Talk:IFuturelist
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Remix?
[edit]Um... exactly which track on this one is a remix of "Your Rain"? There is no track there that sounds similar to that, or maybe it's just me...
-- I agree, I think this is false. ---This is definitely untrue. The vocals are completely different and the arrangement in no way resembles Your Rain. 70.161.101.249 03:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Adjust Rain is a remix of Your Rain. - Moogy 02:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I am fairly sure that Adjust Rain is not related to Your Rain in anyway. The songs are completely different.
Vocals?
[edit]I think Akira does all/most of the male vocals on this album. Shouldn't he be credited as a vocalist as well as a composer/musician?
-I think the only vocals Akira actually did was for iFUTURELIST and Lion Lover. According to Chudah's Corner [1], those two songs were the only vocals he actually sang. All the other songs (ex. Adjust Rain, policy of the iFUTURELIST party) were done by someone else. --This is correct.70.161.101.249 03:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Where can one get it?
[edit]Ok, I know this is not a forum, but where can one buy this album? amazon doesn't have it and is my choice for imports (i'm in México). Thanks. Vicco Lizcano 22:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)
Tracks similar to Silent Hill
[edit]It is said at text that there are some tracks similar to Silent Hill. I found no tracks at album that can be similar even slightly.
- "Adjust Rain", and maybe "Maria" to an extent, are probably the most like his Silent Hill work, although there are traces his raw instrumentation in a few others (e.g. "Love Me Do", "Empty of the Sky"). The album is, as Yamaoka has said, just a bit of fun so it shouldn't be expected to hear the mood of Silent Hill in the album much. Kenny-t (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Maria is actually from the Silent Hill 2 Soundtrack, it is the theme of the character of the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judamasmas (talk • contribs) 20:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Requested move
[edit]- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
IFuturelist → IFUTURELIST – I made an attempt to move this page in accord with WP:COMMONNAME, but I was unable to do so. The reason given was that the title IFUTURELIST is on the TITLE BLACKLIST. That was the link that was given for the blacklist. I checked that blacklist and every other associated page, to include the talk-page archives and the global title blacklist, but I could not find IFUTURELIST listed on any blacklist. While I was able to get the help of an admin to delete the redirect title, "IFUTURELIST", that admin is unfamiliar with the title blacklist and suggested that I go ahead with a page move request, as was also indicated to do on the move page. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 01:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. The WP:MOSCAPS and WP:MOSTM guidelines clearly state that we don't use decorative all-caps. --DAJF (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per MOS:TM and well established precedent. COMMONNAME is not at issue here because no one is proposing an alternate spelling. Powers T 12:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per MOS:TM. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. It's on the the black list because it has more than 9 capital letters in a row (ignoring punctuation). The relevant line of the black list is:
.*\p{Lu}(\P{L}*\p{Lu}){9}.* <casesensitive | moveonly> # Disallows moves with more than nine consecutive capital letters
- Dpmuk (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dpmuk. Can we gather that, if this move request is granted, an exception can be made? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 23:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Admins can move to titles on the blacklist if consensus is found to be for this move. Dpmuk (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dpmuk. Can we gather that, if this move request is granted, an exception can be made? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 23:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. The trademark and other guidelines cited are superceded by policy, specifically WP:COMMONNAME. It is maintained that those guidelines contradict that policy. Said policy is non-specific for details about characters in a title, however the policy is clear that article titles must be what readers expect them to be. Article titles are to be chosen by how familiar they are to readers. When readers come to this article, the familiar title they expect to see is "iFUTURELIST". Policy is also clear that readers' opinions take priority over the opinions of editors. Policy is handed down to us either by community consensus, or by the leaders of the foundation stepping in with their opinions based upon perhaps court judgements or their attorneys' recommendations. Guidelines are written by editors, and where those guidelines conflict with policy, policy takes priority. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 23:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Question: Have you found anyone that agrees with you yet? Maybe it's time to stop doing these moves.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if we include those several admins who helped make some of those page moves, and even one person who thanked me profusely on my talk page, yes, there are those who agree that the titles of articles should reflect what the readers are familiar with. However, I do not seek "agreement", per se. I seek a reading on long-standing policy vs. long-standing guidelines. I believe that when the guidelines guide us to title articles in ways that are not familiar to the readers of those articles, then they clearly contradict the COMMONNAME policy. If this is wrong, then I need to be shown why, and if I am wrong about this, I shall go back and revert those title changes myself. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 02:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yet, it seems that when an individual move is requested, the consensus is unanimously against your moves. WP:COMMONNAME#Standard English and trademarks is the section that most people apply, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Composition titles would seem to contradict your position as well.—Kww(talk) 02:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- The opposing vote!s generally cite the guidelines that are not in agreement with COMMONNAME policy. You have cited an interesting part of the policy, there, at SE&t, which would also appear to be in disagreement with the "familiar to readers" part of the policy further up the page. This gets gnarlier and gnarlier for me. You might note in that section that it talks about "ambiguous" titles, like "Manga", where capitalization (it is unclear whether it means first-letter or any-letter capitalization) is one possible way to disambiguate. It looks like it largely depends upon what is found in sources that are not the websites or other materials of the subject. Still, if we read the "familiar to readers" part with objectivity, it seems that article titles are required to reflect precisely what most readers who open Wikipedia to these articles would be familiar with and would expect to see. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 03:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I have told you several times, the familiarity provisions apply to the name of the subject, not how that subject is capitalized. When it comes to punctuation and capitalization, we follow standard English rules, and we have for years. The reason MOSTM is a guideline and not a policy is because sometimes we make exceptions when there are good reasons to do so (as with Yahoo!), not because it's strictly subordinate to COMMONNAME. COMMONNAME lays out broad goals but cannot account for every eventuality. There has never been any consensus for following odd capitalization or punctuation on any significant scale. Powers T 18:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, that all makes a lot of sense, Powers. And that is probably why those guidelines have been in existence for so long. It is also easy for me to see it from my perspective, which would account for the "broad goals" translation as a rationalization. When I read the COMMONNAME policy, it becomes clear to me that the guidelines are in strict contradiction of that policy, and not "translations" of "broad goals". We either adhere to policy and name our articles with titles that our readers are familiar with, or we don't. In this case, IFuturelist, we didn't. The only way to adhere to policy is to rename this article iFUTURELIST. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 21:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Policy is not found in a document, Paine. It's in the consensus of users of the site. The documents merely attempt to codify what consensus has already determined. To the extent that practice doesn't match the documentation, it's the documentation that's wrong, not the practice. In this case, if, as you say, your interpretation of the documentation is contrary to what we do, then perhaps the policy document needs to be updated. But what doesn't need to happen is to change what we do to match what you think the policy document requires. Powers T 23:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's entirely correct, Powers. Policies are sometimes the result of community consensus, but more often they are handed down by the foundation as the result of attorney recommendations and/or judgements by the courts. Well, what I think doesn't matter. And that's also part of the COMMONNAME policy, which is very clear that readers' opinions outweigh the opinions of editors, (no matter how strong is the editorial consensus). It's right there in the policy: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, . . ." You'll find that quote in the first section of the article titles policy. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 09:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- First I doubt that the common name policy had anything to do with the courts or lawers. Do you have any evidence that this particular policy was imposed by the foundation because if not it was likely based on conesnsus which means that it can change. I also don't see anything in the related policy that covers typhgrophy or capitalization so I don't think that policy is even releavant to this discussion.--174.90.78.3 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your doubt, but I might ask you the same thing: What is your evidence? As for change, anything is subject to change on Wikipedia; nothing is etched in stone, here. Yet, we are told that we must have a good reason to ignore a guideline, and an even better reason to ignore a policy. I believe that when I come across a contradiction between a policy and a guideline, then that's a very good reason to ignore the guideline. This is one of those rare cases. You're entitled to your opinion regarding relevancy, however it is my thought that an article titling policy must be relevant to any discussion about titles of articles. I really don't see how you could consider the article-title policy as irrelevant to a discussion about renaming an article. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 05:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've looked over the history, and don't see any sign of foundation tampering. It started out as an essay by Larry Sanger, and grew from there. The first version was this.—Kww(talk) 12:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- That must have taken a good while! And interesting that you would use the negatively connotated "tampering" to describe foundation intervention. I remain skeptical. It's a beautiful rush to go back into the past for such a "flash"; however, in the present it's not an essay. It's a full-fledged policy, now, and it is in direct contention with the guidelines that have been cited. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 03:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've looked over the history, and don't see any sign of foundation tampering. It started out as an essay by Larry Sanger, and grew from there. The first version was this.—Kww(talk) 12:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your doubt, but I might ask you the same thing: What is your evidence? As for change, anything is subject to change on Wikipedia; nothing is etched in stone, here. Yet, we are told that we must have a good reason to ignore a guideline, and an even better reason to ignore a policy. I believe that when I come across a contradiction between a policy and a guideline, then that's a very good reason to ignore the guideline. This is one of those rare cases. You're entitled to your opinion regarding relevancy, however it is my thought that an article titling policy must be relevant to any discussion about titles of articles. I really don't see how you could consider the article-title policy as irrelevant to a discussion about renaming an article. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 05:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- First I doubt that the common name policy had anything to do with the courts or lawers. Do you have any evidence that this particular policy was imposed by the foundation because if not it was likely based on conesnsus which means that it can change. I also don't see anything in the related policy that covers typhgrophy or capitalization so I don't think that policy is even releavant to this discussion.--174.90.78.3 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's entirely correct, Powers. Policies are sometimes the result of community consensus, but more often they are handed down by the foundation as the result of attorney recommendations and/or judgements by the courts. Well, what I think doesn't matter. And that's also part of the COMMONNAME policy, which is very clear that readers' opinions outweigh the opinions of editors, (no matter how strong is the editorial consensus). It's right there in the policy: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, . . ." You'll find that quote in the first section of the article titles policy. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 09:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Policy is not found in a document, Paine. It's in the consensus of users of the site. The documents merely attempt to codify what consensus has already determined. To the extent that practice doesn't match the documentation, it's the documentation that's wrong, not the practice. In this case, if, as you say, your interpretation of the documentation is contrary to what we do, then perhaps the policy document needs to be updated. But what doesn't need to happen is to change what we do to match what you think the policy document requires. Powers T 23:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, that all makes a lot of sense, Powers. And that is probably why those guidelines have been in existence for so long. It is also easy for me to see it from my perspective, which would account for the "broad goals" translation as a rationalization. When I read the COMMONNAME policy, it becomes clear to me that the guidelines are in strict contradiction of that policy, and not "translations" of "broad goals". We either adhere to policy and name our articles with titles that our readers are familiar with, or we don't. In this case, IFuturelist, we didn't. The only way to adhere to policy is to rename this article iFUTURELIST. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 21:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I have told you several times, the familiarity provisions apply to the name of the subject, not how that subject is capitalized. When it comes to punctuation and capitalization, we follow standard English rules, and we have for years. The reason MOSTM is a guideline and not a policy is because sometimes we make exceptions when there are good reasons to do so (as with Yahoo!), not because it's strictly subordinate to COMMONNAME. COMMONNAME lays out broad goals but cannot account for every eventuality. There has never been any consensus for following odd capitalization or punctuation on any significant scale. Powers T 18:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- The opposing vote!s generally cite the guidelines that are not in agreement with COMMONNAME policy. You have cited an interesting part of the policy, there, at SE&t, which would also appear to be in disagreement with the "familiar to readers" part of the policy further up the page. This gets gnarlier and gnarlier for me. You might note in that section that it talks about "ambiguous" titles, like "Manga", where capitalization (it is unclear whether it means first-letter or any-letter capitalization) is one possible way to disambiguate. It looks like it largely depends upon what is found in sources that are not the websites or other materials of the subject. Still, if we read the "familiar to readers" part with objectivity, it seems that article titles are required to reflect precisely what most readers who open Wikipedia to these articles would be familiar with and would expect to see. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 03:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yet, it seems that when an individual move is requested, the consensus is unanimously against your moves. WP:COMMONNAME#Standard English and trademarks is the section that most people apply, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Composition titles would seem to contradict your position as well.—Kww(talk) 02:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if we include those several admins who helped make some of those page moves, and even one person who thanked me profusely on my talk page, yes, there are those who agree that the titles of articles should reflect what the readers are familiar with. However, I do not seek "agreement", per se. I seek a reading on long-standing policy vs. long-standing guidelines. I believe that when the guidelines guide us to title articles in ways that are not familiar to the readers of those articles, then they clearly contradict the COMMONNAME policy. If this is wrong, then I need to be shown why, and if I am wrong about this, I shall go back and revert those title changes myself. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 02:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Question: Have you found anyone that agrees with you yet? Maybe it's time to stop doing these moves.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:MOSCAPS and WP:MOSTM. – ukexpat (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Again, guidelines cannot and do not supercede policy. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 21:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Again, COMMONNAME is silent on the question of capitalization. Powers T 01:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not silent. Further down the page it discusses how different forms of capitalization can help to disambiguage ambiguous titles (like for example, maNga (band), where "Manga" can refer to many things). That does not seem to apply here. However, the policy is "very loud" all the way through from start to finish about choosing titles that are familiar to our readers. If choosing a title like iFUTURELIST makes it familiar to the readers of this article, then "damn the torpedoes (guidelines), full speed ahead!" Let's go with the policy. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 05:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- "choosing titles that are familiar to our readers" refers to the name itself, not to the capitalization or punctuation of the name. Powers T 20:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- And you have just described the essence of our disagreement on this issue. If we take the case of maNga (band), you may already know that my move request has been closed with No consensus to move. For consistency, the associated album articles, maNga (album) and maNga+, have also closed and those pages were moved to "Manga (album)" and "Manga+". Now, the readers who come to those articles to read about their band or the band's albums will find that the article titles would only be familiar to those readers who want to learn about cartoons and comics. Those article titles, which would be familiar to those readers if and only if the first letter is lowercase and the center letter "n" is uppercase, are now titled outside of policy, and I do plan to take it to the next level. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 03:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Pray tell, what would be the "next level" beyond failing to find a consensus for your proposed moves? Powers T 13:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- And you have just described the essence of our disagreement on this issue. If we take the case of maNga (band), you may already know that my move request has been closed with No consensus to move. For consistency, the associated album articles, maNga (album) and maNga+, have also closed and those pages were moved to "Manga (album)" and "Manga+". Now, the readers who come to those articles to read about their band or the band's albums will find that the article titles would only be familiar to those readers who want to learn about cartoons and comics. Those article titles, which would be familiar to those readers if and only if the first letter is lowercase and the center letter "n" is uppercase, are now titled outside of policy, and I do plan to take it to the next level. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 03:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- "choosing titles that are familiar to our readers" refers to the name itself, not to the capitalization or punctuation of the name. Powers T 20:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not silent. Further down the page it discusses how different forms of capitalization can help to disambiguage ambiguous titles (like for example, maNga (band), where "Manga" can refer to many things). That does not seem to apply here. However, the policy is "very loud" all the way through from start to finish about choosing titles that are familiar to our readers. If choosing a title like iFUTURELIST makes it familiar to the readers of this article, then "damn the torpedoes (guidelines), full speed ahead!" Let's go with the policy. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 05:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Again, COMMONNAME is silent on the question of capitalization. Powers T 01:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Again, guidelines cannot and do not supercede policy. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 21:24, 16 June 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Response to last question
[edit]To Powers... Requested moves that are controversial and are closed still remain controversial. In this case, not moving this page as requested is also related to several other similar articles that were moved in accordance with the COMMONNAME policy. I will have to do some research to see what the next move should be. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 23:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The title guidelines
[edit]The article title guidelines cited in the above move request apply only to article titles and not to the content of the article, to include iboxes. Moreover, the article title may contain a lowercase first letter when that first letter is pronounced as itself, separately from the rest of the title, and the second letter is uppercase. Examples:
- iTunes
- eBay
- iFUTURELIST
– Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 18:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you read WP:ALLCAPS (where it says: Reduce all-caps found in trademarks.), you will see that the use of stylistic all-caps is frowned on within article text as well. iTunes and eBay do not use all-caps in the same way you are proposing for this article, so there is no comparison. --DAJF (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, however why did you recap the first letter? It should be lowercase just like iTunes and eBay, correct? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 01:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Probably. It's tricky to say for sure, though, because there are so few reliable third-party sources on the topic. Powers T 19:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I suppose if we should err, we should do so in favor of the lack of sources and keep the first-letter uppercase. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 05:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Probably. It's tricky to say for sure, though, because there are so few reliable third-party sources on the topic. Powers T 19:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, however why did you recap the first letter? It should be lowercase just like iTunes and eBay, correct? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 01:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)