Jump to content

Talk:Protection (Massive Attack album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Untitled

Where is the verification for this album.--Iclaudius2 08:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Track 7 is given as "Euro Child" in the CD booklet.--109.193.211.159 (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Protection (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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 October 2016

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: page moved doesn't require RM, see naming guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Protection (album) → Protection (Massive Attack album) – homonymy with respect to Protection (Face to Face album). Horcrux92 (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
There was no consensus reached here, and no comments besides the nomination. I moved it back per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If consensus decides it's not the primary topic, then I will respect that, but this is the album that has been the primary topic (see page views and Google search results) for years and in my opinion, is more notable than an album that did not chart. If you want to re-open it, that's fine, just commenting about actions taken. Ss112 12:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: I'm saying that you shouldn't have moved the page without consensus when somebody asked for community input. I believe I also just cited a naming guideline, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so I don't know where you got the impression I wanted to change a guideline. If I were proposing the other article for deletion, I would have nominated it already. I don't particularly care about it. Ss112 13:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I ask again, are you proposing the other article for deletion, or are you proposing that Wikipedia's naming guidelines be changed? What are you doing? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it, and I believe I just told you Google search results and page views show the Massive Attack album is the primary topic. Don't just repeat silly questions at me. Ss112 13:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have read it then you have not paid attention, please re-read it. Primary topic applies to Protection, which is a dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And where does it say the primary topic cannot mean an album already disambiguated with "(album)"? Ss112 13:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here "If no article is preferred to be the primary topic, then the disambiguation page will remain the primary landing page." In ictu oculi (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this isn't preferred to be the primary album to you, hence why you're debating it? The discussion should have been had to disambiguate ie further first. This is going nowhere. Ss112 13:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: there is no such thing as "primary album". You are not a new user, you should know how titling works. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many albums under the same title as a pre-existing album come out years later and only those are disambiguated by artist and album, leaving the original album as is. If others disagree with those, they should have a discussion, as was being done here. I will bear in mind that your interpretation is that this can't apply to articles with the title "(album)" in future, but from my reading of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it doesn't exclude qualified pages. If you still have an issue, please re-nominate it to be moved. Ss112 13:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be needed to teach someone the basics of WP:DISAMBIGUATION: "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). In ictu oculi (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look, that's great, but you're being condescending now because you think I don't know what it says when I'm telling you I'm focusing on a different part that I interpret to mean an item one considers to be primary (in this case, an album) under an already disambiguated namespace can stay there while others are only disambiguated further (as in, later albums). Also, please stop attempting to have a tandem discussion on my talk page. It isn't going to achieve anything you can't already say here. Ss112 13:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And everyone else is wrong? Eventually other comments are going to accumulate here, and you'll be saying the same to them. But then eventually they're going to mount up, and then what, you're going to notice that the article corpus doesn't have "primary xyz" with incomplete (parentheses) in every subject area? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, I won't be fighting this like you fought the consensus that established that the only song or album that has an article doesn't have to be disambiguated (that logic doesn't apply to this discussion, just saying). At no point did I say that the guideline explicitly said "primary album"; I said it doesn't say that and that was in conjunction with what I read on the page. I don't care anymore. If you have an issue, IIO, either request a move or start another discussion—one that doesn't involve me. Ss112 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But Protection (Face to Face album) has an article. This isn't a case where content on an album is included in a band article. What are you doing here? Do you intend to propose deletion of the other album? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: I believe I've already said all I want to say. You're going around in circles. Goodbye. Ss112 17:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 October 2016

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: Move. The nominator is right, this is a mess. The governing guideline here is incomplete disambiguation: generally speaking, when a specific, disambiguated title could refer to more than one article, it's not a suitable name and should point to a dab page instead. There are exceptions to this, eg Tommy (album), but those generally come about through consensus that one topic is so much more prominent that the standard rule should be ignored. Clearly, this isn't one of those situations. Additionally, the early close on October 5 caused more confusion than it resolved; I'll remind everyone that if there's a chance that a move will be challenged by someone, it's best to let the RM process run its course. Cúchullain t/c 14:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Protection (album) → Protection (Massive Attack album) – What a mess! First it was further disambiguated without consensus soon after the first RM was started. Then someone else reverts it. I'm re-proposing on Horcrux92's behalf. George Ho (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Please just let it be known that I never actually had an issue with this being moved to Protection (Massive Attack album) if consensus established such. It was only the undiscussed move by IIO I had an issue with, as they do many of these types of moves, which then led to policies being quoted and interpreted and IIO unnecessarily posting on my talk page at least 10 times. I will post more at the Arbitration discussion. Ss112 05:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not, in my book. We're not required to do anything that doesn't make sense and serve the reader. Most people clicking on "Tommy (album)" in the search box are expecting the Who album, we assume, so we serve them that.
So the question is, is this case like that? To my mind, we should only deploy the concept of "primary album" when there's a clear and very large disparity between the albums, of an order of magnitude, as in the Who/Wedding Present example. I don't know enough about these bands to form an opinion yet. Massive Attack is not the Beatles, and Protection is not Sergeant Pepper. And Face to Face are not chopped liver. They actually have a longer discography than Massive Attack. On the other hand, they have apparently a much lower sales volume, and according to the article "Protection [by Massive Attack] was featured in the top ten of Rolling Stone magazine's 'Coolest Albums of All Time List'" which if true (there's no ref) sounds pretty important.
I guess one question to ask is "what percentage of people, on clicking on 'Protection (album)' in the search box, would be surprised and annoyed to be taken to the Massive Attack album rather than the Face to Face album?" Well according to this pageview data, for every person who reads the Face to Face album article, 30 people read the Massive Attack album article. I'm not going to vote yet, but that's a pretty big disparity, and I'd like to hear how people supporting the move address that. Herostratus (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: isn't the problem with having 1 exception out of 10,000 articles in any scenario that a singular exception in itself is disruptive? There are in fact four Tommy albums with articles not 2, so to have (album) on only one of them does not even help Who fans looking for the other two Who-related soundtrack and musical albums. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptions are not a problem for the reader. We are here to serve the reader, who neither knows nor cares about our internal standards. Exceptions could be a problem if they are sufficiently disruptive to our internal functioning such that it materially impeded our editing process. But it would be silly to claim that is the case here. (Re the detailed particulars of that particular album, I don't have an opinion, but it's just an example.) Herostratus (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It says here that "Tommy (album) gets viewed 706 times a day while for "Tommy (The Wedding Present album)" it is 4 times a day. Given that, I guess my questions would be:
  1. What do people clicking on "Tommy (album)" in the search box mostly expect, in your opinion?
  2. Assuming that the answer is "The Who album", what goes in the blank: "But even so, when readers click on "Tommy (album)" in the search box, we unfortunately have to amaze and inconvenience them by going to Tommy#Music, in order to serve this greater good: __________". I'm genuinely interested in what goes in the blank. I must be missing something? Herostratus (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other Wikipedians may feel differently, but I would have no objection to "personalized redirects", formulated as Tommy album or Protection album, that would point directly towards such heavily-trafficked "prime" topics. Logically, those who have only a rudimentary familiarity with Wikipedia searches would type "Tommy" / "Protection" or "Tommy album" / "Protection album", rather than the "official" / "Wikified" forms "Tommy (album)" / "Protection (album)" which should point to the respective dab pages, thus following closely and upholding standard forms of qualifier-based disambiguation, rather than raising some qualifiers as "more equal" than others. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Wikipedia searchbox doesn't distinguish parens when filling out the the search box -- thus typing "Tommy album" will bring up "Tommy (album)" as the autosuggest and you can then click on that. That's what I meant. Herostratus (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As of this writing, typing "Tommy album" will, indeed, bring up "Tommy (album)" as the autosuggest. However, if the proposed theoretical redlinks were to be actually created, then the search will display "Tommy album" above "Tommy (album)". Clicking upon Tommy album would link directly to Tommy (The Who album), while clicking upon Tommy (album) would lead to Tommy#Music in the same manner as clicking upon Protection (album) would lead to Protection#Music. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but anyway all those redirects don't exist and it would take some heavy lifting to get that scheme accepted. Or, maybe better, the software could be directed "If the user types 'X Y' and hits Enter but 'X Y' does not exist but 'X (Y)' does, go to 'X '(Y)'". But again, if wishes were horses... Herostratus (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

James Brown

Why doesn't James Brown have a writer credit on the title track when he has one for "Better Things"? The samples in Protection are well known to be from a JB song and they're essential to the fabric of the entire song. Weird. I know he wouldn't have been listed as co-composer of every single track that ever sampled him, but the samples here really are part of what drives the new track. 192.121.232.253 (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, so because the band themselves didn't list those samples in the cd booklet it means they aren't legit. You people are simply stupid. The samples exist, they're obvious and they are quite well known by people in the hiphop and r'n'b scene. Oh by the way, I thought Wiki Peeky had some RULE nixing sources provided by the person/s an article is dealing with, in their own name: the cd booklet is a typical primary source and thus picking material from it that isn't cited by an RS elsewhere should not be allaaaawed? ;)
Come on, now where's your secondary RS that Eurochild samples this or that track by James Bradbury? :D 195.67.149.171 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Protection_(Massive_Attack_album)&oldid=1211328006"