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
Attune is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
(cur | prev) 16:02, 31 July 2018 CambridgeBayWeather (talk | contribs) m . . (4,115 bytes) 0 . . (CambridgeBayWeather moved page Attune (Lenka album) to Attune over redirect: Not necessary to have disambiguation)
What about the basic meaning of the word, the companies? And how notable is this non-charting album? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Attune is" as a noun in books seems to refer to the 1908-present US cereal company if anything. On that basis have reverted above move and turned the baseline into a dab. This is without prejudice to anyone wishing to propose a RM arguing that the non-charting Australian album meets both criteria for PRIMARYTOPIC, but as mentioned it fails the second, and is only borderline on the first. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi, this is evidence that you knew your move was potentially controversial and therefore you should have gone through RM. Shame on you, since I’ve reminded you about this many, many times. The original move you just ”reverted” was addressing basic unnecessary disambiguation almost two years ago, long before you just created a dab page and when the obscure Attune Foods had only just been created. Nothing controversial about that original move and you had no basis to revert it. You know you should have created your new dab page at Attune (disambiguation) and filed your own RM to see if the community agrees with your “no primary topic” opinion. Now somebody else has to do it. I, for one, think that’s disruptive. —В²C☎ 15:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reverting a move that was moved without discussion. It's only "controversial" to one user. But seeing as I can see that you are spoiling for trouble have self-reverted. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi, thank you. Please note that just because only one user says something doesn't mean it's only controversial to that one user. And also please remember that you're supposed to use RM not only for moves that are known to be controversial, but also for any moves that are potentially controversial (Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves). Hint: any situation involving judgement about whether there is a primary topic and, if so, which topic that may be is, at least, potentially controversial. Thanks again. --В²C☎ 17:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made corresponding corrections/improvements on the dab page[1] and to the hatnote on the album's article[2]. --В²C☎ 18:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
