Talk:1999 Tour

This really has a silly name

1999 Tour is far too general. I happen to be a cricket fan and when I saw this title in the Recent changes I immediately thought it was about my favourite sport. Chances are, the target audience for this article have no idea what cricket even is. That simply demonstrates how this too simple title is also so wrong.

I note from the History that this used to have a more meaningful name. Why was it changed? If I don't see a good response here in a couple of days I plan to move the article back to a better name. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is a bit vague, but it shouldn't be re-named. The current title is in line with naming conventions, the only reason to disambiguate it would be if there were another article name "1999 Tour", but this is the only one. Would the average user type "1999 Tour" and expect an article about cricket? There isn't even an article or redirect at 1999 cricket tour or anything similar.

There are plenty of similarly-named articles which could mean other things: Van Halen's 1984 Tour and 1986 Tour, Mike Oldfield's Tour of Europe 1979, Mika's 1955 Tour, Paul McCartney's The 'US' Tour, Elisa's Fall Tour. There are also albums: Tour 2000, Tour 2007, Tour 2003, Irish Tour, etc.

If there was need to avoid confusion between similarly-named articles then I would support renaming, but there isn't. Nelson58 (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There may not be other articles, yet, but those names are unnecessarily unclear. I don't really care if there's a lot of them. It doesn't stop me believing they should be better. It's the kind of name given to an article by a fan addressing other already well-informed fans of a subject, not an encyclopaedia writer addressing material to readers without such such deep knowledge. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)