Talk:30 (album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

"A4"

Isn't 30 the functional title for this album among reliable secondary sources right now? Adele referred to this title in an old Instagram post as well. From what I can tell, "A4" is completely made up. This should be moved back to the former title.--NØ 16:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with @MaranoFan:. The title does not make sense. None of the sources use A4 to reference this album. With that being said, I do not think this article should be moved to 30 just yet. There is not an official announcement yet so I would wait for that. There may be pretty big hints toward it being 30, but I still think it is best to err on the side of caution for this. If there is going to be a separate article, it could be titled something like Adele's fourth studio album. I think it is too soon to create this article though as all of this information can be contained in the Adele article until further information is released. Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Adele new album

I do strongly believe that we should keep this article at least in the draft space of Wikipedia untill there is an official announcement from Adele herself or her team or a source reliable to the singer

Thoughts?? Pow0017 (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Move to “30 (Adele album)”

Adele confirmed the title of her new album. She confirmed on her social media platforms that she would be releasing it on November 19. https://twitter.com/adele/status/1448287471649837061?s=21 Bentheswimmer11 (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested.--NØ 16:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Brojam (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian

The Guardian has released a new review giving it 4 stars instead of the 3

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/nov/20/adele-30-review-waterworks-that-go-all-the-way-up-to-11

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"Oh My God" as the second single

"Oh My God" has been added under the Cool New Music section on AllAccess. A Perez Hilton tweet is being used as a source here, which I'm not sure is the best of sources. However, I do think we should remove the premature single listing for "I Drink Wine".--NØ 14:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Perez Hilton the gossip blogger isn't trustworthy at all, so definitely don't take him or his tweets at face value (especially for any contentious claims). We'd definitely need something stronger than that guy and any specific date given from AllAccess would be preferable. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan

30 is also #1 at Taiwan-Album chart 84.160.73.168 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh My God release date confusion

"Oh My God" has been released on January 12, 2022 UK Time. Can anyone help to restrict or block the editor, seems like someone has been trying to edit it back to November 29, 2021. Thanks in advance. (Unknown152438 (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC))

And there you go, 19 November 2021. Still.... can you guys go check Adele's youtube channel? Before editing? Thanks. (Unknown152438 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC))

@Unknown152438: Music videos do not denote singles, radio impact does (per WP:SINGLESCRIT). TheCartoonEditor_{(he/him/they)} (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheCartoonEditor: allright then. (Unknown152438 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC))

@TheCartoonEditor: Are your sure that is the correct date for Oh My God release? (Unknown152438 (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC))

@Unknown152438: Yes, as can be seen here TheCartoonEditor_{(he/him/they)} (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheCartoonEditor: Then why Easy on me follows the Music Video release? (Unknown152438 (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC))

@Unknown152438: Easy on Me was released as a single on the same day as the music video released. TheCartoonEditor_{(he/him/they)} (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Unknown152438: Allright then, Thanks for clarifying. (Unknown152438 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC))

@Unknown152438: No problem. It's a valid confusion. TheCartoonEditor_{(he/him/they)} (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Everyone: Hello people, can anyone try to stop this editing wars? Thanks (Unknown152438 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC))

@Everyone: I supposed that the radio impact date for "Oh My God" was officially November 30, 2021. It was sent to adult contemporary radio on November 29 and contemporary hit radio on November 30. (Unknown152438 (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC))

Edit warring over photo of Errol Garner

Hello all. I am posting about this in response to an edit war over the inclusion of this photo of Errol Garner in the article. User @70svinyl: had added it the writing and recording section, before I removed it claiming it is giving undue weight and lacks pertinence to the text. The user then restored it, eventually in the songs section. In defense of its removal, I should add that in either section, Garner is an ancillary note, with his feature credit reduced to one line explaining it as a technicality because the actual recording one of the album tracks samples is based on a Garner composition. The span of the image and the supporting caption is grossly disproportionate to the actual content in this article about him. This to me is a simple case of an image lacking relevance to the article it is being used to illustrate. Relevant guidelines are MOS:IMAGE, WP:PERTINENCE, WP:UNDUE, etc. Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"I Drink Wine", the third single?

This has been warred over for a while now so a discussion should probably be had which can be pointed to when the IPs are reverted. The music video for "I Drink Wine" was recently released. Billboard reported that it "is just now being given the promotional push as the third single off the body of work following No. 1 smash 'Easy On Me' and its top 5 follow-up 'Oh My God.'" Since then, BBC has added it to one of its radio playlists, which does not count as a single release per WP:SINGLE?, and there have been no adds on the more reliable Italy and AllAccess sites. What does everyone think?--NØ 03:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:30 (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 15:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• • Will review soon. Generalissima (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Generalissima. Did you get the chance to take a look?--NØ 16:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Initial thoughts

Good article! Prose is of high quality, and I do not see anything suggesting a quick fail. I am not a pop music enthusiast, but this article gives me enough background context to appreciate what is notable about the album to begin with. Let's start this from the top.

Images

Adele_-_30.png:

Typical fair-use album cover. Correctly licensed as such.

Greg_Kurstin_studio_7053_Peter_Hill_(cropped).jpg, Max_Martin.jpg, Shellback2015.jpg:

CC images of producers for the album. All checks out here.

If there was a usable image of Adele during the production that'd be great, but for some reason famous people don't like licensing photos of themselves into creative commons. Tragic.

Yeah, it really sucks. I've been spacing out the Adele TFAs since they all have to run with the same image.--NØ 14:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Prose

Lede

Good lede! I feel you could probably merge the top two paragraphs and the bottom two paragraphs of the lede, but that's entirely my personal preference there.

Background

Ah, someone who knows how to write a background section. Only really critique is that some word usage feels a little melodramatic ("journey of self-healing", "plagued"). I know this is the standard for the source material, but (as someone who mostly deals with very historical bios), feels slightly off in an encyclopedic context. Sourcing checks out. (I do not envy your task of digging through all these articles.)

Melodramatic just like Adele's music, lol. Jokes aside, I removed the "journey of self-healing" bit. I haven't faced any issues with "plagued" on the FACs for songs from this album, and I have now changed the wording here to be similar to that.--NØ 14:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at it with fresh eyes, plagued is fine here. Other corrections look good. Generalissima (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Writing and recording

Why link Simon Konecki? It's not the first time he's mentioned in the article, and it just redirects to Adelle herself.

Otherwise, all seems good here.

Composition

Good use of quotebox. Don't see any problems here.

Release and promotion

Names of commercials are in quotations, not italics. Otherwise, looks good.

Critical reception

This needs a bit of work; it falls into an "A said B" situation. Might be useful to trim it down a little and consolidate points; WP:RECEPTION is absurdly helpful with this.

Thanks. Did some work on this and I too have found that essay really helpful in the past.--NØ 10:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Accolades

All good.

Commercial performance

This section appears excessively long, with an undue weight on the raw numbers of sales and units over time. A lot of this information is already conveyed to the reader by the charts, and the rest can be summarized without giving a bunch of raw numbers (which aren't super useful without industry context). Look at your previous work, like your FA for Thank You; do this sort of summary style for these statistics, or else they lose a lot of their meaning to a casual reader.

I cut out a lot of raw numbers from this. Appreciate you using Thank You as an example (probably my best album article), but I think this album is just extremely more successful and it is not possible to get the section that small. I've only kept the really impressive records now, I believe.--NØ 10:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Impact

See what I said on Critical reception; A lot of this would work just as a subsection of critical reception, if you wanted to consolidated it a little, since besides the vinyl bit, this just falls under a more general reception.

Done!--NØ 10:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Other sections

No prose here! Just good ol' stats and information. Obviously no complaints, and it's all heavily sourced.

Overall thoughts

Seems like an article in good shape, just needs a couple areas of touching up. I'm so sorry about taking so long on this. Thank you very much for your work so far. Generalissima (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Generalissima! Don't worry, you did not take too long at all. Seven days is standard. Greetings.--NØ 10:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The revisions look really good and resolved the issues I had with the original article. Thank you very much for your work!

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good job! :3 Generalissima (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 22 December 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is an established consensus that PRIMARYTOPIC takes precedence over INCDAB. As noted in the nomination rationale, there is a 200:1 daily average pageview ratio in favour of the Adele album. There is consensus from this discussion that the Adele album is the primary topic by page views. Concerns raised in opposing comments regarding the intentional introduction of ambiguity are addressed in the editing guideline WP:INCDAB. (closed by non-admin page mover) Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

---

30 (Adele album) → 30 (album) – According to daily pageviews for this year, the Harry Connick Jr. album averaged five views per day compared to ~1200 for the Adele album, i.e. 0.5%. The other albums with this title have apparently not been deemed notable enough for articles to be created for them. A Google search for "30 album" also only yields results about the Adele album, not requiring her name to be part of the search term, indicating a primary topic. NØ 16:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the intentional introduction of ambiguity. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• It is not. With 99.5% of searchers for "30 (album)" looking for this article, it is just added concision. See hatnotes atop 1989 (album), Thriller (album), etc. to see how similar situations with obvious primary topics have been addressed in the past. The Connick Jr. album still fails to exceed 10 clicks even on a good day.--NØ 16:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom and WP:PDABPRIMARY. The 200+ to 1 pageview ratio seems to support this page as the primary topic.Butterdiplomat (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • If it's the primary topic, it should be moved to simply 30. —  AjaxSmack  17:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Because you decided so? No.--NØ 20:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per TheWikiholic. The main title header "30 (album)" represents incomplete disambiguation and should redirect, as it currently does, to the 30#Music dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This is a very clear case in which the Adele album is the primary topic by page views. It is readily apparent looking at the stark contrast in page views (here). Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom and WP:PDABPRIMARY. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the intentional introduction of ambiguity. It helps no reader. It hurts readers. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

An exactly per Ajax below, if readers wanting this page “searching” by the Go box title complete function is your concern, removing “Adele” from the title removes the critical information that indicates the option is what they want. The proposal would make the wanted page look like a DAB page. It’s an all-negative outcome. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• If virtually all metrics prove every reader looking for an album called 30 is seeking the Adele album, forcing them to visit the existence of an obscure album they are not seeking is a net negative. Believe it or not, Wikipedia is not obligated to promote obscure projects not being sought out by anyone. There is no benefit in having people clicking on "30 (album)" go through a disambiguation page when the pageviews tool proves they end up going through to the Adele album and virtually nothing else. The practice of WP:PDABPRIMARY is a documented guideline, which was affirmed as a valid practice in the latest RfC. This is a discussion about whether PDAB applies here, not about what you think of the practice in general, and the numbers match this extremely recent successful RM.--NØ 03:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  If virtually all metrics prove every reader looking for an album called 30 is seeking the Adele album, forcing them to visit the existence of an obscure album they are not seeking is a net negative? What? What are you talking about. With 30 (Adele album) titled as is, no one is forced, or tempted, to visit any other page. However, if you make the title imprecise, ambiguous, and inconsistent, many wanting this page may go to a DAB page to work out where the page they want is. You’ve got the costs on the reader backwards.

• The "costs on the reader" (99.5% of whom are seeking the Adele album) are imposed when they search for "30 (album)" and are not directly taken to the article they are looking for, unnecessarily being taken to a dab page and having to make an extra click. If the move succeeds, 30 (Adele album) will still redirect to the Adele album and it will not be to the detriment of anyone looking for that.--NØ 16:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia search box has an unusual way of functioning. It prioritizes article names above redirect names. So if the article name is "30 (album)", it would de-prioritize "30 (Adele album)" so it would not appear in the list until enough characters are typed for only a small number of articles to match the value. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Believe it or not, Wikipedia is not obligated to promote obscure projects not being sought out by anyone? Again, what are you talking about?

  Ahh, you’re talking about people being tempted to go to the redirect 30 (album) that points to 30, a disambiguation page? Yes, that is a negative, but instead of stuffing up this title, that redirect should be deleted. Although, why do you think people will “click on” that link that doesn’t get listed?

  Latest RfC? You mean the 2016 RfC? I think you misread the documentation and practice, and instead have adopted the title minimisation mindset damn the readers. In the end, this proposal helps no reader and hurts readers. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• It's a late 2019 RfC and your general arguments are better placed as a !vote on a do-over of that, as none of them distinguish the 30 situation from the countless other PDAB RMs that have passed.--NØ 16:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Adele search 1.jpg

File:Adele search 2.jpg

• Oppose per WP:SLOP. The nomination does not mention a problem that is being solved by this moved. If I search for "30" on Wikipedia's search bar, I get the Adele album in the results before I even enter a space after a number, i.e. I would never type "(album)" or "(Adele album)" or anything else. With search engines, typing "30 album" gets me the Adele album Wikipedia article as the first result; having "Adele" in the title offers clarity without inconveniencing me in the least. (See images for examples of both.) So what will a move to an ambiguous title gain readers? —  AjaxSmack  17:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thriller (album) appears in the search bar upon searching just "Thr", and 1989 (album) appears upon searching just "198". Let's move those to more excessively disambiguated titles because the search algorithm benefits pages which get high pageviews! Absolutely crazy.--NØ 19:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes (although for me those require one more character each), but it doesn't show Thriller (Michael Jackson album) until someone types "Thriller (M". The person doing the typing may not be completely sure that "Thriller (album)" refers to the Michael Jackson album. Personally, I think that including the artist name in the title of articles about their works is usually desirable when there are multiple topics with the same name. Once someone sees 1989 (Taylor Swift album) in the search box, they can be 100% assured of which topic that is, and the term "Taylor Swift" is more likely to visually jump out at a person looking for a Taylor Swift topic than "album" would. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support, its clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC for albums named 30, and passes WP:INCDAB with flying colors. Pretty much the same case as Talk:Let It Be (song)#Requested move 12 December 2023, which had a straight consensus to move. — mw (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per mw and NØ's contributions to the discussion. Furthermore, there is a consensus that Adele's album is clearly more searched compared to other albums that share the same name, especially considering how the phrase "30 album" only started becoming a common search online when Adele released her album as shown here. The concern in this discussion is whether to distinguish any albums of the same name by different artists on Wikipedia, which arguably is defeated when Wikipedia has in the past. There was a move discussion on Doja Cat's Hot Pink album that some editors shared the same sentiment for opposing a move presented here, but it doesn't change the fact that the readers on this site are primarily going to search for what is currently topical but also monumental in the music scene -- not to mention Doja Cat's Hot Pink is also given the "(album)" suffix rather than "(Doja Cat album)", even though there is a Pink Spiders album that is given the same treatment as Harry Connick Jr.'s album. Therefore, I don't see a strong reason to oppose the move. MunRis • †alk 04:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYPDAB. Adele's album is far more notable than the other similarly titled album. We don't do cherrypicking, if Thriller (album), Madonna (album), or 1989 (album) can have such title, this album should not be an exception. Bluesatellite (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Is there an underlining notion that 1989 (album) is more prestigious than 1989 (Taylor Swift album)? Or easier to access? This seems utterly perverse. The only explanation I can imagine is that RM regulars are obsessed by adherence to titling guidelines, to the complete exclusion of what’s good for a reader. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.