Talk:Unlikely

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Brazil

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Rock music

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 16 September 2018[edit]

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, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely → Unlikely (album) – WP:ASTONISH, DAB, from Jeffrey Brown (cartoonist) and Probability, notice that Likely was originally a redirect there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/560934/unlikely-by-jeffrey-brown/ this looks like dab territory In ictu oculi (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support PER ATONISH. CookieMonster755 ✉ 03:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no clear primary topic. Probability obviously has the most claim to primacy, but a dab page at the base term is the best option since the page views of this article are low, suggesting people aren't searching for that article via this term. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP is not a dictionary. This appears the only WP:notable encyclopedic topic of "Unlikely" that we've got. No one is going to search for or link to Probability using "Unlikely", so a dab page or redirect is not going to help our readers or editors. Dohn joe (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment our article on probability doesn't even mention the word "unlikely" right now. The best discussion I can find about the use of the word "unlikely" in that topic area is words of estimative probability. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Until this article was created Unlikely was a red link, taking the reader nowhere, and rightfully so. Disambiguation is totally unnecessary. There is nothing wrong or astonishing about being sent to an album called Unlikely, the one and only topic with that name, when searching with unlikely IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. WP:NOT A DICTIONARY. --В²C ☎ 20:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: If if was red then the other options (like this argument) and the Wiktionary link show up in the search box. Thanks to SmokeyJoe's findings I'd say that you're comment here is relevant as we're not making Unlikely to a primary redirect, but just to a DAB. If you want to disambiguate the one and only use of Freston, then I don't see why we can't do it here, and take a look at Certainly and Definitely. Often there is no DAB entry or hatnote for surname holders, such as Langstone (until it was disambiguated) and Cranham. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The new title is at least minimally descriptive. Omnedon (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Likely is a concept fundamental to likelihood and probability. The current structure of these articles is non-ideal, I recommend reverting the redirection of likelihood to this version.

Unlikely (album) is a commercial product seeking to capitalize from a simple well-known word, and Wikipedia should not facilitate commercialization of common words by allowing them to grab Wikipedia's PRIMARYTOPIC status. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is a solution in search of a problem. If approved, it will, at best, be a sophisticated alternative to a much simpler change that should probably address the concern raised here: a hatnote pointing the reader to probability. Also, this article's traffic is too low (as one of the supporters pointed out) for us to assume we're astonishing the visitors. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 06:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If the title weren’t ambiguous, a hatnote wouldn’t be needed. Hatnotes clutter prime real estate of the article, the title space has room for 42 characters in the standard (PDF) output. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've actually never said a hatnote is needed; I'm just proposing an alternate solution for a supposed problem. Also, if astonishing the readers is such a problem, we shouldn't consider moving this article to Unlikely (album) without actually creating content on Unlikely. Btw, the title is not ambiguous. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 04:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The title is ambiguous because “unlikely” is a concept covered at probability. It is not uncommon for someone to be told something is “unlikely”. Unlikelihood is a topic, covered at probability. Your title text search you linked is blind to article content. Unlikely is a bad article title for multiple reasons, but I think the page you should read first is Wikipedia:Introduction to structurism. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:OVERPRECISION. It's unlikely many people are searching for "unlikely" on WP unless they expect to find Unlikely. Station1 (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Crouch, Swale and ASTONISH. The proposed title is more precise and recognizable than the current one, and given that adding the clarifier improves the reader experience and is consistent with the form we use for many other album article titles, it seems preferable. Also per SmokeyJoe, the significance and close association of terms such as "likely" and "unlikely" to the study of probability suggests that the clarifier is a reasonable addition. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NOTDICT, WP:TWODABS and the comments of other opposers above. — AjaxSmack 01:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From Special:Search/intitle:"Unlikely" Unlikely Brothers and Unlikely Brothers might be called "Unlikely" sometimes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Those look like WP:PTMs and thus should not be included as entries on any hypothetical dab page. I see no evidence that any reliable sources call "Unlikely Brothers" as "Unlikely". 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I expect so, its probably unlikely that they would be searched for with "Unlikely" (unlike Ford or Apple) but given as noted you certainly get something when you search for definitely its unlikely that the album is primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SmokeyJoe. People are unlikely to look for this album when searching for "unlikely". Flooded with them hundreds 05:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.