Talk:18...

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

China: Entertainment

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Chinese-language entertainment taskforce.

Hong Kong Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hong Kong To-do:

Attention needed (60)

...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (20)

Collaboration needed

Recommend topic

Improvement needed

GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (294)

Cleanup needed

C-Class articles (1,058)

Image needed (348)

Destub needed

Start-Class articles (5,503) • Stub-Class articles (6,666)

Deorphan needed

...orphans

Page creation needed

Requested articles

Miscellaneous tasks

...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (380) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,337)

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. User:Peter James, User:Red Slash and User:BDD are all fine with using the three dots for disambiguation. It's been pointed out that typing '18...' into the search box takes you directly to the article. Some of the complaints about WP:CRITERIA would also apply to Yesterday. Since current policy and guidelines don't prevent us from using the title with the three dots, we need to follow the consensus here which is too divided to support a move to a title with parenthesized disambiguation. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18... → 18 (G.E.M. album) – Sorry but titles like this occur because non-English-alphabet markets like Japan, Taiwan, Korea, have greater use of "!" "?" "..." than English/Spanish/French alphabet markets, so they make sense in Japanese, Chinese and Korean wp. But in English (and en.wp) these kind of titles fail WP:CRITERIA in every respect. "..." does not tell the reader what the article is, and in this case does not disambiguate from 18 (Moby album), 18 (Nana Kitade album). In ictu oculi (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support punctuation is added or dropped at whim , the current title should redirect to the disambiguation page. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It meets the recognizability, precision and conciseness criteria - people familiar with the album would recognise it by that title, it's unambiguous, and "..." is shorter than " (G.E.M. album)" - but whether it meets the naturalness criterion isn't clear, and it probably fails consistency. The singer's article is Gem (singer), but apart from the title only "GEM" and "G.E.M." are used - has she used both names, G.E.M. for this album, and Gem for others? If not, the singer's name should be consistent in both articles, whether it's Gem, G.E.M. or GEM. Peter James (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peter James, I noticed that too, and would agree with you on consistency. South China morning post uses G.E.M.. But one problem at a time, the particular problem here relates to 18 (Moby album), 18 (Nana Kitade album) rather than which artist dab to use. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"18..." does disambiguate - "18" refers to various things, including albums, but "18..." only refers to this, and there's no evidence that it's more plausible for the other albums than "18!", "18?", or "("18*")". There are several albums called "19", so should "19..." be created as a redirect to the disambiguation page? Peter James (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume 18... would continue to redirect to this album, that way there is only upside to this move. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose as proposed (the title should be 18... (G.E.M. album) if moved), but oppose move anyway. The odds of anyone typing in 18... looking for anything else are infinitesimal. Sure, "..." does not tell the reader what the article is if they are unfamiliar with the subject. But that's never been part of our naming criteria. If it's required for song and album titles to make it clear that the subject is a song or album, as opposed to something else, I expect we'll see a move request for Yesterday any day. Red Slash 03:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to 18... (G.E.M. album) as also solving the main problem, that this article title fails WP:TITLE on 4 of 5 WP:CRITERIA. No one will ever "type in" the string "18..." and if they do User:Red Slash, try it (a) in top right hand search box, and (b) Google and please tell us whether (a) and (b) worked. The album cover clearly displays the artist name "G.E.M." as do all print references. "18..." doesn't work in search and isn't a searchable title. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's strange! (This is not sarcasm!) I put in "18..." in the top-right box, and while search results did not arise indicating this album (as you said), when I pressed "enter" I came straight to this article. Did that make sense? Like, if I were a reader who knew the album's name was "18..." I would've typed it in and pressed "enter" immediately and would've found this page. External search engines did not work, naturally. I don't think WP:CONSISTENCY applies (many, many album titles do not have disambiguators), I think WP:CONCISE is in opposition of the move (obviously), I don't think WP:PRECISE is affected (unless I'm drastically missing something this is the only 18... we have), I don't see any way that WP:NATURAL is in favor of the move (nothing seems more natural for the title of an album's article than the title of the album), and I readily concede that those who are not familiar with the album will have a bit tougher time recognizing this title as is, meaning WP:RECOGNIZABLE clearly stands in favor here of this move. So I count one or two (depending on how you view WP:NATURAL) against one. Which one wins? I mean, I'm not against your reasoning and I think it's valid, but I view WP:CONCISE as being pretty important as well. Red Slash 03:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:CRITERIA for naturalness and recognizability and effective disambiguation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support 18 (G.E.M. album), as nominated. The nominator offered only one option, and that's the one I support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator offered an option, but it is not the first time other options are given in a RM. The album is titled 18...,[1] and there's no evidence presented the album is titled 18 alone (stylizing it as "18..." by the record label). Wikipedia should not reword other people works without a valid reason, like with Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends or Frankenstein. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question, why the request excludes the suspensive points when it is titled "18..."? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What on earth would a reader be looking for besides this article if he or she searched "18..."? --BDD (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.