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: not moved. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghost (Faroese band) → The Ghost (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. bd2412 T 01:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a duo of electronic musicians. They play electronic musical instruments. Chubbles (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as proposed. WP:BANDDAB says "Use either '(band)' or '(duo)' when the musical ensemble is a duet." It does not deprecate the use of "(band)" in these cases. Dekimasuよ! 02:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (duo) generally is an unhelpful alternative to band. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @In ictu oculi: why would you say that? A band makes it more imprecise because there could be 2 to an infinite number of members whereas duo shows there is only 2 members in the group. A band is defined as "a group of instrumentalists playing music of a specialized type". This music group is a duo of electronic musicians who are not instrumentalists (players of a musical instrument). In popular culture, a band is typically a group of 4-5 people who sing, play the guitar, drums, bass, etc. Calling a group of 2 musicians a band is simply inaccurate and improper although literally they could fit the scope. @Chubbles: @Dekimasu: please consider reconsidering. Not only (duo) makes it easier to categorize music groups consisting of 2 members, it also distinguishes electronic music groups from regular music groups. The editor whose username is Z0 08:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) To this point, I think everyone has been fairly accepting of the fact that you filed 30 individual move requests instead of a multimove. However, please understand that it's annoying to get over 30 page notifications for the same comment–and then getting 30 edit conflicts after you edit the comment with the ping in it. If the issues at hand are the same, please pick one talk page and have the rest of the discussion there.

2) There is nothing inaccurate or improper about calling a band with two members a band. Musical ensemble#Two parts: "Examples of two-member bands are Japandroids, Local H, Pet Shop Boys, Hella, Flight of the Conchords, Death from Above 1979, Francis Xavier, I Set My Friends On Fire, Middle Class Rut, The Pity Party, Little Fish, The White Stripes, Big Business, Two Gallants, Lightning Bolt, The Ting Tings, The Black Box Revelation, Satyricon, The Black Keys, Tenacious D, Simon and Garfunkel, Hall & Oates, Johnossi, The Pack A.D., Air Supply and Royal Blood. When electronic sequencers became widely available in the 1980s, this made it easier for two-member bands to add in musical elements that the two band members were not able to perform. Sequencers allowed bands to pre-program some elements of their performance, such as an electronic drum part and a synth-bass line. Two-member pop music bands such as Soft Cell, Blancmange, Yazoo and Erasure used pre-programmed sequencers." In fact, this shows why it is easier to have two-person bands when electronic music is involved. As Chubbles stated, electronic music is music made using electronic musical instruments. It isn't necessary to require a band to be analog.

3) The proposal referenced a particular naming convention, but the moves do not follow from that naming convention. Dekimasuよ! 08:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Reply to Dekimasu: I'm not saying a two-member band is incorrect but it's just less preferred compared to duo. Musical ensemble#Two parts says two-member rock and pop bands are relatively rare and they are mostly rock and pop groups not electronic music duos that are the subjects of these move discussions. Wikipedia's preference is usually the one most commonly used. Bands play musical instruments unlike electronic musicians who use digital audio workstation (DAW) to produce their music. DAW is not a musical instrument but a computer software. As for the naming convention, it did say to use either "(band)" or "(duo)" when the musical ensemble is a duet, as in duo for the duet and band for others. That precisely supports my argument so I'm not sure why you said "the moves do not follow from that naming convention". The editor whose username is Z0 08:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Z0, WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to disambiguators. Also, you appear to have mis-parsed WP:BANDDAB. This whole line of the convention deals with groups with two members. It does not say "use either '(band)' [when the musical ensemble is not a duet,] or '(duo)' when the musical ensemble is a duet." It is correctly parsed as "when the musical ensemble is a duet, use either '(band)' or '(duo)'." As evidence, note that it makes explicit reference to Capital Cities (band), which has two members.

Please don't make me cut-and-paste this comment 30 times. Please pick one page to continue the conversation on. Dekimasuよ! 09:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this particular group's genre is described in the article as synthpop–a good example of why it is not necessary to draw a distinction between a "pop band" with two members and an "electronic music duo". Dekimasuよ! 09:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must have misread that. It still however shows both the terms are acceptable and I still feel duo is more appropriate because it refers to two members in a group rather than the vaguely-defined ambiguous "band" which typically refers to an ensemble of 4-5 members. In addition to that, electropop/electronic/dance/techno/synthpop musicians do not use traditional instruments such as the guitar or drums in a live setting. Synthpop is not the same as pop. The editor whose username is Z0 11:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (reply to Z0) Synthesizers, samplers, sequencers, turntables. These are all musical instruments. They are played. People play them in bands. If you have some duo here whose work process consists entirely of manipulating preexisting sounds in a DAW, perhaps the move would be justified (insofar as what's going on there is more production than performance per se), but even for electronic musical groups, the reasonable presumption is that they are described as bands. Chubbles (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Band is defined as:

  1. A small group of musicians and vocalists who play pop, jazz, or rock music.
  2. A group of musicians who play brass, wind, or percussion instruments.

  The ensembles in these discussions produce electronic music using computer software and electronic instruments and not the above traditional instruments. The editor whose username is Z0 11:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  So a jug band isn't a band either? Plantdrew (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Even given that that is not exactly a nuanced definition of what a band is, every single one of the bands you nominated meets that first definition. They all play popular music; some of them even play rock music, specifically. Chubbles (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is just coming off as opinion and not anything based in policy. The whole move request is based on a misinterpretation of WP:BANDDAB. We're now going to the Oxford Dictionary to define "band" as excluding electronic music acts (specifically duos, not trios, quartets, quintets and so on) because they don't play traditional instruments when that's not a requirement for something to be called a band in the first place? Come on. Ss112 17:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Same reason as the other oppose votes. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It should be made very clear that this was proposal was done before by the same person in February. As shown here. To be honest, I see this causing more disruption than any sense of discussion on the move requests. I would say the requester's AWB abilities most likely need to be questioned along with ANY recent moves that the editor has done. This has been done twice now with a clear bias. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the above overarchiving, which is why the archive link above is now showing as a redlink. The discussion referenced above can now be found at Talk:16bit (band). Dekimasuよ! 18:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoever it was who made the proposal, thank you for pointing out the older discussion. The link to the February discussion, which showed strong opposition, was scrubbed when making the new nominations, which explains why it hadn't been referenced yet. That's not a good way to edit a talk page. Dekimasuよ! 01:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I see that the accounts are explicitly linked elsewhere on-Wiki, so I'll go ahead and note that the page mover right was readded yesterday. If this is something that needs to be looked at by someone familiar with the old situation, we should go ahead and ping User:Primefac for an opinion. I find the way evidence of the previous discussion was erased to be very disconcerting. However, there are no violations of the explicit restriction today. Dekimasuよ! 02:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dekimasu That's why I had a hard time finding any previous discussion because I remember these proposals from before. A lot of the discussions were written over where This edit being perplexing as no partial revert was even attempted to fix anything overwritten on the talk page. – TheGridExe (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference, the full list of related nominations is at WP:RMC#July 28, 2018. I simply can't reply to all of them each time an issue arises. Dekimasuよ! 02:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I removed those bot edits because I thought they weren't needed anymore as they make the talk pages slightly "spammier" but it wasn't my intention to hinder anyone from finding the previous RM(s) and I don't mind restoring the messages if necessary. In the first RM, there were suggestions to start a discussion for each of the pages separately, which was why I did. The editor whose username is Z0 15:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find that very hard to believe when the point of keeping previous discussions is to know the history of previous proposals. It's used as a reference. You also archived the discussion when there's no talkheader to even return to that archive. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the above overarchiving, which is why the archive link above is now showing as a redlink. The discussion referenced above can now be found at Talk:16bit (band). Dekimasuよ! 18:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This also happened at Talk:Rock City (duo), where there was only one short talk section to archive. Z0, in the future, please do not archive old discussions for very short talk pages, and please do not remove discussion notifications from User:RMCD bot. These are different in form and function from those by User:InternetArchiveBot and should not be considered spam or clutter. I do recognize that there were comments asking you to break up the proposals in the previous discussion. Dekimasuよ! 18:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. The editor whose username is Z0 09:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I believe the (band) usage can remain regardless of what genre of music is involved or if there are just two members. The proposed move gives no great benefit to everyday users of WP.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:09, 31 July 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.