Talk:Thriller (album)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"best selling album"

Several sources have the eagles greatest hits as the best selling record ? [1] [2] where is THE definitive source?--Bogger (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That isn't an album, it is a compilation. The music industry does not consider a compilation to be an album because it is "cheating" in some sorts. Its taking the best songs from a long, established career and sticking it onto a cd. An album is a cd of new material. So you are right that the Eagles have the best selling record, but not the best selling album --68.199.39.111 (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

List of best-selling albums worldwide has the Eagles at only joint 4th with 42 million, whilst Thriller is on about 110 million. I think a lot of the confusion is because some of the sources are looking at only the US figures (see also List of best-selling albums in the United States), others at the worldwide figures. The Eagles album had 29 million in the US, but only 13 million in the rest of the world, whereas Thriller had 27 million in the US but far more worldwide. All of Jackson's albums had only about 25-30% of their sales in the US. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thriller selling 104 million is a myth that was really perpetuated by Jackson himself. Reputable sources (i.e. - not Jackson or his fans) state that it has sold around 55-65 million.80.41.65.155 (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There's more sources on that list for the figure than for any other. It also fits the general pattern of Jackson's alums. What are your "reputable sources"? Timrollpickering (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine's July 2009 special edition states that Thriller was the best selling album of all-time "until it was eclipsed in 2000 by The Eagles Greatest Hits, 1972-1975." I suspect, however, that they are in fact referring to the US only sales figures that Timrollpickering mentions above.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Time and Rolling Stone always seem to forget that other countries exist. That would definitely be the US certifications. 2000 was the year that The Eagles Greatest Hits, 1972-1975 went 27 times Platinum, Thriller stuck at 26. — Please comment R² 21:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

RIAA has now certified Thriller as 29X Platinum http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTop100Murphy110 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murphy110 (talk • contribs)

As discussed here can someone PELASE adjust the ridiculous claims of 100+ million sales of this album I understand total available certifications equate to less than 40 million, so even 65 million I find highly dubious. If there are only certifications for a certain figure can this please be the official total. Even using this figure, Thriller will rightly be well clear off all competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.114.118 (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if I only count the numbers together those are cited in the "Certifications" section that amounts to more than 42 million. And of course it's just a couple of countries, not all countries in the world. So even if the 110 million number may be exaggerated, I think the at least 55-65 million copies could be a good estimate. Which would still make it the best selling album of all times. Also the numbers for other albums sales are usually estimated too. For example on the list of best selling albums of all times AC/DC's Back in Black album is cited as second best-selling with 49 million copies sold. While it's official certifications shows it only selling about 23 million. Third placed Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd is cited to be sold 45 million on the Wikipedia list. If I add the certification numbers from the album's Wiki page it would amount to 34 million copies. I'd say the number 110 million is probably exaggerated but sales for other albums are too. Thriller probably IS the best selling album of all times, though not with 110 million copies.

I don't doubt for a second that Thriller is (comfortably) the #1 selling album of all time, what bothers me is the ludicrous claims of 110 million that only surfaced around the time of the 25th anniversary and were then reiterated at the time of his death. These numbers were obviously (Totally unfounded, I am ranting a little here) created by the record company's PR machine in the marketing of the said anniversary disc. I remember the first list of biggest selling albums I saw was from the Guinness World Record Book circa '95. It listed Thriller as 42 million sales, and then a glut of albums in the low 30's high 20's. Unfortunately the advertisers have realised these numbers are a great marketing tool and despite the dwindling sales in records since that '95 list, albums supposed tallies have gone up in the tens of millions. Can we at least make mention that these dubious numbers seem to have their origins in marketing and in this case seem to date from only around '07? Again I believe Thriller to be have sold up to 25% more that it's nearest competitors, and should be celebrated for this enormous achievement (umm along with its great music) but I feel this achievement has been cheapened by such erroneous information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.156.136 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you indicate (or edit) that the Eagles Greatest Hits album have been 29 millions albums according the RIAA, but not according Nielsen/Soundscan and Billboard, in fact, according a Reuter article and Billboard:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/19/us-jackson-billboard-idUSTRE56I2B820090719

http://www.billboard.com/column/chartbeat/ask-billboard-instrumentals-kelly-clarkson-1003997102.story#/column/chartbeat/ask-billboard-instrumentals-kelly-clarkson-1003997102.story

"The RIAA's second certification of shipments of the Eagles' "Their Greatest Hits" didn't occur until August 1990, when it certified the release as 12 times platinum. The RIAA couldn't immediately explain why the album wasn't certified at earlier platinum milestones, or why it was next certified at 14 times platinum in December 1993, and for 22 times in June 1995, despite U.S. sales of only 919,000 during that period. When the RIAA certified "Their Greatest Hits" as 26 times platinum in November 1999, it unseated "Thriller" at the top of the RIAA's all-time ranking.

Since being certified as 29 times platinum in January 2006, "Their Greatest Hits" has sold 404,000 copies, including 33,000 this year and 115,000 in 2008.

Whether Jackson's reclaiming a share of the top spot in the RIAA ranking will mean anything in terms of marketing isn't clear. Representatives at Sony and Warner Music Group, which distributes "Their Greatest Hits," declined to comment."

Between 1990 and 2009, The Eagles album have supposed to have been sold around 17 millions, but not according Nielsen Soundcan it's 5,356,000, Nielsen/soundscan have the real sales, unlike RIAA:

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart-watch/week-ending-aug-16-2009-king-of-country-boots-king-of-pop.html

"Thriller this week pulls ahead of the Eagles' Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975 on Nielsen/SoundScan's recap of the best-selling albums in its history. Thriller has sold 5,366,000 copies since May 25, 1991, compared to 5,356,000 for the Eagles' compilation. The Recording Industry Assn. of America, which goes back much further than 1991, continues to list the Eagles' album as its all-time best-seller, at 29 million, with Thriller a beat behind at 28 million. Expect movement there soon."

Weirdly, according RIAA, Thriller after to have sold in USA, 20 millions album just in 1983-84, have just been sold the next six years just 1 millions album, despite the popularity of Jackson in the 80's:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/19/us-jackson-billboard-idUSTRE56I2B820090719

"Propelled by groundbreaking videos for the singles "Billie Jean," "Beat It" and the title track, "Thriller" reached the 20 million certification milestone in October 1984, becoming the RIAA's top-selling album of all time. The album's next RIAA certification, at 21 times platinum, came in May 1990"

For me, it's clearly a lack of serious work from RIAA about Thriller.

I would like to edit myself the Thriller page of wikipedia, and also the RIAA page about the best selling albums in USA and The Eagles Greatest Hits Page, but I'm not really fluent in english, so if someone can indicate the real numbers, it would be very nice.

Background

Hey keep the mention about the force from "Off the wall", it's real. The entire paragraph "In 1973, Jackson's father began a secret affair..." seems irrelevant to the content, creation and impact of this album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.158.59 (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

deadlink

Ref 67 - the article is no longer available Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll get around to updating that, thanks. — R² 09:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

References 49 and 50 just give 'page load error' and are not checkable sources any more. 86.178.229.183 (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Songwriting

The page neglects the contribution of Rod Temperton, who wrote 3 songs (including the title track). The album was definitely the result of near equal parts Quincy, Michael and Rod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.158.59 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

bg:Thriller

Would somebody add bg:Thriller to the languages, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaMzesss3 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been added now. --Rajah (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

#2 and #5 singles of 1983

According to this link Billie Jean and Beat were the #2 and #5 songs of 1983. I'm about to update the relevant articles on the songs. I thought it was worthy of mention here as well, but couldn't see an obvious place in the article to put it. Maybe someone else can see a good spot. Manning (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed major change to opening section

Today this change was made which I thought was quite significant to make without any discussion. It concerns the total units sold figure, and changes our previously vague 47-109 million to a firm 109 million. I haven't reverted it but I wanted to have it be examined. Manning (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The best sources for figures like this tend to be chart history books and the like. Personally I would revert the edit - I wouldn't consider the two sources used to be particularly knowledgeable on sales figures for Thriller. Best to be vague if uncertain. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact the change introduces text and sources not backed up by the body of the article, so I'll revert it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's sticking at 47-109, there are such a wide variety of claims by equally notable sources, it needs to be neutral. — Please comment R² 15:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

Shouldn't this say something about it being Today's FA like it does on Talk:Portal (video game)? It's also not on yesterday's FA. Spiderone (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Searching for a source of the "where the album was recorded" and the cost, can't find anything about either very quickly using google. I figure that the album cover/liner notes would say where it was recorded at least. Any ideas on the cost? Hires an editor (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The cost is sourced in the article body. I imagine the location can be found in the album booklet, but I don't have it on me. — Please comment R² 15:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Blender refs

OK, there's a problem with the Blender references:

• First, there are two instances of the same full reference with the same name, "blender", when only one full citation is needed.
• Second, the description states that it links to "Michael Jackson, 'Billy Jean'" [sic] when in fact it links to the last page of "500 Greatest Songs Since You Were Born".
• Finally, the link says "Billy Jean", not "Billie Jean". I find it doubtful that Blender would make this mistake and most likely to be an editor's slip, but I could be wrong.

If someone could fix that up, I would appreciate it. I'm really too tired to do it myself, especially given all the bloody edit conflicts going on. Thank to whomever undertakes it. DKqwerty (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'll fix it in a few hours, it'll be off the main page soon. — Please comment R² 20:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

MTV controversy

As I also said on the Billie Jean talk page, this recent article in Jet (magazine), http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_14_110/ai_n16807343/, contradicts the claim that the video was only aired by MTV due to pressure by Jacksons record label. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a person who works for MTV, they are unlikely to admit to any racism, still his opinion is noteworth, so I'll add it. — Please comment R² 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Notable songs list

The line "Notable songs include..." seems a bit silly, as it then lists 7 songs from a 3-song album. Maybe this could be revised or simply worded better? The fact that 7 of the 3 songs were released as singles is already mentioned in the article, maybe that makes a list of notable songs stupid? 84.198.246.199 (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's Actual Musical Contributions

There is a claim in the recording section that Jackson played drums on Billie Jean. This is not stated on the album's liner notes, only that he played "drum case beater"(?) on Beat It. The drum track on the majority of the album is clearly provided by a Linn LM-1 and a Roland TR-808, Billie Jean clearly has the recognisable Linn handclap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcvanderloo (talk • contribs) 22:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

TFA hit count

• 186.8 thousand hits while on the main page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Of which, roughly 20K decided to vandalize the page? 124.5K hits today, and it's not even a feature. Oh well, the attention (and thereby vandalism) should settle down soon. DKqwerty (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Is 186.8 above average? — Please comment R² 19:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sales

The album has sold 65 milion copies not 104!!!! Look at "United World Chart" where Thriller is at number 1 this week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.47.40.192 (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not only the "United World Chart" but also the Guinness Book of World Records claimed sales of 65 million. The album is 28xPlatinum in the US (28 M), 11XPlatinum in the UK (3.3 M), 3XPlatinum in Germany (0.6 M) sold 2.5 M in Japan and did not get an award in France (<0.1 M) that means that it had sales of 34.5 M in markets that represent more than 70% of the worldwide market. If we assume that the audited figures are 20% wrong then it is just about possible that we have 40M sales. The rest of the world adds a further 20M (since those five countries represents about 2/3rds). So 65-70 million sales is at the top end of what is believable. Sales of 110 would assume the rest of the world bought 70 million units, that is it would have to have been 3.5 times more successful in the rest of the world than it was in the major markets (and it was probably the best selling album ever there!). Repeating this unbelievable number just reduces the credibility of this article and the whole of Wikipedia. Steve.hawtin (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

RIAA has now certified Thriller as 29X Platinum http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTop100Murphy110 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think mergeing Micheal Jacksons Thriller with Thriller (song) is a good idea and it's basicly the song of a short movie, so we could do a section about the song in the musical. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed to merge. Article is well written and well edited enough to deserve its own entry. Also the album, the single, and the music video are important enough each in themselves to deserve a separate entry.Tlatseg (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Opposed to merge. Both articles are well done enough to be separate. I completely agree with Tlatseg, the album, the single, and the music video each deserves it's own page, because they all don't outshine the other in public knowledge, and pop culture. doctorwho295 28 September 2009

• Oppose, song and movie were each highly notable phenomena on their own. Equazcion (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Worldwide Certifications?

Maybe a certification section should be added. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterious Spy (talk • contribs) 12:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Van Halen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thriller_%28album%29 Jones and Jackson were determined to make a rock song that would appeal to all tastes and spent weeks looking for a suitable guitarist for the song "Beat It", a song Jackson wrote and played drums on. Eventually, they found Eddie Van Halen of the rock band Van Halen.[20][22]

This is incorrect, or at least not explained well. Steve Lukather played all of the guitar riffs on Beat It, except the solo. EVH only played the solo. Lukather also played the bass guitar on Beat It. This is well-known and easy to find info. Look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.129.128 (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Recording

The recording section could use some work. There are lots of sources available, such as Jackson's autobiography, Quincy Jone's autobiography and information from Bruce Swedien. There was not a falling out between Jackson & Quincy Jones during the recording. They have both stated there was intellectual disagreement/argument around many points on the album. Jackson only threatened to hold the release when it was clear the album needed to be remixed. This paragraph creates controversy where there was none - it was all part of the artistic process.Murphy110 (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

punctuation

It appears that the article uses British style punctuation regarding quotation marks (punctuation outside of quotation marks). Standard practice in the US is to place punctuation inside quotes except in very specific circumstances. Since the practice is pervasive throughout the article I have left it as is, but it seems to contradict Wikipedia practices (since Thriller is a US album by a US artist). Is there a community practice to use British style punctuation in some situations (such as song titles)?

Hi there. In the case of punctuation and quotations, the applicable Wiki policy can be found at WP:LQ. In this case, regional conventions are superceded. Doniago (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Synths that used on Thriller recording

Yamaha CS-80

Roland Jupiter 8

Synclavier II

DK Synergy

Roland Jupiter 4

Roland MC-4 microcomposer/sequencer

Yamaha GS-1 FM synth

Oberheim 4-Voice

Prophet 5

Yamaha CE20 FM preset synth

Yamaha portasound keyboard

Roland VP-330 vocoder/strings

Bode Vocoder

E-mu Emulator I

Minimoog

Drum machines:

Linn LM-1

Linndrum LM-2

Roland TR-808

I think that we should add this in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfromthe80s (talk • contribs) 16:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Pitchfork Review

The Pitchfork review of the album should be deleted, since it is a review of the 25th Anniversary Edition of the album, so it is a review of that package, extra features and all; it is not a straight review of "Thriller." Scharles (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)scharles

Co producer

I believe there is an uneducated assumption of what a Co-producer is ...The reason that Quincy Jones is the Producer is because it was his money... A Co-producer simply aids in the production and yes of course MJ is the Co-producer as are all artist on there albums technically....Pls note there is not a field for Co-producer in the infobox for this reason. Moxy (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK... then we should remove other producers from Dangerous, HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I, Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix, and Invincible because Jackson is "Executive Producer".--BadMuroZ (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(sorry i was a bit rude) ....Yes we should not have Co-producers in the infoboxs....Some times there is 10 Co-producers on an album or film (as this is the reason y there is no Co-producer field in the infobox). In the ones you mention is see some have Co-producer section added..yes they should be moved to a section called "Personnel" in the article its self like at --> Thriller (album)#Personnel (were you will note that it stats that the Co-producer is MJ). Looks odd to list everyone that help in the infobox....I see some albums have 7 Co-producers...we should list only the main producer in the infobox and the rest in a subsection of the articles.Moxy (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thriller charting

Where did the original chart positions go? I Help, When I Can.^[12] 07:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 2 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A7cu1z85ajyv6
• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=A9kqog44ttvjz

--CactusBot (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. BNutzer (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

P.Y.T and The Lady in my Life

SuperSonicBaby2 (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC) I think we should include more info on these two songs since they are apart of the thriller album, also I'd also like more audio files especially these two songs. Just saying.

Red link category

The red link cat "Albums certified octuple platinum by the Nederlandse Vereniging van Producenten en Importeurs van beeld- en geluidsdragers" is appearing at the foot of the article but I can't see it anywhere in the article's script. Does anyone know why it's there?Rangoon11 (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Lady in my Life and Baby Be Mine

There should be articles about these two songs. Lots of popular albums includes every track having an article. This is the best selling album of all time, I say there should be articles about these two songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanjimmy (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Did they chart in any national sales chart? It doesn't have to be the US. Any nation will do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sales changes

The most recent discussion about sales appears to have been in May 2010 (Talk:Thriller_(album)/Archive_6#Sales), so unless someone can make sense of this change, please stop reverting. Dan56 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Outdated and incomplete

"The album was also the first of three to have seven Billboard Hot 100 top ten singles, and was the only album to be the best-seller of two years (1983–1984) in the US." What are the other two to have 7 top tens, and what about Adele's 21 for the second part? Oh, and both sources listed (which would not answer these questions anyway) are dead. BollyJeff | talk 17:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thriller (album) → Thriller (Michael Jackson album) – Thriller (Michael Jackson album) as Dangerous (Michael Jackson album) and Invincible (Michael Jackson album). Per WP:DISAMBIGUATION then disambiguation should be disambiguous. This article should have been renamed in 2006 when Thriller (Lambchop album) was added to the project, and again in 2010 when Thriller (Eddie and the Hot Rods album) was added. Both the other articles are notable and have printed book coverage. There has never been an RM to support the current title. WP:PRIMARY does not apply to the content of the brackets. Alternatively, if it can be proven that WP:PRIMARY does apply over Thriller (genre) then (i) move Thriller (album) to Thriller and (ii) bump Thriller to Thriller (disambiguation). The present titling fails WP:CRITERIA #3 Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects and also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose move to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Support move from Thriller (album) to Thriller and Thriller to Thriller (disambiguation) per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. BollyJeff | talk 01:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If the move goes somewhere, is to Thriller. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment a redirect should be created at Thriller (Michael Jackson album) if it isn't moved there. I'm not sure if it should be "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)" or "Thriller" though -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Oculi tries to prove a point, but either WP:ALBUM, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:IAR allows this page to be called like this. Unless somebody's Thriller sells between 50 to 110 million albums (depending the source) we can discuss if this is not the primarty topic. If Dangerous (Michael Jackson album) and Invincible (Michael Jackson album) are not at Dangerous (album) and Invincible (album) is because the large quantity of album with that title and the probability of similar notability they have. Instead of have every page as "Album (Artist album)", (as recently everybody is doing with musical artist) why we don't stop doing that and start to think about the primary topic of albums, as I said at Talk:Erotica (Madonna album). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Ibid, Tbhotch. No offense, In ictu oculi but your comments here or in Erotica are counterproductive. Chrishonduras (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support; disambiguation must be complete. Partial disambiguation is confusing. Powers ^T 13:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I suppose it depends on what era you are from but I have always associated "Thriller" with Jacko and "a thriller" with a film/book genre, so I don't see a primary topic. I think the best solution is to leave these articles where they are and let Thriller be a dab page. Green Giant (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree with the argument that Thriller is the primary topic of the listed albums on the disambiguation page, and should be left where it is now. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - we're only talking about the best selling album of all time, so there ought to be little doubt that it's the primary topic of any such disambiguated term. However, a move to undisambiguated 'thriller' would be too wide, for the term would compete with the cinematic genre, which is also a much-searched term. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 09:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of all album uses of "Thriller", this one clearly meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC topic criteria. No one, not even the proposer, is challenging that.

  The notion that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (not WP:PRIMARY, which is about sources) does not apply to disambiguated titles is pure hokum, and the response to this proposal is ample evidence of that. The underlying principles which justify WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are just as valid and applicable for disambiguated titles as they are for undisambiguated titles. --B2C 04:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

@Hahc21, Statυs - yes a move to Thriller is fine too if you think Michael Jackson's album is more notable than Thriller (genre) etc. @Bollyjeff, would you oppose a move to Thriller?

I think it is good just the way it is now; no moves are necessary. Thriller has more meanings than just the album, but it is certainly the most notable album. BollyJeff | talk 04:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

@Tbhotch - you cite Talk:Erotica (Madonna album) but see closer's comments:

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The unwritten convention is that an article not at the primary topic needs a completely unambiguous disambiguator and, unsurprisingly, most of the RM "regulars" who have commented here have expressed that opinion. However, this is not explicitly written in to WP:DAB and, although it gets brought up at WT:DAB every now and then there has never been a consensus to do something about it. As such I don't see either the supports or opposes being very deeply rooted in policy and because there's no clear numerical majority either I'm not seeing a consensus. As a side note, using WP:TWODABS in this sort of discussion is quite bizarre. Jenks24 (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

@Chrishonduras, we would need to see an example of John Smith (politician) plus John Smith (Welsh politician) in any other area except albums. If not then WP:AT applies to all of en.wp, as Erotica (Madonna album), and it is Thriller (album) which is out-of-policy, and move proposals to create in-bracket-primary such as Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) vs Teenage Dream (IQU album) are counterproductive. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your answer to me never explains why we should not start to look for the primary topic of albums or why this is not the primary topic of albums. At Erotica's I never expalined why WP:TWODABS applies, and yes, it is bizarre. If we eliminate the elements at Erotica that are not releated to albums, we have Erotica (Madonna album), Erotica (The Darling Buds album) and an album by Roberto Perera with no article. Which is the primary topic? The page with 600 daily views and above 10M Google hits v. the page with 10 daily hits and 15,000 Ghits v. an album with no article. The obvious answer is that Madonna's albums is the primary topic *of Erotica albums*, I never said it is the primary topic of the word "Erotica". The same applies here. MJ Thriller (album) is the *primary topic of albums*, not only because it is a MJ album, but because it is the best selling album in history,and it has historical relevance. This is the reason why Madonna (entertainer) is not at Madonna or Queen (band) at Queen. Now, the probability this page manages to be moved to Thriller is low, because of the reason you gave: Thriller (genre), but this RM is not for of that move, is because you want to move an historical album to a unneeded DAB title, and similar to this we have Rumours or The Dark Side of the Moon, top-importance albums in their projects. This page's title is not broken, therefore, there is no reason to fix it. What should be fixed is this kind of nominations to decide if A is as notable as B (when it is not) ignoring WP:PRECISION rules, or believe our readers are willing to search other album that it is not this. Do we have any evidence readers are looking for Eddie and the Hot Rods' album? Of course not, and before that hat note, which I added time ago, I neither knew about other albums titled Thriller. You are not thinking in what readers want, just your interests, and Wikipedia is not for Wikipedians, it is for readers. Just today I read somebody saying "It is a song, therefore it should have a 'song' DAB", even when the title of the song is not ambiguous. The same happens here, there is no real reason to move the page. People who search this album are likely typing "Thriller" alone, if they are searching other albums, they can choose their preference album at Thriller. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Tbhotch, please see WP:PRIMARY Is there a primary topic?

Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.

Hence Is "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)" primary topic of Thriller? Yes/No. The answer here currently is No, since it has WP:DISAMBIGUATION. If there is a WP:SUBPRIMARY then provide an example of John Smith (politician) vs John Smith (Welsh politician) outside of albums. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you know I can read, right? Can you stop acting as a bot which can only cite, and give your own answers and explanations. For the politicians thing, which are irrelevant to WP:MOSALBUMS because they are, maybe, I don't know, albums and not persons, and they are not within the same projects: why John Smith (Welsh politician) is more important than any other politician now or in history of world? And why this Welsh person deserves that place and not John Smith (Ontario MP), J. H. Smith (politician) or John Smith (Australian politician), just to cite a few? You comment is so absurd and tricky you are comparing a common people name ("John Smith") with a page about albums with three articles named Thriller. I gave you the reason why the album is the primary topic *of albums*: "it is the best-selling album in the world". Also, read the long para you left: "If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page", can you prove MJ's album is not the primary topic of albums? and use your words not long quotes about the rules people at RM already know or should know. Then again, why it is not a primary topic *in albums* (and I make emphasis in albums not the whole meaning of the possible meanings), not for me, but the people you are expecting that may support you. Explain why you are right and MJ's is just a trivial album in history--as it does not qualify as primary--as the other two albums. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Tbhotch, WP:AT is a policy:

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only speaks of "one article" being WP:PRIMARY, not primaries in each project. John Smith (politician) is a redirect. There is no [[John Smith (PRIMARY politician)]]. Can you please provide an example of subprimary-within-bracket outside of album titles? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Until very recently, Psycho (film) was the title of our article on the 1960 classic, despite the presence of other films. (It was just moved to '1960 film' a couple of weeks ago.) I once supported leaving it at that title on the grounds that "everyone knows which film is being referenced", and the same reasoning would apply here to Thriller. But I think I have since come around to the view that disambiguation must be complete. If it's not the primary topic, then it needs to be fully disambiguated; partial disambiguation helps no one. Powers ^T 18:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks LtPowers. FWIW in this case "primary album" is a recentish edit to MOSALBUM which contradicts the long-standing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)

Unless multiple albums of the same name exist (such as Down to Earth), they do not need to be disambiguated any further. For example, Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) is fine, but Off the Wall (Michael Jackson album) is unnecessary.

In ictu oculi (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow I asked you to stop copy-pasting things and you decided to almost plagarize Wikipedia again--where are the copyright notes or attribution licenses? In case you don't know Wikipedia pages are copyrighted and as such you must attribute the authors, even if you don't like it.-- And we return to the main topic, using your own words, why the Welsh John Smith is the primary topic of politicians with his name? You asked me why he is not at "(politician)" alone, well, now answer why he does deserves the place.

WP:NCP and WP:NCF are not WP:NCM, but if you requiere a "subprimary-within-bracket" non-album article, we have the recently moved Next to Me (song). You simply cannot compare films and people, or other things, with articles about albums because they are not the same thing and are not within the same projects, that's the reason why WP:NCF and WP:NCM exist as sub pages. You can't use WP:AT as a policy here because this album page is not a generic page. It's like if you want to move Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia, using WP:AT or WP:NCVG rules. If NFM and MOSALBUMS contradict each other, the best thing to do is open a RFC to decide the correct one, and not to try to move the page is disrupting your plans to promote your ideals to another place. That's not how consensus works, that's how you work. Also, to what Powers said. To date nobody has ever shown external and/or internal evidence people is not being helped to find what they are looking for in the way articles are titled right now for this article.

I am talking seriously about this last thing. Please, give any kind of evidence in Wikipedia, a blog, tweet, journal or whatever a normal reader (not Wikipedians) would use to complain that explicity say article titles do need this kind of disambiguation and they consider pages like "Thiller (album)" being redirected to the DAB page as helpful. All of you say and comment is: "this is the best for the readers", "readers are being helped", "how can we decide their needs" and other believes and comments, but you never show any kind of physical evidence DAB pages are needed or helpful to them, you are just using the term "readers" as "I, my friends and believes". In fact, articles like (Everything I Do) I Do It for You or David Archuleta or Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious or Barack, among others, should be transformed into titles with DAB names like (Everything I Do) I Do It for You (song), David Archuleta (musician) or Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious (song) under your logic, because the best for our readers is lead them to DAB pages to let them decide what they are looking for, even when there is one or two ambiguous page *cough* Erotica *cough*. Betty Logan said so at Psycho's move: "the supporting project reserves the right to select an appropriate disambiguation term." You never let the project(s) to decide the appropiate DAB term or to fix the contradiction, but you are demostrating you try to be above them, and that's not OK. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tbhotch,

[John Smith (politician)] was just a format; any example of the "primary album" idea outside albums would be relevant. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Hokum?

I was expecting close as per BDD, but this comment was made just before the close:

The notion that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (not WP:PRIMARY, which is about sources) does not apply to disambiguated titles is pure hokum, and the response to this proposal is ample evidence of that. The underlying principles which justify WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are just as valid and applicable for disambiguated titles as they are for undisambiguated titles. --B2C 04:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it? If it is, then why is WP:PRIMARYALBUM the only example of such a primary-in-the-bracket on en.wp? Why don't we have WP:PRIMARYFOOTBALLER and so on? This RM is mainly evidence that project alerts work, which in itself is a good thing. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Between this partial disambiguation crap and the recent push toward disambiguating everything, even when unnecessary (two contradictory movements, of course), WP:AT is rapidly becoming a dead letter. Powers ^T 13:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

LtPowers

Well WP:DAB is not well written, and it isn't WP:AT's job to cover WP:DAB in detail.

Re recent push toward disambiguating everything, I think the point comes at Lady of Spain where it's clear that a notable competing article will never be made, as you pointed out, and I have !voted Support there following your comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

These are hard to find, but articles that are the primary topic for their disambiguated titles do exist. For example:

• Cork (city) (despite (Cork, Kentucky)
• Rainbow (band) (despite Rainbow (South Korean band))
  

But the claim that primary topic does not apply to disambiguated titles is hokum not only because of the counter-examples, but because the underlying principles apply to such titles for the same reasons as they apply to disambiguated titles. --B2C 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• And now of course we have Thriller (album) to add to that list. --B2C 18:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you given thought to the fact that these are so hard to find because they are mistakes? (or is Wikipedia perfect, for some reason? ) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Cork, Kentucky isn't a city, so technically Cork (city) isn't ambiguous. Though there should be a hatnote, at least. Powers ^T 22:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• Independence Day (film) can be added to the list, but a move request for that one is currently garnering unanimous support. Powers ^T 23:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is still ongoing?? Can we move on to helping improve the actual content of the article for a change? I made a request about content a few sections above called "Outdated and incomplete". No one has answered this yet, but they can go on forever about the name? I don't get it. BollyJeff | talk 12:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bollyjeff, you will just have to wait and put up with that I'm afraid. Personally I am not interested in this album, I add content to other albums I am interested in. The reason this discussion is happening is because it has been added to WP:MOSALBUM as main example and model of WP:PRIMARYALBUM, an idea which has no counterpart WP:PRIMARYFOOTBALLER, WP:PRIMARYPOLITICIAN, WP:PRIMARYINSECT, WP:PRIMARYPLANT, WP:PRIMARYFILM etc. For better or worse you can expect more of this kind of talk here, not less, since this is the article in the whole of en.wp which WP:MOSALBUM has put in the spotlight. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting, but I just looked in Wikipedia:MOSALBUM, and did not see the word "thriller" there or on the talk page, so what is the proper link to the discussion you are referring to? BollyJeff | talk 23:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason you didn't find it Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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. While there were support votes, I think we are misled by temporary unofficial changes on policies and guidelines, especially by edits of proponents and opponents in WP:Disambiguation. Even when they are at fault, I fully take responsibility that I brought upon myself and others. Now that the proposal to make the "Partially disambiguated titles" an official guideline is still ongoing, I am no longer sure whether "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)" is extraneous or precise enough. I promise that I will do full surveillance on events, so something like this won't happen again. George Ho (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Thriller (album) → Thriller (Michael Jackson album) – Now WP:DAB#Partially disambiguated titles is created, and the MOS:ALBUM have changed into forbidding ambiguous disambiguations only if there is more than one album or song with similar name. Therefore, even statistics won't stop precise disambiguation, like Psycho (1960 film), A Room with a View (1985 film), Brazil (1985 film), Angel (1999 TV series), etc. George Ho (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey 2

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose Nothing has changed. Don't reply I won't waste my time as in the last RM (also read grandfather clause). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  Also, this is not a film or a tv series, and your argument still invalid. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support – The community consensus, now embodied in the guidelines (at Wikipedia:D#Partially disambiguated titles), is to avoid partial disambiguation. Since there are other albums named Thriller, this should be fixed now. Dicklyon (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support – everything has changed; WikiProject Albums already removed the recent "primary album" edit to WP:MOSALBUM which had contradicted the longer-standing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), and now all-community guideline is in the guidelines (at Wikipedia:D#Partially disambiguated titles). Inevitably sooner or later this means Nirvana (band) will probably be reopened as well, but I won't be the one to do it. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support; community consensus was overwhelming that partial disambiguation is not acceptable. Powers ^T 14:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support – based on the new guidelines. BollyJeff | talk 14:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. For standard topics I certainly agree that the job of parenthetic disambiguation is to distinguish one use from other uses. However, I think the principle of primary topic should still apply to especially well-known partially disambiguated topics like this one. There is no question which Thriller album is the primary one... this one. --B2C 18:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. No one is going to type "Thriller (album)" [with brackets/parentheses] in a search box. Therefore, no one will be inconvenienced with a more precise/less ambiguous title. "Thriller album" [without brackets/parentheses] can still direct to the Michael Jackson album. —  AjaxSmack  02:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Since "Thriller album" is not linked by articles, I have redirected it to Thriller. --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Suppose; I don't personally agree, but WP:DAB#Partially disambiguated titles is pretty clear on this now. I guess.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per nom, Dicklyon, et al. ╠╣uw [talk] 01:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion 2

Any additional comments:

• Update: I am unsure if there was a consensus to make a complete disambiguaion. Seems to me that someone removed "Partially disambiguated titles". --George Ho (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Another update: The discussion to add "Partially disambiguated titles" is still ongoing. --George Ho (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• And this was the point I was refering to not to waste my time. According to the survey above all editors thought that there were a consensus to do these moves but no, it was an alleged consensus and everybody can see it here, I see many supports and opposes, this is clearly not a "community consensus" as everybody above is saying: "The community consensus, now embodied in the guidelines"--Dicklyon; "WikiProject Albums already removed the recent "primary album" edit to WP:MOSALBUM"--IIO (in fact it was removed arbitrarily without consensus by an user); "community consensus was overwhelming that partial disambiguation is not acceptable."--Powers (totally false information per PUMP); "the new guideline"--Bollyjeff, and etc. All this bullshit I have readen hereis incredible. If somebody removes "Primary Topic" from its guideline, should we move Moon to Moon (disambiguation)/ Paris to Paris, France, and vice versa? Editors act like bots and zombies without adding a little of their own ideas and go to discussion that require community consensus basing upon others' ideas, essays, or false "overwhelming community consensus" when guideline pages clearly state: "[This] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Common sense, once again, has proven to be the less common sense. Don't worry George, the page will be moved thanks to the introduction of a false/incomplete consensus. Eventually you or IIO or the IP editor involved in RMs will use this RM to continue moving pages. If User:Rms125a@hotmail.com is not blocked due to a policy (per a grandfather clause), why this page should be moved under the interests of a few? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Um... I disambiguated What's Going On (album) to What's Going On (Marvin Gaye album) and Resident Evil (video game) to Resident Evil (1996 video game), and I cited the debated proposal as a reason. --George Ho (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Don't take it personal, but good for you, I'm not going to give you a prize you know, especially when you don't care to clean up the mess you left behind. Also, why your favorite TV series (according to your the number of your edits to it ans all releated articles), Cheers, is not at Cheers (TV series)? You go throughout finding "partial DABs", but you can't move a page that needs a DAB? Interesting. I said so here. DABs shouldn't be partial, they should be full, like in Thriller or Madonna, not when it is convenient. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:43, 3 June 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

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: move. It seems apparent from this move request and the previous one that this move should take place. The guideline also suggests this. However, the points made by Tbhotch, which seemed to begin to convince a few people, about how a redirect from Thriller (album) to a disambiguation page could be a disservice to some readers are reasonable, so I'm going to decide that the former title continue to redirect to the article about the Michael Jackson album. -- tariqabjotu 23:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Thriller (album) → Thriller (Michael Jackson album) – Now that WP:PDAB is official per WP:VPP, I hope this request is not a mistake. If I misinterpret the events again, then withdrawl could be considered. For now, let's make a fresher, more accurate votes this time — and no mistakes again. George Ho (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey 3

• Support. Just enforcing WP:PDAB.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support; partial disambiguation is confusing. Powers ^T 22:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support In ictu oculi (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Still opposing Per common sense, also see below. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PDAB. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tbhotch. Calidum Sistere 12:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per my rant, and Tbhotch's more eloquent expression. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion 3

Any additional comments:

• Reason to oppose by Tbhotch. Status perfectly proved what I said in the last RM and here, people without common sense believing guidelines are untouchable policies or strict manuals and should be applied because they are written in a guideline page--even when WP:DAB starts with "This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (bold mine). Powers says "partial disambiguation is confusing", but to who? A normal reader won't type "Thriller (album)" in the search bar, they will just type "Thriller"-- if we don't consider most searches are done through Google as it gives better results than here). In the DAB Thriller the disambiguation is clear:
• Thriller (Eddie and the Hot Rods album), a 1979 album by Eddie and the Hot Rods
• Thriller (album), a 1982 album by Michael Jackson
• Thriller (Lambchop album), a 1997 album by Lambchop

I don't see the confusion Powers refers to. Anyway Neelix proved my point at Poison (American band). After it was moved from (band) it has received 18661 hits, while Poison (German band) has received 442 hits since the move. And so I wonder, are we giving readers what they are looking for? Because 4978 people has been redirected to a DAB page thanks to this move. Supporters don't care about the readers, they try to make people believe they do, but they don't. (As simple as Nirvana (band) gets more hits than Nirvana itself). Moving this page will result the same: MJ album will have two, three or ten more hits even if it's dabbed. Nobody is confused, just people applying they ideas and opinions to article titles as if we need to inform readers what they are reading with the article title, and that's the function of the lead paragraph, as maybe you know, readers can read. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sigh. I don't know how I missed that discussion. What a big middle finger to readers. It's a Wikipedia hobby to talk about readers as they were some sort of drooling half-wits. If it's not your first day reading the encyclopedia, you're probably familiar with disambiguation. You know Apple isn't going to take you to a British psychedelic rock band. This is a complete triumph of bureaucracy over the interests of readers.

I wonder how many of the 1271 visits to Poison (band) this month were looking for the German band? Less than 16 percent, by the most generous estimate. At peak efficiency, dabs would get negligible hits. This turns back the clock big time. Hands down the worst decision I've seen made on the encyclopedia. Also, I really thought Poison was British. My world is just crumbling before my eyes. --BDD (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

BDD

So what is happening, music fans looking for the "British" band Poison Google "Poison band" and get

• Poison (American band) "Poison is an American glam metal band..."
• Poison the Well (band) "Poison the Well is an experimental hardcore band from Miami.."
• Poison (German band) "Poison was a German black /death /thrash metal band from Ulm, Baden-Württemberg.."

How is the Google result inconveniencing anyone?

Same with the RH box autocomplete, how does the dab inconvenience anyone. Have readers stopped reading the American band article because the word (American) is now in the dab? That doesn't make sense. If grok.se suggests that then grok.se must be wrong. Who turns back at a disambiguation page because of the word (American)? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Google is treating this differently on opposite sides of the pond. When I check poison band, I only see a Google infobox for the American band, and in fact I don't see any mention of the other bands. (At any rate, Poison the Well is a WP:PTM.) The group that we're completely throwing under the bus here is readers who are actually familiar with Wikipedia practice. They know sometimes you need to include a disambiguating term, and now we've just made it harder for them. And I really can't see the benefit we've gained in doing so. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi BDD, I still don't get the grok.se point, is there really evidence that users looking for Poison (American band) stopped at a disambiguation page and didn't proceed to the article? I just can't imagine a dab deterring someone. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As regards "The group that we're completely throwing under the bus here is readers who are actually familiar with Wikipedia practice" - well I'm familiar with Wikipedia practice, but I would never input topic (disambiguator) with ( ) into either Google or top RH search box, I'd just input Poison band. Does anyone really use brackets when entering search terms? This is a question. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's confusing because a reader may see two articles, one disambiguated "(Band A album)" and one disambiguated just "(album)", and not know whether these two articles are addressing the same topic or different topics. The disambiguation page may make that clear, but that's not the only environment in which readers may be viewing the article titles. They may be seeing them in the search box here, or on Google, or in a category. Powers ^T 00:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This is like the third or fourth time I ask this to an user in a RM, do you have *any* evidence of your argument? do you have a link or comment made by a reader (not Wikipedian) at Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, Blogspot, Wordpress, etc. of people a) confused with Wikipedia PDAB article titles, or b) readers asking for a complete disambiguation? You claim they are confused but where's the evidence? You cannot speak for others just because you believe they share your opinion or because of your sixth sense, you need evidence people is requesting these moves, like I proved at VP with United States v. United States of America one link of many. People is not confused, if not this article wouldn't be listed within the 10,000 most visited articles even when it is already dabbed. Also, if this is for "readers" why the template {{move to}} does not exist like in {{merge to}} or {{afd}}? Yes, because we can move pages for readers but without readers' opinions. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:49, 16 June 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Book

The book in the "See Also" section isn't working because the book is titled "Book:Thriller_(album)" while this article and the book in the "See Also" section is titled "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)", the book is not the same name as the article so it doesn't seem to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thriller_(Michael_Jackson_album)#See_also --108.211.193.185 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 4

There is yet another punch up discussion regarding this article namespace, specifically where the redirect Thriller (album) should point (here or Thriller. Please arm yourselves with the relevant guidelines and wander over and join in. As it directly affects the RMs above I thought it polite to let you all know. Bring your own refreshments. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thriller sales

With a boost from the video, Jackson's "Thriller" album became the biggest selling record in music history, with sales now reportedly topping more than 110 million. http://washingtoninformer.com/news/2013/dec/19/michael-jacksons-thriller-video-turns-30/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.179.131.105 (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thriller's Total Sales

Not it's not over 100 million, but why on earth did the sales change from overestimations to underestimations? Thriller's sales were reported north of 60 million by the start of the 2000s, and with posthumous sales included the certs are ~43 million now, which translates to far more than "50+ million" which is what the 51-65M bracket translates as. Surely the interval should be increased to at the very lowest 60 million, (though this would exclude sales from the 2000s and the posthumous sales surge) with an upper estimate of perhaps ~70 million (accounting for the 4 million sold in 2009, and those sold in the 9 years prior, and 5 years since). Comparable "second best selling album" Dark Side Of The Moon by Pink Floyd has <23M certs and is billed at 50 million copies sold, so there's a huge discrepancy here with the 51-65 interval. Mc8755 (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen much from chart research sites to prove Thriller was over 70 million judging from how sales and shipments are tallied, especially in this link here. Guinness World Records still list the album selling around 52 million copies so unless the surge meant millions worldwide, which seems impossible (the best-selling album in some countries are more than between 100,000 copies and 800,000 copies but never close to a million), don't see a huge surge in complete sales. Unless the album is heavily undercertified in some countries, don't see 70 million being an actual possibility or even 60 million. 55 million, maybe, but 60? Eh. But 51-65 million is the acceptable position on this article so far. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 22:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• In the list here the tallies for certs WW are added for each record and put in the column left of estimated sales. It seems odd that Thriller's 42.4 million certs translates to an estimate a little over 12 million more in total estimate but the next best selling record with 22.7 million certs has a doubled estimate of 45 million. Thriller has certs so far ahead of the next highest certified record but has a much lower estimate by comparison.

Guinness World Records also state The Beatles have sold a billion records so it's hardly accurate in sales estimates, but even if their outdated estimate is taken into account (see the direct GWR quote here):

LINK

...it states 50 million copies with 25 million in the US. This was set by GWR at the very latest in 2003, but probably earlier. Today, Thriller is at 29 million certs in the US, so has a sales well into the thirty-millions in the US. It also wouldn't account for the re-release sales (25th anniversary) in 2008 of 2.3 million WW (source: http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-2008.htm) or the 2009 post-humous sales of 4 million WW (source: http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-2009.htm).

That puts, according to GWR's figure, at the minimum, Thriller's sales at 50 million (though the quote says "over 50 million") + 2.3 million + 4 million = 56.3 million, a very conservative estimation for sure. That additional 6.3 million is in itself hugely conservative to consider an extra 4 million US certs (meaning realistically more than 4 million US sales as aforementioned) leaving only 2.3 million international Thriller sales in the last 10 years, with a re-release and MJ's death. I agree 70 million is an upper estimate, but a 60-70 million bracket just seems more accurate. Thriller's sales haven't been stagnant in the last decade like most of the top sellers, so its sales need to be updated after they add on to the totals. Because of the 100/110 million sales numbers thrown around (by GWR in 2006 too at the WMA too!) it's next to impossible to find a credible source that isn't reporting that inflated figure or an outdated figure from sales reported in the early 2000s. Mc8755 (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

////////////////

Eh...But Michael Jackson is actually standing in the GWR headquarters with various framed certificates around him during the photo-shoot...One of those GWR certificates reads 100+ for the album, Thriller. I, for one, have a copy of those photos, which are available on the Internet.

Furthermore, there are plenty of sites across the Internet that state this figure and these sites are deemed as "credible sources" when used for other artists...Or is it, different rules for Michael Jackson??

//////////////// I agree that citation needs to change. The second paragraph states it's tied with the Eagles Their Greatest Hits for top selling album, but the page for Their Greatest Hits states it's third behind both [Thriller] and [Dark Side of the Moon]. 173.249.64.220 (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between copies and records. Copies go with what was sold in said countries. It's impossible for any album to go past 70 million by itself. Despite that picture of him with a Guinness World Record, the actual book still states the album sold around 50-plus million. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 02:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh and just for clarification, if you wanna know how much albums sell worldwide, check here - List of music recording certifications and you will see why Thriller's official sales don't amount to "110 million". It's still the best-selling album but let's not push it with the false numbers. Thank you. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thriller total sales are between 65 to 110 million copies worldwide. This estimate is the most acceptable figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundblack (talk • contribs) 12:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

References

The above editor is a sockpuppet of Abhijit038. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We dont deal with guess work as the source says. Have reverted -- Moxy (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, one could also check List of music recording certifications to see why the Beatles and Presley haven't sold what is claimed by some, also. And, as another poster noted and rightly pointed out - There is a big discrepancy in respect to certifications v sales numbers allowed for certain artists. Even that wasn't addressed properly, instead, just beating around the bush when confronted, Wow! How come MJ wiki talk pages are always full of MJ detractors! It is really noticeable and really strange. "Just for clarification", This is very noticeable and has been noted. However, you can all continue to reign on these MJ wiki talk pages ...For now, anyway.

If you haven't noticed, there's a lot of issues with Elvis' and the Beatles' sales too. Plus they had a lot more product released than MJ's, whose volume is smaller than theirs. I don't see how that has to do with Thriller sales, even if it did sell over 100 million (which it didn't), he still wouldn't have topped Elvis or the Beatles' sales, that's just a fact. Doubt there's many "detractors" here as much as they are realists who don't buy that media PR stuff posted about artists' sales. If so, editors of Elvis' and the Beatles' Wikipedia pages wouldn't have argued about that one billion sales fallacy. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

//////////////////////

Eh, no, actually - there isn't any "...issues..." going on (Certainly like the ones for MJ) for the Beatles / Presley. And, it has nothing to do with "volume", as much as it has to do with ACTUAL sales. Many know, for example, the enormous amount of recordings Presley put out, but the truth is, they were not ALL big sellers - and ESPECIALLY on a worldwide scale. Fact! It is not how much one actually puts out - It is how much one ends up selling. And while on that point, numerous MJ albums are actually listed in the world's top selling list.

Furthermore, "editors of Elvis' and the Beatles' Wikipedia pages" don't have to argue about the "one billion sales fallacy" - because they, like any other level-headed person (whether a fan of a particular artist or not)know that there is no real evidence that any artist to date has sold a "Billion" and nowhere on this planet can proof be found of such. However, that ALSO includes the supposed figures that are currently being used for the artists you mentioned. Not one piece of solid evidence in any worldwide charts of the past which even so much as indicates how the number of sales being used could, in reality, amount to what is being stated in that wiki page.

As for the Thriller album, I personally am not sure about 100 mill+, but I would easily believe that almost 34 years after it's release, it could easily have sold 70 million+ - Why not? It has been the biggest selling album for over three decades and continues to sell around the world. It certainly isn't something out of bounds that it could easily have reached the 70+ million sales mark by now.

You can spin this all you like, but I am talking from the experience of witnessing the constant detracting of MJ and his achievements in many shapes and forms, across the Internet. The same excuse being used that it is PR hype when it comes to MJ, yet hardly any of the same debates going on concerning the artists you decided to mention. That is a truth. The bias is plain to see. After all is said and done, I never hear or see as much effort and back and forth squabbling, detracting and questioning put into any of the other artists you mentioned. Again, that is the truth. And again, no one here has even addressed the query another poster made further up on this tread; regarding the discrepancies with the certifications v the positions of artist/s placed above MJ in the list. And another poster who said: "I agree that citation needs to change. The second paragraph states it's tied with the Eagles Their Greatest Hits for top selling album, but the page for Their Greatest Hits states it's third behind both [Thriller] and [Dark Side of the Moon]".

As usual, avoidance in answering certain questions, and to explain the discrepancies for BOTH of the above posters, in a clear and understandable way. It is all (The detracting, avoidance when it suits and the bias) too plain to see.

As of December 16, 2015 Rolling Stone and ABCNews reports the claim of 100 million, both reliable sources. I feel the compromise of noting the "claim" of 100 million is fair at this point as there are so many divergent counts. MoviePhan (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "reliable" number regardless of the source. There's such a thing called PR, meaning MJ's label and estate will bring out an exaggerated number to boost that artist. Same with the Beatles and Elvis. All three have their labels and estates (Lennon and Harrison, MJ, Elvis) have claimed they each sold a billion records (well in MJ's case, they say billion "copies") but we have no way of knowing that. It's possible they all sold a billion records and that Thriller itself sold 100 million records, but as for copies, no that's an impossible number, considering sales numbers vary from country to country. The United States is the only country where you can sell 10 million or more copies but even that won't give any accurate claim of 100 million copies. Just let it go. It is the best selling album of all time anyway you look at it. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Before it got cut

So 4 songs on Thriller ("Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'", "Thriller.", "Billie Jean", and "The Lady In My Life") were shortened due to time constraints with LPs. This was the track info before that happened. Is this worthy of inclusion somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.178.123.12 (talk • contribs)

Track listing

No.	Title	Writer(s)	Producer(s)	Length
1.	"Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'"	Michael Jackson	Quincy Jones Jackson (co.)	6:32
2.	"Baby Be Mine"	Rod Temperton	Jones	4:20
3.	"The Girl Is Mine" (with Paul McCartney)	Michael Jackson	Jones Jackson (co.)	3:42
4.	"Thriller"	Temperton	Jones	6:45
5.	"Beat It"	Michael Jackson	Jones Jackson (co.)	4:18
6.	"Billie Jean"	Michael Jackson	Jones Jackson (co.)	6:21
7.	"Human Nature"	Steve Porcaro John Bettis	Jones	4:06
8.	"P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)"	James Ingram Jones	Jones	3:59
9.	"The Lady in My Life"	Temperton	Jones	6:07
Total length:				46:21

What's your source? Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Why I think talking about the album's original length in a section like "recording" or whatever is good, I don't think we should add another tracklist. The tracklist with the songs as they appear on the album is all that is needed. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2014

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.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Despite a considerable amount of debate, there is no clear consensus at the current time to change the article name. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Thriller (Michael Jackson album) → Thriller (album) – Makes absolutely no sense for "Thriller (album)" to redirect here, indicating that Michael Jackson's album is the primary topic for albums named Thriller (which it is, seeing as it's the best-selling album in history and all), only for the actual article title to be disambiguated further. WP:PDAB was a guideline when the move to "(Michael Jackson album)" was made; it has since been downgraded to an essay due to lack of consensus. All of the previous RMs took place last year, and seeing as it's been over a year since the last one, I think now is a good time to reevaluate. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment "Oww, Jamough", yes MJ was the king of pop. I see nothing necessarily wrong with the presentation of his glorious name in the title. Beyond that I don't really care. GregKaye 19:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. FWIW, WP:PDAB was created two days after the last RM was closed. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• It was copied when the current page was created last October. #Requested move 3 was passed in June 2013 due to PDAB being a guideline at the time. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: As an alternative proposal, editors should consider simply titling this article Thriller. About a third of the items on the disambiguation page are actually subtopics of this album. We don't seem to have an article on the genre of fiction known as a "thriller", which would be the only obvious competitor. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• That would be a good solution, but with "Thriller" the song and the thriller genre (which does have an article), I don't think there's an obvious primary topic for the term alone. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – It took a while to settle on the consensus that we don't do partial disambiguation, and that the reader is not served better by the ambiguity of treating this great album as primarytopic. Leave it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• It appears that consensus changed, seeing as PDAB is no longer a guideline. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case why is it almost exclusively 2 bands, 2 songs and 1 album articles which continue to be odd fish in the encyclopedia? WP:PDAB was just repeating WP:INCDAB. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The album had 83,000 (82,915 + 95) views a month before the move. Afterwards, it had 65,000 (33,728 + 31,620). It didn't recover either. By November, page views were down to 56,000 (3,860 + 52,214). Update. According to Google Trends, public interest was slightly higher in August 2013 than it was in May. So I assume the title change was responsible for the decline in page views. The eigenvector (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Keep as is and change the target for Thriller (album) to Thriller. There is no primary topic for albums; there's a primary topic (if there is one at all) and then everything else. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• There is no primary topic for albums; there's a primary topic (if there is one at all) and then everything else. According to...? –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support undoubtedly the primary topic for albums. If not its title track, this is also the most common term people refer to/search for in music. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: No useful purpose is served by ambiguating the title in this fashion. Including the artist's name in the parenthesis is actually helpful to readers, and partial disambiguation is generally a bad idea. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The fact that adding "Michael Jackson" to the title led to a 21 percent drop in page views shows just how "useful" it is, I guess. NotUnusual (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If you check the stats for Michael Jackson I think you'll find that they are dropping by 21% plus, too - and that article has not moved. All this proves is that statistics can't be relied on. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Even so, I don't see how the stats can be interpreted to support the original claim that including the artist name is "actually helpful" to readers. NotUnusual (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The stats don't prove anything either way. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If even a name a recognizable as Michael Jackson can't pump up the page view stats, the name of a lesser known artist certainly is going to. NotUnusual (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Make Thriller (album) redirect to the disambiguation page instead. JIP | Talk 20:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Procedural close - the proposal is contrary to WP:DISAMBIGUATION and WP:Naming conventions (music). WP:PDAB was an essay created in response to local consensus changes in the song/music guidelines to create the concept of "primary song" "primary album" (sic) , now that the contrary guidance has been removed there is no need for WP:PDAB, songs and albums are back to following WP:DISAMBIGUATION as the rest of the encyclopedia. Suggest close also affirms the status of WP:DISAMBIGUATION and guides against any further song/album RMs which seek to restore the "primary album" "primary song" idea. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• This is a matter of different interpretations of whether further disambiguation is needed, and whether or not a partially-disambiguated term can be a primary topic, not a clear-cut contradiction of any policy or guideline. DISAMBIGUATION says, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." If "Thriller (album)" currently redirects to Jackson's article, we have already indicated that readers are most likely looking for the Jackson album when searching "Thriller (album)".
  
  And to the users proposing to change the target of the "Thriller (album)" redirect, do you really think that is doing any service to readers? –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No it is not, it is absolutely crystal clear that no such thing as "primary album" can exist from existing state of WP:DISAMBIGUATION and WP:Naming conventions (music). The proposal is directly contrary to both guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Several points have been clearly made.

1. as User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and User:In ictu oculi say, there are no secondary primary topic guidelines, so it should be at Thriller or Thriller (Michael Jackson album). If the nominator cannot find secondary primary topic guidelines then they don't exist.
2. As User:GregKaye noted, there is no advantage in removing the words "Michael Jackson" from a Michael Jackson album.
3. Statistics cannot prove how a reader found a page.
4. That statistics are not the sole solution, nor indeed “fundamental” as claimed in another RM. I quote directly from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists...
5. There have been a number of RMs recently where the dicdef has taken precedence, and I draw your attentions to Talk:Bookends (album) and Talk:Something (Beatles song). It is time to be consistent.
6. The proposed title is ambiguous.

--Richhoncho (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose as per me. GregKaye 15:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per JIP, and also have Thriller (album) target the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Chase and Snuggums. And let's be honest, pointing Thriller (album) at anything else but this page would be disruptive. -- Calidum 04:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. A no-brainer IMO. I'll sort through the arguments above when I get time, but if there are guidelines that say or even suggest that we need the artist as extra disambiguation in so overwhelming a case as this, then the guidelines need a tweak, and WP:IAR meantime. Andrewa (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support definitely the primary topic. This is the best-selling album of all time.Qxukhgiels (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The notion that it is in anybody's interest to remove the author's name from the article, to create a little ambiguity where currently there is none, completely eludes me with regard to sense. Changes to maximise adherence to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is silly because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not serve the readership. This proposal should be rejected according to WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The problem here is, where do we draw the line? We obviously don't want to summarise the entire article lede in the disambiguator, but to leave any of it out introduces a little ambiguity however small. WP:TITLECHANGES doesn't seem relevant on careful reading. The suggestion that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not serve the readership is an interesting one; Do you mean generally (if so we should change it radically, good luck) or just in this instance (if so apply WP:IAR but we need a justification, and again should consider a tweak to the guidelines). In the absence of an explanation of exactly how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not serve the readership I'm afraid we should follow it despite your opinion, that's what the guidelines are for (and otherwise why have them). No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Andrewa, where to draw the line? This is no great problem. How long is a good title. The fact that we don't have an explicit rule limiting length is a poor sole reason to actively shorten titles.

...poor sole reason... agree but irrelevant. That's not what I was suggesting.

Where to draw the line: I suggest (as previously, somewhere elsewhere), that a title is not long if it prints on a single line when using the "Download as PDF" export tool, using default parameters. This is approximately 42 letters. Shorter titles render more whitespace in the space reserved for the title. For this article, the current title renders well short of one full line of title. There is no such thing as a standard screen, but there is, more or less generally accepted, a standard page size.

It's an interesting suggestion, but contrary to current guidelines of course. If this goes through you might consider proposing a change to the guidelines.

It (suggesting that titles are reasonable up to one line of rendered title on PDF output) is not contrary to any guideline that I know of. NB. WP:Concise is not well measured by simply length. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not serve the readership". I mean that it is a rule that is not designed, measured, reviewed, or well-considered in terms of benefit to the readership, certainly not directly. Instead, it is a made up rule of unclear origin. This is not to say that it is a bad rule. It may be a good rule, at least mostly, by luck, or by some lost good rationale. However, having a rule that is not measurable, and reviewable, in terms of the goals of the project does not seem a good idea. So, if the only reason for a change is a reference to this rule, then the total argument is not very deep.

Again and even more so, this should be discussed on the relevant talk page, to seek consensus to change the guideline or even to abandon it. Good luck. But meantime we should follow the guidelines unless a strong case exists for an exception. Otherwise why have them?

It is reasonable to question whether a guideline applied in this particular case is a good idea. Here, the benefit is negligible. It is further a good idea to ask whether the guideline speaks directly to this case. Here, it is very unclear. There has been a level of battle over "WP:PDAB", of which this is a continuation. Does WP:PRIMARYTOPIC apply? Arguably not. "Thriller" is not the PrimaryTopic for this Topic. Is "Thriller (album)"? This is not even a WP:NATURAL title, I doubt that there is evidence of source usage of this parenthetical title. So, do I straight support WP:PDAB, which said (if I may loosely paraphrase) that once parenthetical disambiguation is applied, there is to be no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC-like arguments to be applied within the parentheses? No, it seems largely a good idea, but (like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC itself), it was blunt, fiat-like, unjustified by reader-oriented arguments, and I never engaged there. Guidelines exist to assist in decisions, not to enforce particular decision making. I ask "how does this change improve the encyclopedia", and the only answer is "because there is a guideline". Well, the guideline is ill-fitting to this parenthetically disambiguated title, so I want to look deeper, and there is nothing there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevance of WP:TITLECHANGES lies in the words "no good reason to change it". The nomination is weak, referencing rules and failed rules, but not making any case for why there is any problem to the readership with the current title, or any advantage of the proposed title. WP:TITLECHANGES, in asking for "good reasons", is the best (or sole) part of policy for limiting these time-wasting repeated debates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. A case that appeals to rules is not ipso facto weak, just the opposite. You may regard PRIMARYTOPIC as failed, but it has been accepted by consensus and it now requires another consensus to overturn it. As I said above, good luck. Meantime, we all need to respect this consensus. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not regard PRIMARYTOPIC as failed. It is very largely common sense, but I find it poorly described, poorly supported by reader-oriented arguments, and questionable in edge cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• • The title should tell the reader the name of the subject. Period. Disambiguation should be about avoiding title clashes. The closer the title is the actual name of article's subject, the better. NotUnusual (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Not period, no. A good title must not mislead other readers into expecting a topic that is not covered by the article. Therefore, "Thriller" alone would not be acceptable, because reasonable readers unfamiliar with the Jackson album can be expected to be familiar with other uses of the term, and reasonably expect (correctly or not) coverage in Wikipedia. Given that it must have ugly parenthetical disambiguation, that disambiguation may as well be precise. This little bit of highly pertinent information (that the author is Michael Jackson) hurts no one. I don't dispute that anyone looking for an album titled "Thriller" should be aware that there is such a Michael Jackson product, I dispute that this is not a fiddling change of no net benefit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree with NotUnusual, who has summarised the existing guidelines well. Andrewa (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - the "consensus" for WP:PDAB, that Dicklyon mentions, simplyu doesn't exist. It is not a guideline, still less a policy, therefore is not relevant to this discussion. This is a clear case where we serve our readers better by avoiding an unncessarily long disambiguator for this topic, which is highly primary for the title Thriller (album), and indeed resided there for many years until people decided to move it on purely technical, rather than readership grounds.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:PRECISE insufficient precision to identify topic separate from other topics documented on Wikipedia which are albums called "Thriller". This is clearly not a wP:PRIMARYTOPIC move request, since the requested title is not "Thriller", the only possible title a primary topic can use, as primary topics only use titles that do not have parenthetical disambiguation. If the nominator wishes to have a primary topic discussion, then renominate with the title "Thriller" -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:PRECISE does not say that every title must be unambiguous. In fact, it recommends a "concise" title so long as it is "precise enough to be understood by most people." That certainly applies here, since I doubt if most readers even know that there are other albums named Thriller. NotUnusual (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • This certainly is not precise enough to clearly separate it from other topics, since it doesn't specify whose album it is. CONCISE therefore fails too, since it is too short to identify the topic. Your argument is based on PRIMARYTOPIC which does not apply to parenthetical disambiguation, since any parenthetical disambiguation is by definition not a primary topic. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

By whose definition? There is absolutely nothing codified that either supports or contradicts the idea that PRIMARYTOPIC can apply to a disambiguated term. You can't just make things up. --BDD (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:BDD PRIMARYTOPIC cannot and does not apply to a parenthetically disambiguated term. See the examples in guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Which examples are you referring to? I'm not seeing them. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

All the 30 odd bluelinked examples. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you can't just say that. I could just as easily say PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply to video games, because none of the examples involve video game articles. There's no reason to assume the examples are all-inclusive—that's almost antithetical to the idea of examples. It's e.g., not i.e. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:BDD, please, three questions which may help illustrate:

Question one : does any of the 30 odd examples of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have brackets ( ) after them?

Question two : would the noun "term" in "the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" naturally include "John Smith (footballer)" as a "term". i.e. do searches for "term" in Google Books naturally include a term + second term in brackets?

Question three : where outside pop music has anything akin to WP:PRIMARYALBUM WP:PRIMARYSONG been inserted into project guidelines (I think in 2013) and then removed (during 2014)? i.e. have other projects ever had WP:PRIMARYFOOTBALLER WP:PRIMARYPOLITICIAN and so on? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

1. No.

2. Sure, unless we're assuming it's every reader's first day on Wikipedia. You don't need to be here very long to notice and start accommodating common disambiguators, such as (album), (film), or (footballer). This is part of the reason we have {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirects. I don't think anyone, in any of these Thriller debates, has ever seriously questioned that a reader typing in "Thriller (album)" isn't overwhelmingly looking for the Michael Jackson album. It's one thing to pretend otherwise and redirect the "ambiguous" term to the disambiguation page, but the status quo—where "Thriller (album)" is deemed good enough to be the article title but isn't actually used as such—is completely illogical.

3. Did this happen? I know PDAB was an attempt to codify the opposite and got downgraded. If anything, more recent momentum has implicitly the idea of sub-primary topics. --BDD (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:BDD, thanks for answering

1. "No", exactly.

2. "Sure", exactly. So "term" in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC means "term" not "term + (album)" which is not addressed.

3. "Did this happen?" - Yes, see WP:SONGDAB guideline page history, and its still happening; 3 or 4 song project editors in good faith no doubt but in effect want the (album) and (song) dabs to behave differently from every other (disambiguator) in en.Wikipedia, and this RM is part of that opinion by the same 3 or 4 editors against usual (footballer) (politician) dab rules. Wikipedia rejects sub-primary topics.

(4. but the status quo—where "Thriller (album)" is deemed good enough to be the article title but isn't actually used as such—is completely illogical. Irrelevant - that's an issue for redirects for discussion not RM)

So you have confirmed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to a parenthetically disambiguated term

Then you have confirmed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) unless it is at Thriller. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Just two questions for you:

1. Of readers who do type in "Thriller (album)", are most looking for this one?

2. Does the answer to question 1 matter? If not, why not? --BDD (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support There's a longstanding, essentially unchallenged consensus that this is the primary topic for the term "Thriller (album)". It's true that there's no guidance on "sub-primary" or "secondary primary" topics, but that hardly means they're proscribed. There's absolutely no reason not go with the more WP:CONCISE title here. The argument that omitting "Michael Jackson" will confuse readers is completely spurious as long as the more concise term redirects here anyway. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support, my reasons are archived. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Now this has reached the Backlog time to close: Any nom contrary to guidelines which doesn't garner enough support to overturn the guideline should be a simple close In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

So does Talk:Kid vs. Kat, Talk:Jay-Z , Talk:Zombie (fictional) and multiple RMs that have been open for more time than this RM (in neither I can see you asking the same, interestingly). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

An RM discussion is supposed to be where we discuss the pros and cons of the proposal, not where we provide partisan guidance to the closer. The guidelines argue for conciseness and for the selection of primary topics. There is no suggestion anywhere that disambiguators are an exception to these rules. The history of WP:PDAB suggests that they are not. NotUnusual (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This proposal is against WP:DAB and WP:SONGDAB. Those other proposals are not. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Are several points. Keep like at the present time. Chrishonduras (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The debate is currently running at Oppose: 10 and Support: 8. Since the debate has been running for well over a month, I propose to close as "no consensus". Any objections?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for this note. It does need to be closed. I would ask you to consider two points raised during the discussion, 1. Whether there is a guideline that supports the nomination and, 2. Whether there should be a moratorium period before another nomination to move. Those that supported the move may have other issues they wish to be covered. Again, good luck, rather you than me. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• I would also thank for the close (I requested it above). And again I think WP:DAB/WP:INCDAB and WP:SONGDAB should be confirmed in the close and a moratorium. User:NotUnusual hasn't voted but has an ongoing sock investigation. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Should be "Support: 9"; my opening the RM is an implicit support !vote. I don't think a waiting period is needed - all of the previous RMs took place well over a year ago. Obviously a new RM should not be started right away, but that's just common sense. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:36, 8 February 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Thriller (Michael Jackson album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090304204603/http://music.consumerhelpweb.com:80/artists/jackson/thriller.htm to http://music.consumerhelpweb.com/artists/jackson/thriller.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070223090405/http://www.vh1.com:80/artists/az/jackson_michael/bio.jhtml to http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/jackson_michael/bio.jhtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Thriller (Michael Jackson album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080329232427/http://zm.nu/detalle.php?base=zmnews&lay=cgi&form=detalle&tok4=notici&tok5=Noticias&id=17840 to http://zm.nu/detalle.php?base=zmnews&lay=cgi&form=detalle&tok4=notici&tok5=Noticias&id=17840

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Eight Week Recording Period

Please help me understand here why some of us are little too particular about branding contributions by others as "unsupported". It is chronologically and mathematically impossible for an 8-week recording period to span from April 14, 1982 to November 8, 1982? I very much understand the need for sources to be verified, but common sense also does somewhat apply here. It is concrete and definitive fact that sessions ended for Thriller on November 8, 1982. Yet, the first recording was done between April 14-16th. Clearly recording did not end in June 1982, which is an estimated 8 weeks after April 16, 1982. So what would it be then? In a number of documentaries, I have observed dates given out as "late 1982", "fall of 1982", or "8 weeks" related to the Thriller project. The best fit for these would be September 6 to November 8, 1982, which itself is a chronologically exact to 8 weeks. I am not some vandal that dreams up dates for the hell of it or to discredit Wikipedia as reliable source. It is in fact the opposite, as well as myself trying to provide highly in-depth history on the creation process of every topic on Wikipedia.---Carmaker1 (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2017

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. A new RfD is warranted for Thriller (album). (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Thriller (Michael Jackson album) → Thriller (album) – Page views clearly indicate this Thriller album is at least 200 times more likely to be sought than any of the other albums named Thriller. WP:PDAB was rejected as guideline, and rightfully so. The notion that partial disambiguations should not be article titles is not accepted by community consensus. This album IS the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Thriller (album) and that's why that title is currently a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article. The question before us therefore is which title meets WP:CRITERIA better. Thriller (album) is more WP:CONCISE and natural than the current title. Nobody is going to confuse or expect any other album to be at this title, it's perfectly recognizable and as precise as required for any primary topic. Including "Michael Jackson" in the title is something of any insult to perhaps the most popular album of all time - it is obviously unnecessary disambiguation. В²C ☎ 00:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are multiple unrelated albums by the same title. Having Thriller (album) redirect to one is of benefit to none. For Michael Jackson, it will have to be parenthetically disambiguated, and links piped, regardless, there is absolutely no downside to the longer disambiguation, and there is a downside for people thwarted by the wrong page loading when they want one of the 1970s albums. Thriller (album) should redirect to Thriller#Albums. WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is currently wrong. All the titles involved are sufficiently concise. The proposed is not perfectly recognizable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You know there is a consensus for the redirect, right?, a discussion you also participated in. I'm saying that because of the implicit attempt of ignoring such consensus by saying "Thriller (album) should redirect to Thriller#Albums. WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is currently wrong." Also, if wrong, go there and fix it there, not here. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

No, User:Tbhotch, I did not know, and I do not see or remember participating in it. If I did, I would have contributed my arguments in favour of dab pages being very helpful to everyone, with presumptive redirects being quite unhelpful to the minorities, and that Wikipedia should not make titling and redirect decisions in attempts to emulate google behaviours. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

My bad. I mistook you with another user whose username starts with S and participated in a similar RFD. Back to the redirect itself, although it is helpful that Thank You (song), properly redirect to a dab page--because of the generic and overused that title is-- it is not necessarily helpful to have a high traffic redirect like this going to a dab page, mainly because most people are being lead to the place they most likely wanted. That's why 'Tis the Season is always a most viewed page during Christmas, and instead of avoiding this--that has occurred 3 years in a row, we still having it as a dab page on the unsourced premise people in fact want the dab page and not the song "Deck the Halls" © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries. On 'Tis the Season, I would likely support it being a redirect to Deck_the_Halls#Lyrics considering it is over 150 years old. I might hesitate, because it is to a section title, not an article title. I note, as if usually the case, the internal search engine gives good results. Against PRIMARYREDIRECT in this case is that the two other Thriller albums are older than Jackson's, and I oppose new commercial products usurping older topics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose fails WP:TITLE and is against naming guidelines and policies. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose if it was the primary topic, it would simply be at Thriller. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Good point. Or maybe it is the primary topic of all uses of Thriller, and that has been overlooked? [3]. --В²C ☎ 16:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't name, or rename, articles in order not to "insult" inanimate objects, such as albums, regardless of their popularity. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As if that was the only or even main reason for the proposal. Sigh. --В²C ☎ 16:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • And what's wrong with personification of an album anyway? It's like saying your car doesn't appreciate being driven hard when it's cold - everyone knows you don't mean the car literally doesn't appreciate it. This is one of the most popular albums of all time and everybody, certainly anybody searching for it, knows it is by Michael Jackson, and if the artist is not mentioned then it must the MJ one. That's what I meant by the album being "insulted". It's just another way of saying the extra information does not accurately reflect the extraordinary and extremely-well-known position this album holds in the music world. --В²C ☎ 21:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • "one of the most popular albums of all time". Now that is a good argument. What people are searching for is not, we are not google, they will find it anyway, I have a problem with bigger fish obscuring the little fish, making it hard to find the little fish when you don't even care about the bigger fish. "Most popular albums of all time" implies that no one who cares about an album should not care. Top? It is #20 on http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/2003/rs500albums1.htm, which is pretty good. Thriller (Eddie and the Hot Rods album) and Thriller (Cold Blood album), does everyone who cares for these know they have to look behind the later Thriller (Michael Jackson album)? Probably. However, I am not persuaded that for a downloaded PDF used down stream, "Thriller (album)" is a better title (the very big text on the top of the first page) than "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)". Both render in one line, the first produces more whitespace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

      

      The current title is just the right length to perfectly suit A4 rendering, although the italics fail to render. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 23:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

      • • Note also the ugliness of the hatnote in downstream use of the article. Better titling means less hatnotes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
      • "I have a problem with bigger fish obscuring the little fish, making it hard to find the little fish when you don't even care about the bigger fish." The community cares about this too, and that's why we have hatnote links and dab pages. Anyway, your point is a red herring. Putting this page at "Thriller (album)" instead of "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)" has no effect on how easy it is to find the other Thriller albums, especially since "Thriller (album)" is already a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article. --В²C ☎ 00:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I think that is wrong. Putting this page at Thriller (album) means that Thriller (Eddie and the Hot Rods album) and Thriller (Cold Blood album) searchers will arrive, meaning that forever the ugly hatnote is required, and makes the wanted pages harder to find because they have just downloaded a large unwanted page. If Thriller (album) were to redirect to Thriller#Albums, and this page titled unambiguously, then no hatnotes are required, and the downstream rendered use need not include the hatnote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
          • This proposal is based on the assumption that Thriller (album) being a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article has community consensus support, which recognizes this Thriller as the primary topic album for "Thriller". If that's wrong that's a related but separate discussion that should be had in a separate section after this discussion is over. But assuming it's right, do you still object to this proposal? On what grounds? --В²C ☎ 01:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
            • To me, Thriller (album) being a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is a mistake, though not a terribly serious one because I know of no good reason to care about parenthetical redirects, they are not search terms, and double redirects are routinely eliminated. compounding the mistake to impact the article title makes it serious. So, no, I don't agree that a PRIMARYREDIRECT in place is reason to rename an article. The RfD discussion was not couched as an article rename discussion, and so it should not be used to as a reason to move the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
              • I didn't say or suggest the PRIMARYREDIRECT is the reason to move the article, not in the nom, nor in my subsequent comments. The reason to move the article is because of what underlies that particular primary redirect: that this Thriller is recognized to be (by far) the most likely album to be sought by anyone searching for an album named Thriller. And, by the way, it is by far the most historically significant album named Thriller. --В²C ☎ 19:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
                • The PRIMARYREDIRECT has got it wrong, which means the supposed underlying reason is faulty. "Most historically significant" requires mention, caveats, of other Thriller albums that preceded. MJ's would be more significant if it were the first. How can there be something more than most? What people are most likely to search for is google's business, not the business of Wikipedia. "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)" is undoubtedly recognized for precisely what it is, "Thriller (album)" fails Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title "Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects" because there are multiple unrelated topics that could be titled so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the all reasons already discussed already. The nominator uses, in his nomination, the expression, "unnecessary disambiguation" which cannot be true. If there are two things with the same name there must be some kind of disambiguation. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "If there are two things with the same name there must be some kind of disambiguation" - true, but only for one of them. All of the other albums named Thriller are disambiguated further; so disambiguating this primary use album named Thriller (beyond "album") is unnecessary. --В²C ☎ 18:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous !votes. For comparison, see also Talk:The Passage (Cronin novel)#Requested move 14 March 2017 where the opposite {The Passage (novel) → The Passage (Cronin novel)} is currently being discussed. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This should stay fully disambiguated, and the other title should just redirect to the disambiguation page. kennethaw88 • talk 02:05, 19 March 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Thriller (Michael Jackson album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/Winners/Results.aspx?title=&winner=Michael%20Jackson&year=0&genreID=0&hp=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-20120531/michael-jackson-thriller-20120524
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/259585/review/6067502/off_the_wal
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://music.consumerhelpweb.com/artists/jackson/thriller.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/michaeljackson/biography
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/michael-jackson/albumguide
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?ID=1777
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thewrongadvices.com/lazy-monkey/1500-prisoners-perform-thriller-dance/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockhall.com/pressroom/definitive-200
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122042616/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2008/05/14/08us-recregistry.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/30/idUS58333%2B30-Nov-2007%2BPRN20071130
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/cd_reviews/article3327950.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/7658/week-ending-may-18-2008-diva-smackdown-ends-with-ingenues-on-rise
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.infodisc.fr/B-CD_1983.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.offiziellecharts.de/charts/album-jahr/for-date-1983
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.offiziellecharts.de/charts/album-jahr/for-date-1984
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mtv.de/charts/Album_Jahrescharts_2009
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015223243/http://austriancharts.at/80er_album.asp to http://austriancharts.at/80er_album.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capif.org.ar/default.asp?CodOp=DILP&CO=2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/1994/199405.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afp.org.pt/estatisticas.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Thriller (Michael Jackson album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/Winners/Results.aspx?title=&winner=Michael%20Jackson&year=0&genreID=0&hp=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-20120531/michael-jackson-thriller-20120524
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/259585/review/6067502/off_the_wal
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://music.consumerhelpweb.com/artists/jackson/thriller.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/michaeljackson/biography
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?ID=1777
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thewrongadvices.com/lazy-monkey/1500-prisoners-perform-thriller-dance/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockhall.com/pressroom/definitive-200
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707235113/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2008/05/14/08us-recregistry.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/30/idUS58333%2B30-Nov-2007%2BPRN20071130
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/cd_reviews/article3327950.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/7658/week-ending-may-18-2008-diva-smackdown-ends-with-ingenues-on-rise
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.infodisc.fr/B-CD_1983.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.offiziellecharts.de/charts/album-jahr/for-date-1983
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.offiziellecharts.de/charts/album-jahr/for-date-1984
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mtv.de/charts/Album_Jahrescharts_2009
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015223243/http://austriancharts.at/80er_album.asp to http://austriancharts.at/80er_album.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capif.org.ar/default.asp?CodOp=DILP&CO=2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/1994/199405.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afp.org.pt/estatisticas.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)