Talk:All the Best!

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The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by proposer(non-admin closure) Although I count 10-7 supporting, there's no advantage to anyone have this clogging the end of the WP:RM queue indefinitely, and one admin who tried to close it was asked to revert, so seems no alternative but for proposer to withdraw it. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• All the Best! → All the Best! (Paul McCartney album)
• All the Best! 1999–2009 → All the Best! 1999–2009 (Arashi album)
• All the Best – The Live Collection → All the Best (Tina Turner video album)

– All the Best! with an exclamation mark should continue to redirect to Paul McCartney album, but concealing the artist name isn't helpful to readers with generic titles and compilation albums. i.e. All the Best! alone isn't as helpful to readers as All the Best! redirecting to All the Best! (Paul McCartney album). It's clear on iPhone because thankfully the infobox album cover jpg comes to the rescue of the reader and the jpg currently performs the function the title should do (but doesn't), but for those with image switched off on Android mobiles, or using top RH search box, or other non-image search methods, All the Best!, is competing with the obstructively titled All the Best – The Live Collection (whose?) and All the Best! 1999–2009 (of who?) plus several clearly titled album articles off All the Best dab page. Since the redirects will still redirect this is a win-win move with no downside. Can we please put readers first on this one? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Pretty straightforward. If the plan to redirect all the base names to names + (album), then this is unnecessary disambiguation, and against WP:AT and WP:DISAMBIGUATION (not to mention WP:SONGDAB). No harm in going the reverse direction, though - why not create the redirects with (album) and point them to the base name? That way, they exist, but the articles would still comply with WP policies and guidelines. Dohn joe (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dohn joe, forget the politics for a moment, how does your oppose benefit (1) readers wanting this album (2) readers not wanting this album? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure what you mean by politics here. Readers and editors of all stripes benefit from a predictable, consistent application of consensus-based policies. Dohn joe (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dohn joe, if I understand that argument correctly you appear to be saying that neither (1) readers wanting this album nor (2) readers not wanting this album will benefit from (Paul McCartney album) being hidden in the short term (hunting for the article), but that they will benefit in the longer term from not having (Paul McCartney album) because it is (i) predictable, (ii) consistent. But it is nothing of the sort - whether an album has the artist or not is not predictable to the reader, but will appear completely random [that is a factual statement, if I tell you that there exists a hypothetical album by Emilio Torres called Beyond the Barrio you can't predict whether it will have FOO, FOO (album), or FOO (Emilio Torres album).] (ii) it also isn't consistent since sometimes we let "!" stand for an artist name, sometimes we don't, it depends on what is in books. And in this case "!" is in most books but not all so there is no long term benefit to the reader from the short term obstruction caused in trying to find this article, there is only downside. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Readers will arguably "benefit" from almost any addition of descriptive information about the topic to any title. That is no reason to add it in general, nor is it in this case. Describing the topic is not what titles are intended to do - they are only to identify it, ideally by name. This one does that perfectly. --В²C ☎ 07:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a concern that any editor could describe as perfectly the situation here. Some perception of shades of grey and balances is required to weigh the 5 different and sometimes, as here, conflicting WP:CRITERIA. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a concern that any editor could imagine a conflict where there is none. All of the CRITERIA, without question, indicate the current title is the best title for this article. None of the CRITERIA indicate any other title, including your proposed title, would be better. You didn't even list any of the CRITERIA in your proposal, because you couldn't.

Further, WP:DIFFCAPS, another section of WP:AT, addresses this type of situation specifically. Idiosyncratic proposals like this are an enormous drain on the community. It's not just this one proposal and discussion - it's the precedence it would set if enough editors happen to be fooled into supporting it and it succeeds. It puts into question countless more titles, and that's the real cost of such frivolous proposals. --В²C ☎ 22:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is not frivolous. You seem to be saying that there is there can only be one logical conclusion here. But that's not the case; the situation can be viewed in different ways. Please account for differences of opinion and perspective. Omnedon (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the issue to resolve here is a matter of opinion, regarding what each of us thinks the title should be, we might as well give up right now. We'll probably never agree! But I thought this discussion was about determining what policy indicates we should do about this title. Am I wrong? --В²C ☎ 00:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed your !vote. No basis in policy. You reference only "per In ictu oculi", but neither his proposal nor his comments even attempt to make an argument based on policy either. It's based purely on the opinion that the current title is somehow not "helpful". If that's not a frivolous proposal, what is? --В²C ☎ 00:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then review it again. I say that the current title communicates very little. The current title is not recognizable without some sort of context. From WP:AT: "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic." You consistently ignore the latter. A title must communicate what the article is about, and "All the Best!" communicates very little. And you are misusing the term "frivolous". This is a serious proposal. You happen to disagree with it, but you should not dismiss it as frivolous when it clearly is not. Omnedon (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can never tell if you're serious or just messing with me. At least now you're finally sort of referring to policy (simply saying "current title communicates very little" is not a reference to policy). It's not true "a title must communicate what the article is about" (unless a name of a topic "communicates what the article is about" - an interpretation which this title meets, so I presume that's not what you mean). Policy doesn't say it, and convention does not imply it. Hit SPECIAL:RANDOM repeatedly and you'll immediately find as many titles as you'd like that do not communicate what they are about, unless you happen to recognize their names. What most of them do communicate is THE NAME of the topic of the article - that's what this title does, perfectly. Yes, titles can be descriptive, but normally we only use descriptive titles for topics that don't have names, or topics with names that require disambiguation, which usually ends up being descriptive. But a descriptive title for a topic with a unique name like this one has? Uh, no, that's not what policy nor convention dictates. This is why this is a frivolous, and disruptive, proposal. --В²C ☎ 01:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked on SPECIAL:RANDOM and I got Æthelstan. Does that title communicate to you what that article is about? Me neither. Quick. What do you think it is? A book title? A film? A song? A person? A city? A river? A building? A ship? A company? A product name? An island? A person? A coin? A plant? An animal? A type of conveyance? Do you have any idea? That's a randomly chosen typical title on Wikipedia. It doesn't communicate what the article is about to anyone who is not familiar with the topic, and there is nothing wrong with that!!! It's perfectly normal and fine. So is All the Best!, for the same reasons. --В²C ☎ 01:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, you recently gave some advice: "participate and move on". Yet you won't follow that yourself. You won't allow people to simply express their views without placing them under attack. You oppose this for your own reasons. I support it for mine. A frivolous proposal would be designed to waste time. This is a proposal to improve the title of this article, whether you agree with it or not. It's not frivolous. Omnedon (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like where this is going. I get that. But this is important, as this issue underlies many of our disagreements. Your position causes you to keep making baseless assertions in a desperate attempt to defend it, like "A title must communicate what the article is about". Now you contend that "A frivolous proposal would be designed to waste time". No, a frivolous proposal does not have to be designed to waste time. It may have been proposed in good faith, believed to have been made for valid reasons, but actually not made for any reasons based in policy or conventions- that would make it frivolous. Shallow. Superficial. That's the case here, as is made evident by the absolute dearth of any reference to policy or convention in the proposal and in all of the statements made in support of it. In contrast, all of the opposes are based in policy, convention or both.

Of course we have differences in positions; but they are not equivalent. One is solidly based in policy and conventions, and the other is not at all. You and others need to see this in order to stop making and supporting similar frivolous proposals that needlessly consume time and resources. --В²C ☎ 05:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, you seem to learn nothing from past experience. Again and again you have been exhorted by many different editors and administrators to be more accepting of the views of others. This is not a frivolous proposal; it's simply one that you happen not to like. That doesn't mean there is no policy support for it. You were warned after the closure of the Hillary Clinton move review that you were on the verge of being blocked based on your behavior at that time; now here you again with your aggressive tactics. Please tone it down. Express your view on the topic at hand, and don't start attacking others. You have often and stridently complained about others commenting on you, rather than on the content or the issues; but you seem unable to do what you expect of others. Omnedon (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom; "All the Best!" should redirect to the disambiguation page. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Standing alone, these article titles are all ambiguous; to resolve concerns of reader recognizability and ease of navigation, they should be disambiguated with the artists names. Xoloz (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:NATURALDIS and WP:UNDAB, superfluous parenthetical disambiguation. Those attempts to squash all album titles into a foo (X album) format are getting tiresome. Artists give vague names to their work, so what? What's next, On the Road to be moved to On_the_Road_(novel)? ^walk victor falk ^talk 15:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDAB is an essay that belongs in user space in my view.

As regards novels, there's a difference, for example On the Road is a complete work of literature, the product is the book, it is not [[author name removed: A Collection of His Best Loved Stories]]. All the Best! is a subtitle of a compilation, it is completely meaningless without the defining product - Paul McCartney. Record companies go to great lengths to get their artist names up in big print on CD covers, and in print references. No one other than us is concealing the artists of compilations in this manner. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are all sorts of literature compilations (short stories, and yes, best of) that have unique titles that we consider apart from the underlying individual works. Dohn joe (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A distraction. I think we need to focus. This is what we offer readers:

• All the Best!
• All the Best – The Live Collection
• All the Best! 1999–2009
• All the Best (Cookies album)
• All the Best (Glen Campbell album)
• All the Best (Leo Sayer album)
• All the Best (Stiff Little Fingers album)
• All the Best (Tina Turner album)
• All the Best (John Paul Young album) redirect
• All the Best (Zucchero Fornaciari album) redirect

The issue for this RM is simple: a "!" which isn't used in all books on Paul McCartney is a "!" which isn't used in all books on Paul McCartney. It isn't any unrelated discussion about novels or anything else, it is only a "!" which isn't used in all books on Paul McCartney, nothing more, nothing else. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:In ictu oculi, the issue for one of the three moves is an "!". In one of the other two, you propose truncating a naturally disambiguated title (All the Best – The Live Collection → All the Best (Tina Turner video album)) and replacing it with a cumbersome and potentially confusing disambiguator. —  AjaxSmack  02:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, except that the Arashi album is also missing "!" in some sources and even years, "嵐ベストアルバム", the only thing that is never missing is the information we delete, Arashi.

As regards All the Best (Tina Turner album) vs All the Best – The Live Collection. Fortunately the DVD has a picture of Tina Turner with TINA ALL THE BEST The Live Collection which fills in for our unhelpful titling, but even so when looking at the two as the result of an Android search the image is bunched so it's difficult to tell which is a CD and which is a DVD. Again FOO the live collection is really a subtitle, since for pop music the artist - not the album/song/EP - is the most recognizable element and the main product. These are all sub-products only and a compilation album/video is entirely about the artist not the songs. Face with such a large number of "All the Best" results a reader who hasn't got images switched on on their mobile, or where the image doesn't feature the artist photo, would be helped by having the artist name confirmed in the search results. It really depends whether we want to help readers or not, we also could include the giant "TINA" TINA - All The Best: The live collection if we wanted to. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom if "All the Best!" is to redirect to the dab page. A single exclamation point is not enough of a disambiguator. However, if "All the Best!" is to redirect to the McCartney album (i.e., an exclamation point is considered by others to be enough of a disambiguator), then oppose per User:Dohn joe (i.e., the additional disambiguator is superfluous). —  AjaxSmack  04:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is a single exclamation point not enough of disambiguator? Anyone enter the "!" in the Search box is almost certainly looking for this article. --В²C ☎ 07:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:AjaxSmack - what about the other two articles in the nom? Dohn joe (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, forgot those. Oppose the second one as unnecessary (WP:PRECISION) and the third as well and per WP:NATURAL. Why truncate a unique title only to have to add a disambiguator? Doubly so when Tina Turner has another product titled All the Best with which it might be confused. Sources support the current titles.[1][2][3][4] —  AjaxSmack  02:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all per User:Born2cycle/UNDAB. This use is indisputably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "All the Best!", and there is no reason whatsoever, much less one based in policy or convention, to move any of these. --В²C ☎ 07:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC) clarify I oppose moving all articles proposed for moving here. --В²C ☎ 15:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to add one more policy-based reason to oppose these moves: WP:TITLECHANGES. Title changes says titles should be changed only for good reason. One's opinion that another title would be "more helpful" or "less confusing" to readers is not a good reason to change a title. That may be one's motivation, but there must be basis in policy or at least convention to support any such opinion. Finding and citing basis in policy or convention to support one's opinion is what distinguishes title changes for good reason from WP:JDLI arguments. No such basis has been provided here. --В²C ☎ 15:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if "All the Best!" is to redirect to the dab page. A single exclamation mark is a very weak disambiguator even in the best of circumstances and it is an ambiguous disambiguator in this case as with All the Best! 1999–2009, "1999–2009" could reasonable be understood as a subtitle to the main title "All the Best!" older ≠ wiser 12:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Bkonrad - is that a !support for all three, or just the Paul McCartney? Dohn joe (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, yes, although the exigence is just a bit less. Of the two All the Best – The Live Collection is a title that might very easily refer to the work of many artists. While the Arashi album title is in the abstract ambiguous, it is unlikely now that another artist would have compilation for those precise years, but nonetheless, I think a clearer title is helpful for all. But in both those cases, I'd suggest leaving the other titles as redirects. older ≠ wiser 19:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It "might very easily refer to the work of many artists" but it doesn't. If this changes in the future, the article can be moved then. In the meantime, saddling it with a cumbersome and potentially more ambiguous title is counterproductive. —  AjaxSmack  02:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Bkonrad (talk · contribs), the single explanation mark is not a disambiguator. It's part of the name of this topic, just like it is for Toast!. --В²C ☎ 23:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, and by itself it is ambigous. older ≠ wiser 23:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Bkonrad (talk · contribs), you mean Toast! is ambiguous? What about Oklahoma!? Westward Ho!? Ah, Wilderness!? Oh Good Grief!? Should all these titles, and countless similar ones, be disambiguated further too? If not, why this one but not them? --В²C ☎ 01:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I don't think the exclamation mark is sufficient disambiguation for most of those. Oh Good Grief! does not have any other article with a similar title that might be confused. older ≠ wiser 02:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Well at least you're consistent, Bkonrad (talk · contribs). But your position is contrary to community consensus as reflected in how these other articles were titled, plus these (all of which are ambiguous with uses that don't have the !): Them!, I Want to Live!, That Darn Cat!, Berserk!, Oliver!, Burn!, Airplane!, That Thing You Do!, Moulin Rouge!, and Mamma Mia!. It might not be documented, but clearly the convention is that if a topics name has an exclamation mark for which it is the primary use, it is used as the title. To do differently here is making an exception for no good reason. That is, there is nothing different about this case from all these other cases. --В²C ☎ 18:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not aware that there has been any substantive discussion regarding the title of any of these. As such, any "consensus" is at best passive in that either nobody noticed or nobody care enough to bother. Consensus can change. older ≠ wiser 00:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I recall there have been a few song/album discussions/RMs related mainly to "!" where a "!" either was (a) generic for the term, (b) stylistic as on many Japanese/Korean titles, or (c) "!" not consistent in print sources. But each case is a different set of variables... such as in this case 3 albums with "!" or variant but only 1 of them well known. Book article titles and films appear generally to be more restrained from relying on "!" for disambiguation than albums and songs, if there has even been any thought. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - an entry as ubiquitous as "All the Best" can't possibly pass WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on its own. Radiopathy •talk• 19:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiopathy (talk · contribs), this proposal is not about All the Best, which is, and will remain, a dab page, regardless of the outcome here. It's about All the Best!, which clearly has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 23:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Whatever. Radiopathy •talk• 13:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radiopathy's point stands with or without !, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't have a section saying that minor punctuation differences create multiple primary topics for each punctuation variant - Since Paul McCartney's album doesn't have the "!" in all Google Books that puts it in the same Primary Topic "contest" (sic) as President Bush's book, like it or not. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per In ictu oculi and others. The current title communicates very little, unless one already knows about this specific album. Omnedon (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom Disambiguation by exclamation mark! Tut Tut. Only works for those that are aware of the punctuation in the first place. I mean are we telling readers they can't access WP unless they are english readers and writers with a fully functioning grasp of grammar? WP should be the most accessible encyclopedia in the world. Are some of you opposing accessibility? --Richhoncho (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I oppose accessibility. It is my dream that no one ever reads an article on Wikipedia ever again. Redirect them to videos of cats playing the piano, or cats getting stuck in boxes. Once WP is made completely inaccessible, I will be able to achieve my goal of an internet made up exclusively of cat-based entertainment. Mwaah-ha-ha! Dohn joe (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dohn joe. I applaud your honesty if not your aim. ;) --Richhoncho (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your objection to disambiguation by exclamation mark, User:Richhoncho. Regardless of whether this title is at All the Best! or at All the Best! (Paul McCartney album), anyone searching with "all the best" will be taken to the same dab page. Anyone who knows about the exclamation mark and enters it will be taken directly to this article. So how does it work only "for those that are aware of the punctuation in the first place"? It works the same regardless of what the title is. Besides, as noted at #Other otherwise ambiguous titles that end in !, it's common practice to disambiguate by exclamation mark. --В²C ☎ 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been answered above, again it really depends whether the reader's mobile has image switched on or not. Inputting "all the best" into an Android I get all the above anyway, and since our song titles are designed to obstruct mobile users basically the mobile user depends on the jpg to find the album anyway. Hopefully record companies are increasingly wise to this and include artist pictures on the cover, or names in big enough type for the jpg lettering to be legible when the title we give them is The Acoustic Album (album by guess the artist, ha-ha English wikipedia is not helping you again mobile user). Fortunately the McCartney album jpg is recognizably Sir Paul, unfortunately Tina's DVD appears square, same as the Tina CD, so looks like a CD sleeve not a video album. It's for that reason that distinguishing the two Tina products is probably a more important outcome to this RM than Sir Paul's album missing "!" in some Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. "Mobile has image switched on or not"? Song titles are designed to obstruct mobile users? The mobile user depends on the jpg (what jpg?) to find the album??? --В²C ☎ 19:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're suggesting the title alone should clearly identify the topic. No. That's what the intro paragraph is for. Assigning that responsibility to the title would mean changing the title on most of our articles. Don't believe me? Click on SPECIAL:RANDOM repeatedly and, skipping those that are uncharacteristically descriptive due to necessary disambiguation or lack of name requiring a descriptive title, see how many of those topics you can readily identify from the title alone. --В²C ☎ 20:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And all this is covered at WP:UNDAB, particularly at WP:UNDAB#Concision_and_the_recognizability_scope_limitation_in_title_selections. --В²C ☎ 21:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Seems like a solution in search of a problem. If "All the Best!" is the title of the album, and no other artist has released one with the exact name/format, then there's nothing to disambig, simple as that; this is the primary topic for that title. Tarc (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only redirects, but they exist: All the Best! (Arashi album), All the Best! (Jean-Pierre Danel album). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all. Definitely a plus in terms of reader experience. If policies or guidelines indicate otherwise, they need to be fixed. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policies and guidelines do indeed indicate otherwise. But I don't see a WP:IAR argument here either. Is this an exception, or you think WP:DIFFCAPS] needs to be rewritten, or what? --В²C ☎ 05:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all. Per WP:DIFFCAPS punctuation is sufficient to distinguish an article title, so the McCartney album is fine. There's further no point in moving it, or the Arash album, if the base names are left as a redirect to the proposed title, it's just unnecessary disambiguation that doesn't accord with WP:CONCISE or WP:PRECISE. The Arash and Tina Turner albums seem to be using widely used natural disambiguation, which is generally preferable to adding a parenthesis.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Why is this sound reasoning so hard to understand and appreciate for some? There is nothing complex about it. --В²C ☎ 22:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think that lumping three article titles under one requested move is not useful as it confuses and dilutes the support for the move. If someone says for example "an entry as ubiquitous as "All the Best" can't possibly pass WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on its own." does that mean that the opinion is not in support the other suggested moves? I think as this is turning out to be a heated debate it would help In ictu oculi if you would strike through the two other moves, and if necessary after this RM is complete, enter those two as separate requested moves, because the request as currently structured will place a lot of unnecessary discretion on the closing administrator to interpret the support or otherwise for the two subsidiary moves. -- PBS (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is that danger; the first move would probably pass as supported without the other 2. However the reason for putting related moves together, which is at the discretion of the editor placing the RM and is his/her decision, is often that moves are related. In this case All the Best! (Arashi album) and All the Best! (Paul McCartney album) are related despite the additional smaller print 1999-2009 we have chosen to add as current disambiguation of one of them. For a Japanese music fan looking for All the Best! (Arashi album) and never having heard of Paul McCartney's album, which is entirely possible for a Japanese music fan, the 2 album titles are related, in putting them in the same RM allows editors to consider both. TINA All The Best The Live Collection again requires looking at the same dablist. But anyway, this is the editor submitting the RM's choice and not yours.

Also PBS - under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Born2cycle 's invitation to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArticle_titles&diff=615114694&oldid=615107463 "Weigh in here:", I asked editors' to please not weigh in here. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable to assume that an unqualified support or oppose applies to all three; not just the first. That said, I clarified mine accordingly. --В²C ☎ 15:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Unneeded qualifiers for titles that are unambiguous on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia title is not there to duplicate the lead sentence. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, nothing here that needs fixing.

→ Re. "those with image switched off on Android mobiles, or using top RH search box, or other non-image search methods": I don't see a WP:ACCESSIBILITY problem here. Neither could I find any Wikipedia guideline connecting article titling with accessibility. There might be something there, but then I suppose one would see it reflected in guidelines. Long page names are a nuisance on little screens of mobiles, so that's a contra-indication for the proposed renamings. And if images are switched off clicking two times (→disambig→chosen page) is neither timeconsuming nor particularily Mb-consuming

→ Would only make sense if there would be a compelling reason to redirect All the Best! to the disambig page, which there isn't, so, nothing broken.

See also WT:AT#"Winston Churchill not Churchill" and subsequent sections on that talk page (the current versions of the page titles of this RM are OK with policies/guidelines and all recommended disambiguation techniques are in place, nothing needs fixing) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "All the Best" is a common expression, and page All the Best currently lists 13 entries, including 3 for "All the Best!". OK, this song was sung for recording by one of The Beatles, but the Beatles are gradually going back into old history. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any other articles on the dab page titled "All the Best!", let alone anything that challenges this one as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'll add some page view statistics in support of my earlier comment. Of the things that could conceivably be called "All the Best" with the "!", the McCartney album was viewed [9227 times in the past few months. There's no article on the Jean-Pierre Danel album, but his own page was only viewed 1862 times in the same period. And presumably not all of those readers are looking for info on that one album. All the Best! 1999–2009 was viewed 1756 times in the last 90 days, and again, the title is already distinct per WP:NATURALDIS. The McCartney album is the primary topic of "All the Best!" (and the only article actually called that), and All the Best! 1999–2009 and All the Best – The Live Collection are using natural disambiguation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: A minor difference of punctuation seems like an inadequate disambiguator, especially when considering that albums are primarily experienced by ear and punctuation marks are generally not pronounced. Including an artist's name in the title of an article about a creative work is also usually helpful to readers. I suggest redirecting "All the Best!" to the dab page. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following list of long stable titles on Wikipedia demonstrates that the community accepts titles that end with the exclamation mark without further disambiguation, even though the part without the exclamation mark is ambiguous. Therefore changing this title is contrary to community consensus about such titles.

This is not a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF because it's not just a couple of cherry-picked exceptions. We're talking about a general convention that applies to most if not every relevant title.

Why make an exception out of this title? For what good reason? --В²C ☎ 18:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add to this list

• Airplane!
• Bang!
• Berserk!
• Bullshit!
• Burn!
• Duck!
• Hatari!
• I Want to Live!
• The Informant!
• Kiwi!
• Mamma Mia!
• Mafia!
• Mars Attacks!
• Moulin Rouge!
• No!
• Oklahoma!
• Oliver!
• Saved!
• Scram!
• That Thing You Do!
• Them!
• Toast!
• Tokyo!
• Top Secret!
• Westward Ho!

  While I agree with the underlying principle, it should be noted that several of these titles were not actually ambiguous, in that the non-exclamation point title redirects to the exclamation point title, so I removed Ah, Wilderness!, That Darn Cat!, That Thing You Do!. Dohn joe (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because That Darn Cat redirects to That Darn Cat!, for example, does not mean "That Dar Cat" is not ambiguous. There is That Darn Cat (1997 film) also... The other cases are similar. --В²C ☎ 20:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle, I'm afraid starting your own section smacks a little of WP:BLUDGEON. Per Talk page guidelines and WP:RM guidelines we're talking here on this page about a specific album - one immediately different from any example because no other shares the basic title of an autobiography of a recent US president, and that's before considering issues such as mixed use of ! in sources, 2 competing album titles with ! and 40 competing album titles without !, it isn't a generic case to make a speech about WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is exactly what it is, Please hatbox this section and/or restart at a generic place for discussion of generic issues before someone responds with a giant list of WP:OTHERSTUFF going in the other direction. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is longstanding accepted practice to start specific discussion subsections in an RM discussion to avoid long threads within the survey section. Have you ever accused anyone else of BP:BLUDGEONing for doing this, or do you reserve this treatment only for me? We disagree about this case being significantly different from all the others. In any case, the arguments in favor of this move have not been based on reasons and reasoning that is specific to this case. --В²C ☎ 18:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in my experience normal practice in a RM to do this. No I have never cited WP:BLUDGEON at anyone before. I perhaps would not except for recent experience of your activity at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton. I any case please hatbox this section and/or restart at a generic place for discussion of generic issues before someone responds with a giant list of WP:OTHERSTUFF going in the other direction. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The practice is common. That does not mean it's present in most RM discussions. Only when a separate related discussion is forked off the main discussion. There is no need to move it somewhere else if it is relevant to the RM proposal in question, which this one is.

If there are a relatively significant number of examples of titles that end in exclamation marks that are unnecessarily disambiguated (the more concise undisambiguated title is a redirect to the disambiguated title, or to the dab page without the exclamation mark), I would like to see them. --В²C ☎ 04:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I made the request to see examples of titles that end in exclamation marks that are unnecessarily disambiguated a week ago - and none have been provided. I realize that doesn't mean they don't exist, but it strikes me that if the supporters of this move want to show that this proposal is consistent with community consensus about such matters, they have the burden to find examples supporting their claim. That, or at least admit they are seeking a change in consensus about such matters. --В²C ☎ 21:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi requesting other people to censor themselves because they have better arguments than his? That's really new. Hey IIO, make WP:BLUDGEON a fascist rule and then request other people to "hatbox" their comments. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:29, 24 July 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.