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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Brazil and
related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Rock music 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
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.
Support, no clear primary topic.
Probability obviously has the most claim to primacy, but a dab page at the base term is the best option since the page views of this article are low, suggesting people aren't searching for that article via this term. â
Xezbeth (
talk) 07:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. WP is not a dictionary. This appears the only
WP:notable encyclopedic topic of "Unlikely" that we've got. No one is going to search for or link to
Probability using "Unlikely", so a dab page or redirect is not going to help our readers or editors.
Dohn joe (
talk) 15:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment our article on
probability doesn't even mention the word "unlikely" right now. The best discussion I can find about the use of the word "unlikely" in that topic area is
words of estimative probability.
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 16:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Until this article was created
Unlikely was a red link, taking the reader nowhere, and rightfully so. Disambiguation is totally unnecessary. There is nothing wrong or astonishing about being sent to an album called Unlikely, the one and only topic with that name, when searching with unlikelyIN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.
WP:NOT A DICTIONARY. --
Đ²Câ 20:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Born2cycle: If if was red then the other options (like
this argument) and the
Wiktionary link show up in the search box. Thanks to
SmokeyJoe's findings I'd say that you're comment
here is relevant as we're not making
Unlikely to a primary redirect, but just to a DAB. If you want to disambiguate the one and only use of Freston, then I don't see why we can't do it here, and take a look at
Certainly and
Definitely. Often there is no DAB entry or hatnote for surname holders, such as
Langstone (until it was disambiguated) and
Cranham. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 09:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. The new title is at least minimally descriptive.
Omnedon (
talk) 01:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Unlikely (album) is a commercial product seeking to capitalize from a simple well-known word, and Wikipedia should not facilitate commercialization of common words by allowing them to grab Wikipedia's PRIMARYTOPIC status. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose, this is a solution in search of a problem. If approved, it will, at best, be a sophisticated alternative to a much simpler change that should probably address the concern raised here: a hatnote pointing the reader to
probability. Also, this article's traffic is too low (as one of the supporters pointed out) for us to assume we're astonishing the visitors.
VictĂŁo LopesFala! 06:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
If the title werenât ambiguous, a hatnote wouldnât be needed. Hatnotes clutter prime real estate of the article, the title space has room for 42 characters in the standard (PDF) output. â
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 11:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I've actually never said a hatnote is needed; I'm just proposing an alternate solution for a supposed problem. Also, if astonishing the readers is such a problem, we shouldn't consider moving this article to
Unlikely (album) without actually creating content on
Unlikely. Btw,
the title is not ambiguous.
VictĂŁo LopesFala! 04:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The title is ambiguous because âunlikelyâ is a concept covered at
probability. It is not uncommon for someone to be told something is âunlikelyâ. Unlikelihood is a topic, covered at
probability. Your title text search you linked is blind to article content.
Unlikely is a bad article title for multiple reasons, but I think the page you should read first is
Wikipedia:Introduction to structurism. â
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 05:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
WP:OVERPRECISION. It's unlikely many people are searching for "unlikely" on WP unless they expect to find Unlikely.
Station1 (
talk) 06:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per Crouch, Swale and ASTONISH. The proposed title is more
precise and recognizable than the current one, and given that adding the clarifier improves the reader experience and is consistent with the form we use for many other album article titles, it seems preferable. Also per SmokeyJoe, the significance and close association of terms such as "likely" and "unlikely" to the study of
probability suggests that the clarifier is a reasonable addition.
â âŁuw [
talk 15:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Those look like
WP:PTMs and thus should not be included as entries on any hypothetical dab page. I see no evidence that any reliable sources call "Unlikely Brothers" as "Unlikely".
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 02:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I expect so, its probably unlikely that they would be searched for with "Unlikely" (unlike
Ford or
Apple) but given as noted you
certainly get
something when you search for
definitely its unlikely that the album is primary. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 13:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per SmokeyJoe. People are unlikely to look for this album when searching for "unlikely". Flooded with them hundreds 05:17, 29 September 2018 (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.
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Brazil and
related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Rock music 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
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.
Support, no clear primary topic.
Probability obviously has the most claim to primacy, but a dab page at the base term is the best option since the page views of this article are low, suggesting people aren't searching for that article via this term. â
Xezbeth (
talk) 07:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. WP is not a dictionary. This appears the only
WP:notable encyclopedic topic of "Unlikely" that we've got. No one is going to search for or link to
Probability using "Unlikely", so a dab page or redirect is not going to help our readers or editors.
Dohn joe (
talk) 15:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment our article on
probability doesn't even mention the word "unlikely" right now. The best discussion I can find about the use of the word "unlikely" in that topic area is
words of estimative probability.
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 16:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Until this article was created
Unlikely was a red link, taking the reader nowhere, and rightfully so. Disambiguation is totally unnecessary. There is nothing wrong or astonishing about being sent to an album called Unlikely, the one and only topic with that name, when searching with unlikelyIN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.
WP:NOT A DICTIONARY. --
Đ²Câ 20:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Born2cycle: If if was red then the other options (like
this argument) and the
Wiktionary link show up in the search box. Thanks to
SmokeyJoe's findings I'd say that you're comment
here is relevant as we're not making
Unlikely to a primary redirect, but just to a DAB. If you want to disambiguate the one and only use of Freston, then I don't see why we can't do it here, and take a look at
Certainly and
Definitely. Often there is no DAB entry or hatnote for surname holders, such as
Langstone (until it was disambiguated) and
Cranham. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 09:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. The new title is at least minimally descriptive.
Omnedon (
talk) 01:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Unlikely (album) is a commercial product seeking to capitalize from a simple well-known word, and Wikipedia should not facilitate commercialization of common words by allowing them to grab Wikipedia's PRIMARYTOPIC status. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose, this is a solution in search of a problem. If approved, it will, at best, be a sophisticated alternative to a much simpler change that should probably address the concern raised here: a hatnote pointing the reader to
probability. Also, this article's traffic is too low (as one of the supporters pointed out) for us to assume we're astonishing the visitors.
VictĂŁo LopesFala! 06:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
If the title werenât ambiguous, a hatnote wouldnât be needed. Hatnotes clutter prime real estate of the article, the title space has room for 42 characters in the standard (PDF) output. â
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 11:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I've actually never said a hatnote is needed; I'm just proposing an alternate solution for a supposed problem. Also, if astonishing the readers is such a problem, we shouldn't consider moving this article to
Unlikely (album) without actually creating content on
Unlikely. Btw,
the title is not ambiguous.
VictĂŁo LopesFala! 04:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The title is ambiguous because âunlikelyâ is a concept covered at
probability. It is not uncommon for someone to be told something is âunlikelyâ. Unlikelihood is a topic, covered at
probability. Your title text search you linked is blind to article content.
Unlikely is a bad article title for multiple reasons, but I think the page you should read first is
Wikipedia:Introduction to structurism. â
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 05:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
WP:OVERPRECISION. It's unlikely many people are searching for "unlikely" on WP unless they expect to find Unlikely.
Station1 (
talk) 06:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per Crouch, Swale and ASTONISH. The proposed title is more
precise and recognizable than the current one, and given that adding the clarifier improves the reader experience and is consistent with the form we use for many other album article titles, it seems preferable. Also per SmokeyJoe, the significance and close association of terms such as "likely" and "unlikely" to the study of
probability suggests that the clarifier is a reasonable addition.
â âŁuw [
talk 15:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Those look like
WP:PTMs and thus should not be included as entries on any hypothetical dab page. I see no evidence that any reliable sources call "Unlikely Brothers" as "Unlikely".
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 02:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I expect so, its probably unlikely that they would be searched for with "Unlikely" (unlike
Ford or
Apple) but given as noted you
certainly get
something when you search for
definitely its unlikely that the album is primary. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 13:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per SmokeyJoe. People are unlikely to look for this album when searching for "unlikely". Flooded with them hundreds 05:17, 29 September 2018 (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.