Talk:Lifeforms (The Future Sound of London album)

More

I am currently working on all FSOL stuff and will add more to this page also. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

a bit more

Still need to add a bit more to this, considering its status, I will try soon, still working on other FSOL stuff that needs attention, any help would be appreciated. :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Future Sound of London - Room 208.ogg

The image Image:Future Sound of London - Room 208.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lifeforms Video

Remember the video of lifeforms that had all the "Paths" with all kinds of awesoem computer graphics? I will try and find some info on that asap but if anyone else can help with that, and provide references, ten that would be great. Thanks. Oh and ill have a look at the fair use issue above this post. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 20:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE Fixed the rationale issue with Room 208 sample. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 20:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. 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: moved. I sympathise with Dohn joe's position, but the consensus here is that the long term significance/education value citerion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC outweighs the usage criterion. The consensus is also that Lifeforms should redirect to List of life forms. Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Lifeforms → Lifeforms (album) – No primary topic for "lifeforms", or if there is it would be biological "lifeforms" see Google Books, retarget to Lifeform (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Usually, a plural form should redirect to its corresponding singular (e.g., chairs to chair). Rarely, though, an encyclopedic topic exists at a plural form that does not match the dictionary word. When that happens, we run the usual WP:PRIMARYTOPIC test. This test gets to be complicated in cases where a title shares a name with an ordinary word. Of course, in any Google Books or similar search, the word will appear much more often than the particular topic. But which predominates as an encyclopedic topic?

  Further complicating things is our policy at WP:SINGULAR and WP:PLURAL. We generally use singular titles when we can, meaning that readers are much less likely to encounter a plural form as a title, and editors are less likely to link to a plural form as a link. (For the latter, check "What links here" to see how successfully editors are linking to the band versus the biology concept.) This means that there is a lower bar in assessing the best usage of a plural form. Most of the time - the vast majority of the time - a plural should point to its singular counterpart. But when there's a more notable usage of the plural form, that topic should be able to take the plural title. Examples are Windows, Bookends, Planters, Celebrations, and, yes, this album. It might not be the White Album, but it's a well-referenced article about an influential avant-garde album, with a few hundred hits on Google Books.

  In this case, it is appropriate for the plural term "lifeforms" to direct here. (And yes, I've put quite a bit of thought into this issue lately....) Dohn joe (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't think this is in the mega-notable household name category as Windows or Friends but we'll see what others think. Given that the RM will be notified automatically to WikiProject Albums WikiProject Electronic music and WikiProject Rave, I have left what I hope is a neutral notification at WikiProject Biology (which seems to be inactive anyway). In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support renaming the current subject to Lifeforms (album), but lifeforms should point to the same target as lifeform, which is currently List of life forms. bd2412 T 03:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  See stats below - what do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support moving the album, it is not the primary topic of "lifeforms". Preferentially retagert to lifeform; less preferred retarget to disambiguation page. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  See stats below - what do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  The album does not show up at all under Google Book Search , Google News Search , Google Scholar Search , so clearly is not the primary topic. Indeed, it is the article at lifeform according to these searches. Even regular Google Search is dominated by lifeform results -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  No, you just need a different search: Google Books, Google Scholar. The album has in fact received a goodly amount of scholarly and journalistic attention. Which is the best explanation for why Lifeforms has received more hits than Lifeform. Don't you think? Dohn joe (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  That is a small amount of results compared to the non-restricted version that shows all uses of "lifeforms", not just "future sound" uses. So, clearly not the primary topic per your own search results, when compared to the nonrestricted results for all uses -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

  Well, the tricky thing is when you have a dictionary word like "lifeform" and you are trying to figure out the encyclopedic usage. Any word in the dictionary will have more uses in texts than any encyclopedic usage. See Windows, Friends, and Bookends. Any search will show that those words are used more often as words than they are to describe the encyclopedic usage. That's why the comparison between Lifeform and Lifeforms is so helpful. It shows a direct comparison between the singular and plural of a word, with the plural getting significantly more views than the singular. The best explanation for that is that people are seeking the album much more than they are the biological concept. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

  It is only Wikipedia convention that we use the dictionary primary spelling to title our articles as the Singular Form, instead Plural Form, from inspection of the Google Book titles, the world at large will use plural form to indicate groups and classes just as or more readily than the singular form. So, I think the primary topic is what the results say (lifeform), because Wikipedia convention on article title spellings does not determine primary topic of any particular spelling. For instance, Wikipedia category naming convention uses plurals, that is by Wikipedia convention, not some global indication that singulars aren't also used for categorization in the world at large. Wikipedia spelling and primary topicness should be treated as separate factors in article names. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support with BD2412's modification. Since the singular already points to the list, the plural should as well. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  See stats below - what do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  Changing to oppose based on the information provided below. Also, if you type "Lifeform" into the search box, "Lifeforms" is the second entry, after the singular. So I think Dohn joe's point is well made: users would intentionally be looking for the album at this page title. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Readers who intentionally enter the plural "lifeforms" are very likely looking for this album. Here are 90-day stats:

  Lifeforms - 3,826

  Lifeform - 450

Normally, it goes the other way - when a singular and plural are both redirects, the singular usually wins by a wide margin:

courgette - 4,202

courgettes - 664

minicab - 890

minicabs - 191

Given that "Lifeforms" is viewed so much more often than "Lifeform", I think it's safe to say that this album is much more likely to be sought by our readers than the plural of "lifeform". Dohn joe (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Many page views (the majority?) are from links. Peter James (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

    Well, wouldn't that be true for most terms and their plurals? "Lifeforms" still does not follow the above pattern. Dohn joe (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

    • It does follow a pattern: the number of page views is related to the number of links to the page, and can be misleading when determining the primary topic. List of life forms has more views than Lifeforms. Lifeform should probably be an article or disambiguation page, not a redirect to a list that doesn't mention plant life-form or others; Lifeforms should be a disambiguation page or redirect to one as there appears to be no primary topic, also as the article has been at this title for several years and may have links to it from external sites. Redirecting to or replacing with a disambiguation page at least indicates "this link needs disambiguating". Peter James (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

      I guess the question is: what is your evidence for saying this album is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Lifeforms"? According to Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC#Determining_a_primary_topic, "what links here" and pageviews are two of the best and most common tools for determining a primary topic. Those tools suggest that this album is it, as all of the links (as far as I can tell) to "Lifeforms" are to this album, and I've already shown above the pageview evidence. Dohn joe (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

      Yes, but any comparison should be with List of life forms or something else on the disambiguation page, not with Lifeform, as redirects usually have fewer incoming links and consequently fewer page views than articles. Peter James (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

      That's why I only used redirects in my comparison - courgette and minicab are both redirects. So we see that in a normal redirect situation, the singular outdraws the plural by quite a bit. Here, the situation is reversed - "Lifeforms" well outdraws "Lifeform". That, plus the incoming links, indicates that the album actually is the primarytopic for "Lifeforms". Dohn joe (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

      But here you're comparing a redirect with an article. I don't think that List of life forms is primary, but that there is no primary topic, and I oppose making Lifeforms a redirect to that article. Peter James (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

      But the only other article that uses the plural form is a song from this album. The unusual traffic going to a plural form is why I think there is a primarytopic here. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

      List of life forms has been viewed 4922 times in the last 90 days, that is more than the album. Besides which we don't count page views since page views always tend to trivial subjects. Per WP:CRITERIA and WP:ASTONISH we shouldn't have "lifeforms" meaning a pop album even if the page views were 5x or 10x more than biology, which isn't the case. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

      If they were 5x or 10x or more we probably would - Friends is getting approximately five times the page views of Friendship. Peter James (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm surprised it is that low, I would have expected Friends (TV show) to get 100x the hits of Friends (real people). But anyway in this case the situation is reversed, List of life forms/Lifeform has been viewed 4922 times in the last 90 days, which is more than the album. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

But that's not a direct comparison. The direct comparison is "lifeform" versus "lifeforms". Readers and editors have a strong predisposition to using and seeing the singular form. When the plural form gets so many more hits, there's a reason why. How else do you explain "lifeform" vs. "lifeforms", but "courgette" vs. "courgettes" or "minicab" vs. "minicabs"? Dohn joe (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I explain it that there isn't a pop music album for Courgettes. But rather than say more, this RM is going to need a relist to get broader input... In ictu oculi (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Redirect Lifeforms to List of life forms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. For reasons of long term and academic significance, the primary topic of the subject "lifeforms" is the biological usage, not the popular music one. Page views are but one factor in assessing primary topic status, to which a consensus may choose to given reduced weight when obvious academic concerns take precedence. Such is the case here. Per BD2421, redirect "lifeforms" to List of life forms. Xoloz (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

  That may be fine for "Lifeform" (singular). But don't the pageview stats above show that for people who intentionally add the "s" to the title, they are much more likely to be searching for this album? Wouldn't we be making it more difficult for a larger segment of our readership to find what they're looking for if this move goes through? Dohn joe (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Dohn joe, as previously it would help if you could explain how you believe that someone looking for the album can see Lifeforms (album) then deliberately navigate past it and click Lifeforms. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean, "as previously"? And it would be wonderful if you would explain why someone who types "lifeforms" and hits enter should not be sent to the article they actually want to read. Dohn joe (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I previously asked you to explain how (album) will send people who are looking for the album away from the album. When I type in [Lifef.. ] on my mobile I get Lifeform Lifeforce (film) Lifeforms (song) etc, and I can choose which I want. Likewise on the top right box, autofill provides the same options. Third with Google I can see the options. Why would I deliberately walk past Lifeforms (album) if I am looking for Lifeforms album? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The whole point is that (album) here is superfluous - it's not necessary. We could add (whatever) to all our articles. Why not George Washington (U.S. president) - there have been other people and things named "George Washington". But if something is primarytopic, it's superfluous to add (whatever), because we've decided that it is helpful to a healthy majority of people interested in a particular title to take them straight to the article they want. Right now, someone who types "Lifeforms" into the searchbox and hits Enter gets taken straight to this article. I think the pageview stats show that this is the article those people want. Why do you want to make it more difficult for a higher percentage of our readers to find the article they're looking for? Dohn joe (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What operating system are you using that doesn't display Lifeform Lifeforce (film) Lifeforms (song)? I get these results on PC, Mac, Android, iPhone, ...and of course Google displays more. Why doesn't your system display these options? Have you disabled autofill? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

?? I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be sarcasm, but I don't get it.... Dohn joe (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Dohn joe, it's not sarcasm, not remotely, it's a straightforward technical question - why are you not getting the autofill options for search other users get as described by User:Stfg also below. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support, and I also support redirecting to List of life forms per BD2412. Imho the biological use is the primary topic. Number of page views does not prove primary topic. --Stfg (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, pageviews is one of the primary ways to prove primary topic, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And for a good reason. It's an excellent way to figure out where our readers want to go. Why is it better to send them to an article that they're not interested in? Dohn joe (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, it isn't. It's just one of the many "Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons)" (my emphasis). Imo In ictu oculi has explained very well how that unreliability and potential bias can arise. By the way, on typing "Lifef" in the search box, I get the plural in 3rd place and the singular in 7th place, so it would be very easy to overlook the singular and click on the unwanted link to the album. --Stfg (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  It's not absolute, but pageviews is one of the primary ways to determine primarytopic. Go to any random selection of RMs and you'll find that's the case. In any event, would you mind answering the question I posed: Why is it better to send them to an article that they're not interested in? Dohn joe (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  It's a leading question based on a false premise. As has been pointed out, if they are interested in an album called Lifeforms, then calling it "Lifeforms (album)" won't send them to an article they aren't interested in. Otoh, I imagine that we are currently sending people interested in the biological concept to an article they aren't interested in. --Stfg (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  Okay - I'm sorry, I think we're starting from different places. To me, the pageviews above strongly suggest that most people searching for "Lifeforms" on WP are looking for this album. Right now, certainly, we are sending some people to an article they don't want. I'm just suggesting that if we change this title, then we will be sending more people to an article they don't want than we are currently. Does that make sense? Or, how about this - we rename the redirect to List of life forms Lifeforms (biology). Surely, that would help direct the smaller number of people who want the biology concept get where they want. Would that work? Dohn joe (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  No, I don't think we'd send more people to the wrong article as a result of the proposed move; I think we'd send fewer. I don't see any benefit at all in moving the list as you suggest. I really don't see how an album that charted at #6 in the UK in 1994, and that most people won't even have heard of, can be the primary topic over the biological concept. Finally, forgive me for saying so, but I think you're bludgeoning the process. --Stfg (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  Wow, okay. I thought I was just trying to understand people's positions and get them to understand mine, but if it seems like I was domineering, I can back off. Just to be clear, that last proposal was to keep the article at List of life forms, but create a new redirect to it at Lifeforms (biology). Sorry if I was coming on too strong. Dohn joe (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2014 (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.