Talk:WTF?!

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. NW (Talk) 15:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

---

WTF?! (album) → WTF?! — It's a new album coming out by notable band KMFDM, and there's no need to disambiguate it, as it has exactly that punctuation. WTF?! is blacklisted, however, so I couldn't move it myself. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Object this should have a discussion. Particularly since the target is also a common expression, so should probably redirect to WTF. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• I feel that the additional punctuation is specific enough to permit using the name with any disambiguation. Otherwise, it seems like we'll need to start redirecting a bunch of extra article titles, just to cover any extra punctuation combinations we can imagine, e.g. WTF!?, WTF??, WTF???, WTF!!!, etc. A simple hat note at the top of the album article could point to the disambiguation page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Megadittos. 24.177.123.74 (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Opposed uncontroversial move at requested moves - request and oppose taken from that page. Dpmuk (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with move. The punctuation is specific enough that the article can be on its own without the disambig of "(album)". If we can have articles that differ only by a capital letter, then this specific punctuation should be no problem. I agree with putting in a hatnote redirecting to WTF, if someone really types in "WTF?!" and doesn't mean this album (unlikely, but possible), then they'll get to where they're trying to go. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• Soft oppose move. Regardless of specific punctuation variations, title is too generic in my opinion to stand alone without disambiguation. And this is personal taste, but I typically prefer title disambiguation to in-article hatnotes and dab links. However, it wouldn't be the end of the world for the article to be at either location. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with move. Articles differing only by capitalization aren't generally parenthetically explained, and this is more distinct than a capitalization clash. 24.177.123.74 (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Rebels in Control"

Would it be a good idea to add "Rebels in Control" to the list of singles in the infobox? It was something of a online release, and it was downloaded quite a bit, and the online version was not the same as the album version. It seems like it might be notable enough to promote to that list, if not necessarily its own article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, it wasn't ever released as a single, just a free download. Maybe if it charted somewhere that could be mentioned here though. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:WTF?!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 02:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Fine.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead should probably indicate the chart positions of the album and its singles. Given the length of the rest of the article, the lead should probably be longer, and could be expanded to two paragraphs easily.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Fine

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Fine

   C. No original research:

   Spot checking a few references... it doesn't explicitly say e.g. "this was the first time they had lyrics in Italian..." but it does everything BUT state it. Everything not explicit seems a straightforward inference.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Appropriate and consistent with what I've seen and reviewed in other album GAs.

   B. Focused:

   Fine

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article quotes a lot of different sources, which are all positive. Did anyone remotely important not like the album? I am not a content expert enough to know.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Fine

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Fine

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Fine

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well-prepared. I want to hear about negative reviews, if any, and see the lead expanded a bit, but this could arguably be passed as-is. On hold for review.

Thanks! I really scrounged for reviews, but they are pretty much universally positive. The only other reliable source review I found was here, and it's also quite positive. I think part of the "problem", if it is one, is that most of the reviews are from genre magazines, not general music mags like maybe Rolling Stone or the like, although even the Allmusic review is positive. I did expand the lead though. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for verifying that. Good job! Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)