the base titles, and dab'g sfx's call for only a minimal increment of precision needed to Dab between specific topics.) The most relevant passage there is at WP:DAB, under the heading "Simplicity":
 * If there is a choice between disambiguating with a generic class or with a context, choose whichever is simpler. ...
 * For example, "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)".
 * but its juxtaposition of a what-subject-matter-the-topic-belongs-to sfx and a what-the-topic-is-a-case-of sfx is a very special and different case from this one. Our question is whether the simpler of two different-scope case-of sfx's should be chosen, and my view is that the analogy is valid, and the simpler is prescribed.
 * However, the sentence i have replaced with ellipsis just above is
 * Use the same disambiguating phrase for other topics within the same context.
 * That sentence seems misplaced between the "choose..." sentence and its example, and i mention it only after them both, for clarity. In any case, i think it comes the closest of anything mentioned so far to supporting the "(South African band)" Dab'g phrase: it asserts one kind of consistency criterion, and RFW has been complaining that my alternatives are inconsistent with, e.g., Play (Swedish band).
 * But having been situated there (adjacent to, let alone embedded within, a principle that states its domain as pairs of dab'g sfxs with identical scope), it seems clear to me that there are a couple of leaps between that kind of consistency and the kind that would make RFW's case. I don't think it even supports insisting that choosing "mythology" (a topic-group sfx, shorter than the case-of sfx "mythological figure") requires choosing "theology" (a topic-group sfx, longer than the case-of sfx "deity") -- even if one puts aside the reasonable construction that mythology/mythological-figure topics are not "within the same context" as theology/deity topics.
 * The most obvious hypothetical extension of that guidance would be calling for consistency not just as to whether case-of or topic-group Dab'n is done, but also as to wording, when case-of is the choice. And clearly that is extension is inconsistent with applying both "(band)" and, say, "(Irish band)" within the musical group context. So IMO, the value put on "simplicity" logically extends to the limit where it would start conflicting with the need to Dab'ate, but neither this guidance nor orr our practice suggests any but the narrowest of "consistency" principles. --Jerzy•t 08:50 & 09:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Article titles should be intuitive" cites no source, probably bcz (as it appears) it is not quoted from WP. It catches a lot of the spirit of NC, but that is about titles that requir ing e no disambiguation. The "base title" in this case, Watershed, is intuitive. But intuitive stops working when Dab'n is needed. The Dab'g sfx needed after the base title is a different kind of beast, whose purpose is best served by terseness.
 * (I hope i am reading too closely when i note your stated concern with a "fair" Dab'n. The appropriate degree of Dab'n depends on the degree of potential confounding with other topics. Topics have no rights, nor does WP vindicate any rights of people or organizations other than having false descriptions corrected, and compliance with copyright law. We prohibit, and sanction against, personal attacks, and litigatory and other threats, not as matter of right or even fairness per se, but bcz they are disruptive to our collaborative editing process.  Unambiguous descriptions, even in an article, are desirable but no one's right. Certainly appropriate prominence or thoroughness of coverage is a quality measure of concern to us, but neither is owed to a person or organization we cover. Ambiguous descriptions implicit in our navigational apparatus are undesirable only when inefficient, fully remediable by less ambiguous information in the corresponding articles, and not a matter of any rights of people or organizations to "fairness". Hopefully you were just using "fair" in some kind of casual metaphor.)
 * In fact, the examples offered, of typing, into the Go/Search box, "Watershed (band)", "Watershed (South African band)", "U2 (band)", or "U2 (Irish band)", are silly: why would a user try to predict the Dab'd title, when we have Dab pages? And should we then be creating the Dab pages U2 (Irish band), Writhen (American band), Writhen (band), The Bothy Band (Irish band), Bothy Band (Irish band), The Bothy Band (band), or Bothy Band (band), to accommodate this misguided practice? --Jerzy•t 08:50 & 09:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Most of our bands are from fairly "organic" countries that have single-word names, and some of the remaining countries (U.S., U.K. -- used here bcz shorter than "American" and "British", i would think) have well-understood abbreviations. So the observed pattern reflects that general case (or slavish imitation of the general case even where it's an unnecessary impediment to navigation), rather than optimized naming. (With exceptions: i'd use "(New Zealand band)", only bcz "Oceania" is so new and vague; Burkina Faso --> "(African..., Guinea-Bissau probably --> "(Guinean..., in the absence of similarly named bands in the neighboring "real" Guinea); Côte d'Ivoire -->  either "(Ivoirian..." or "(African..."; Trinidad and Tobago -->  "(Trinidadian..." or "(Caribbean..."; i'll think abt the North Marianas, and St. Kitts and Nevis, when occasion arises. And as to three very special cases, just plain "(Korean...", "(Congo...", and "(Dominican...", no matter which in a pair of countries is involved. I've cited each case as i do bcz usually, as with the one at hand, the residual ambiguity does not interfere with the disambiguation task: a task abt getting to the right article, not having some standard quota of knowledge before you get there. (And BTW, Hi-5 (Australian kids' band) is just a Rdr to Hi-5 (Australian band), and Hi-5, a Rdr to the Dab Hi5 -- now tagged for Dab-cleanup -- is replete with examples of why surveying existing page names is so far from producing useful guidance.) --Jerzy•t 08:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) The evidence is misleading as stated, bcz the parentheses in those tests have no more effect than would casing. The GTest for site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:"African" shows also that "South African" is never used as part of a Dab'g sfx, let alone where a band is concerned, so we can hardly rely on previous solutions to essentially the same problem, nor expect this case to have been anticipated by our stated guidelines. --Jerzy•t 08:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Re the "African band" option:
 * Whatever linguistic holdovers from apartheid terminology may still be fashionable, we discuss them (or should) in an appropriate article or two, but don't adopt that usage. Almost universally in English, "African" means "pertaining to Africa", a continent with large numbers of "European"-, "North African"-, "South Asian"-, and, yes, especially "sub-Saharan"-type skin tones and facial features.
 * Most people would say that calling U-2 a European band is entirely accurate, tho ambiguous as to country -- and that has nothing to do with skin color.
 * What would you say to a reviewer who called Watershed "surely the ... loudest African alternative band"? Inaccurate, perhaps, but not for its use of "African". --Jerzy•t 08:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Three points re the "band in Africa" option:
 * 2) By that logic you should ask for, say, "Cape Province band" or "Bloemfontein band".
 * 3) That is silly, no one is foolish enuf to assume that "in Africa" means they never leave the continent. And even if they leave it permanently, Dab'g sfx's are fluid and change as needed; there's no point even wondering whether or how to adjust it, until need to do so arises.
 * 4)  Surely you mean "unencyclopedic", but your meaning is either repetitive or mysterious, since the example is mystifying. But i'll concede this point, since the most common meaning on WP for "unencyclopedic" is "I don't like it!!!!". Yeah, we do grasp that.
 * --Jerzy•t 08:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My penn'orth... I really can't see the problem. It's a South African band: Watershed (South African band).  It's clear, it means what it says, it will be widely understood, it fits with WP conventions.  None of the other options are satisfactory, and including a semicolon (as at present) is hopeless and unnecessary.  --Richard New Forest (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that Watershed (South African band) is by far the best option for this article. It fits with naming conventions, is easily understood and in my opinion sounds right. Naming conventions does not explicitly prohibit the use of Watershed (African band), but that option really makes no sense to me. Yes, it is clearly an African band, but how many other articles are disambiguated by continent? From reading Naming conventions, I would use Watershed (South African band). -- Beloved Freak  17:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to Watershed (South African band). The other bands named Watershed are disambiguated by country - no reason this one shouldn't be as well. I'll file a Requested Move. — BradV 18:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to Watershed (South African band). As Richard New Forest says, "It's clear, it means what it says, it will be widely understood, it fits with WP conventions." "African band" seems less appropriate to me since we rarely disambiguate by continent rather than country; "band; Africa" is certainly distracting and goes against convention for disambiguation pages. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Any objections to the proposed move should be expressed here. — BradV 18:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * None posted so I've requested the current page at Watershed (South African band) for speedy deletion to make room for the move. Olaf Davis | Talk 18:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

✅ and thanks to all who participated. :) Rfwoolf (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

'Watershed' by Indigo Girls (vs 'Indigo Girl' by Watershed)
I reverted this addition to the article's introduction: "(Ironically, the American rock duo, Indigo Girls, recorded a song called "Watershed" in 1989.)"

While that is probably true and it is interesting, it doesn't seem to fit well with the rest of the article - we need to find a place for it. Many wiki articles have something at the top saying 'Not to be confused with....' or 'Looking for such-and-such?' which we could put at the top. Revert this action if you prefer, but make sure you factor it better in the article, such as not having brackets, not saying it's "ironic" (which is a bad tone for an encyclopedia in my opinion) and maybe putting it in a new paragraph. Rfwoolf (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)