Talk:List of 2023 albums/Archive 1

Archive 1

When to submit the draft list for approval to be converted to a mainspace article

Various administrators who have reviewed draft article lists of albums that are submitted for approval to list in mainspace have used the argument of WP:CRYSTAL. In order to reduce such discussions, last year some editors decided to require a minimum of four album listings that have known release dates. This is not to say that all the other entries are speculative, because every entry is supported by a citation from a credible news source which states that the album will be released in 2023. This is not speculation, this is artists and labels reserving a slot in 2023 for album release. Many labels can narrow down the release date to a month or a season, so not speculating. However, this list will require a minimum of four albums of known release date, with the release dates confirmed by independent coverage from reliable news sources, in order to be a definitive release list.

Another argument used is WP:TOOSOON. The response to this should be that this list is part of a series of lists of articles about albums, and for that we have historical data to support that album release dates are beginning to be announced at the mid-year point of the previous year. List of 2022 albums was created on August 17, 2021. List of 2021 albums (January–June), which was initially listed as List of 2021 albums, was created on June 3, 2020. List of 2020 albums was created on June 30, 2019. List of 2019 albums was created on July 9, 2019. And so on. This time of year is historically the time period that the new list starts being viable for creation. Mburrell (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

1. To support your point/correct a typo, List of 2019 albums was created July 10, 2018 (in line with the other dates)

2. Based on the info I've managed to find so far, there hasn't been much in terms of solid release dates (as you can see, we've got two TBAs for specific months and the rest are all less specific than that) so this list may not clear until a bit later in the Summer like how last year's list didn't come about until August. But don't be alarmed, as I see it this list is inevitable and it's just a matter of patience regarding when it actually clears. Hell, it could easily happen by the end of the month.

3. Now that I think about it, I should ask: were all the previous years' lists started as drafts, or was that just something that happened last year for the 2022 list and that's why it wasn't published 'til much later? 'Cause that would explain that pattern a bit. QuietHere (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't get involved in the music lists until 2014, so I am not sure before then, but from 2015 to 2021 the lists were created directly. You can go to the history and look at oldest entry, the creation entry, and the edit summaries. The 2015 list was created in September 2014, the 2018 list was created in May, all the others were created in June or July, generally started with a few album. Looking at the starting list for 2018, there were 16 albums, not one with a known release date.

In 2021, someone created the 2022 list in draft space, so I followed along, until it was rejected one too many times by administrators, and I just created the article in mainspace, bypassing the administrators, although I had a conversation with administrator KylieTastic who stated that I as an auto-patrolled editor I could just create the article. I tried to stick with the draft process until one administrator too many just played the same too soon issue without seeing the conversation and agreements we had set out.

So yeah, in my opinion, this article could just be created in Mainspace, but since we started in draftspace, I thought we should go for the four album releases with known release dates as a minimum standard. I don't mind improving our standards to be more compatible with the rest of Wikipedia, as long as the administrators acknowledge that we have history and standards and work with us. Mburrell (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mburrell we've got our four now. I'll leave it up to you if you wanna submit since you're the one setting the standard. QuietHere (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Submitted Draft page, rejected by same administrator who rejected it last year, for same reasoning. For same reasoning, chose to by-pass administrator and created article page. Recommend that next year we just create the article and by-pass Draft space as too influenced by administrator user bias. Mburrell (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Vulfpeck

Okay, so it does appear that the new Vulfpeck album released on December 30th after all. I don't know why it wasn't up on streaming when I checked, but it's there now. However, there are still no reliable sources mentioning the release date and probably not enough to prove notability anyway, so I still don't think we can justify listing it on the correct release date. Perhaps if it gets more coverage later in the year then it can go up, but for now I don't think it belongs on either this or the 2022 list. QuietHere (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Can someone add Illenium's new album?

Illenium announced his new self-titled album "Illenium" is releasing on April 28, 2023. Could somebody add it to this article? Thanks in advance. Losipov (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done! QuietHere (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Joesef’s Album

Joesef released his incredible album ‘Permanent Damage’ on January 13 2023. Please can someone add his album to the list? It deserves to be there. 82.23.133.108 (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, which means anyone, including you, can add the album to the list. I won't do it because I want to encourage you to do it. Don't worry about making errors, someone will fix the errors if not to egregious, and you will have learned a new skill. I looked for citations for this album, and there are plenty, so the album is notable. Using a search engine, I searched "Joesef Permanent Damage Review", and found reviews by Clash Music, NME, Dork, The Line of Best Fit, Haste., The Skinny, and others. Please try creating a listing for this album instead of relying on the kindness of strangers. Mburrell (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Iann dior

Iann “leave me where you found me” on apr 19 2A02:9B0:4047:4D3E:1413:245D:4744:178C (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done does not appear to have received reliable coverage. Check back in if you find any critic reviews or anything of the sort. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Record labels with "Music"

I have no idea where this is coming from all of a sudden, but it doesn't make any sense to be why we're suddenly including "Music" in the names of linked record labels when we haven't been doing so with "Records", "Productions", or any other common terms. Template:Infobox album#label doesn't say anything about exceptions to that rule, and it was my understanding that we were basing these lists' style regarding that column on that guideline. To my memory, we've been consistent about abbreviating labels such as Mom + Pop Music, !K7 Music, etc., and I don't see why that should change now. It's inconsistent with the rest of the list and doesn't really make any sense to me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how the term "all of a sudden" applies, as we have been including Music in the label listing for years, and it was only recently drawn to my attention that there was some inconsistencies, which I started trying to rectify, but I see that I selected badly on a couple of my fixes. It is true that the majority of Mom + Pop are shorn of their Music suffix, and same with !K7, but a review of the previous five years show a large amount of listings with Music included in the shown label title.

I had commented on the edit summary of 2024 list of albums that five previous years, list of albums 2022 through list of albums 2017, were consistent about keeping Music in the name of record labels. There is a pattern to remove Records, Entertainment, Group, Inc., and other corporate terms, but it is very inconsistent on the removal of Music, with more listings of Music than those that are hidden.

I had at one point considered lumping Music into the same category of label suffixes to be removed, but then realized that many firms used a play on words, such as Mello Music, GOOD Music, Morr Music, Strange Music, Infectious Music, Hear Music, etc. Because of the play on words, this is a listing that I would like to keep, and maybe we should look into consistency.

I went back and did research on some of the earlier years, 2005 through 2010. This is time consuming, so I can do further years, but not all of them today, may take several days. Anyway, the majority of listings do include Music on the ending, but it is very inconsistent. Because Music, Duck Down Music, Eleven Seven Music, eOne Music, Ferret Music, Frontiers Music, GOOD Music, Inside Out Music, Liberation Music, Locomotive Music, Mom + Pop Music, Polo Grounds Music, Rock Ridge Music, Sony Urban Music, Starwatch Music, Syco Music, and Ultra Music are listed in those years both with and without the Music suffix, some more consistently without such as Duck Down, GOOD, Inside Out, Mom + Pop, Sony Urban, and Syco. Some were exclusively without the Music suffix, such as CNR, Collipark, ESL, Five Seven, Ki/oon, Liquor and Poker, Locust, Loose, Merovingian, Playground, Red, and Vice. However, the majority of the labels included Music in the listing, such as ABC Music, Black Box Music, Bonnier Music, Centricity Music, Cooperative Music, El Music, EMI Music Japan, Fox Music, Get Physical Music, Granary Music, Greedhead Music, Hammock Music, Hear Music, Heaven Music, Magic Circle Music, Maybach Music, Morr Music, Mosley Music, Outside Music, Procrastinate! Music Traitors, Resist Music, Shangri-La Music, Sony Music and it's spinoffs, Star Music, Strange Music, Superball Music, Universal Music and it's spinoffs, Wagram Music, Warner Music and it's spinoffs, Weathermaker Music, Westpark Music, and will.i.am Music.

To sum up, there is inconsistency on whether Music is included in the shown label listing, and we could clean it up by going with the majority of listings by including Music on all of them, or by treating it as a corporate name similar to Records, Entertainment, Group, etc. and remove them, or treating them case-by-case, and removing Music from Mom + Pop because the majority of listing for that label don't include Music, but adding it to others that lean the other way such as Ferret Music, in which case we should maybe agree which ones should be with the suffix and which ones should be without. If we went that direction, I would want the Music suffix on all the ones that are a play on the phrase, such as Morr Music and Hear Music, plus other corporate ones such as Sony Music because there is a whole corporate umbrella company called Sony that is separate from Sony Music.

I would like to poll others on what direction that they want to go. I know I am in favor of keeping Music as a suffix, either for all, or for the ones that have been most frequently kept in the past. For now we can go back and restore Mom + Pop Music back to Mom + Pop while we consider a method if label listings. Mburrell (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this decision could potentially affect more than just these list pages since it is based on the language of infobox album, so I'm going to leave a notice at WT:ALBUM regarding this discussion so we can get a larger consensus involved.

For what it's worth, I don't see why there should be any special consideration based on play-on-words or anything else like that, and I think people can differentiate between the larger Sony company and Sony Music specifically given the column is explicitly for record labels which is only one of Sony's businesses. I understand where those concerns come from, but I don't see them as actual problems. I acknowledge that I didn't actually look back at all the pages to see how consistent this was, but that I have personally been consistently running on the assumption I had already made that it shouldn't be included and I haven't seen my (or anyone's) additions corrected until now on these grounds. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I largely agree with QuietHere that editors seem to have been consistent about dropping "Music". Even in the examples mentioned by Mburrell above, where the inclusion of "Music" can be considered a play on words, I have gotten used to seeing text and I believe even sources use just "Infectious" or "GOOD" without "Music" following. I don't think much is being missed by dropping the word "Music" like we do "Records" as it seems very much analogous to that word. I just don't think we're missing anything except a little bit of a pun in some instances if we're being consistent. Ss112 07:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ss112, they're not 100 percent consistent though. Labels without an article that have "entertainment," "records," or "music" in their name is left in the listing. In the List of 2024 albums, I removed "Records" from Wicked Awesome Records in Kid Cudi's entry twice, but it was added back. So I just left it after the second time. Unless a discussion happened and consensus was reached, why is there a discrepancy with not needing it when Wikilinking articles and needing for labels without an article? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mr. C.C. that's a style decision which has been consistently applied in these lists for a while, and just something nobody's challenged before. Actually, it's good that you brought it up, because it's something I've also thought about but just not said anything before. It is a weird inconsistency which doesn't really make sense to maintain. I don't know anywhere else that handles linked/non-linked label names differently, and I don't think we should either. @Mburrell is this a style choice which originated with you, or just one you've upheld, and do you have any reason why it should continue? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@QuietHere, it's ironic you replied to me considering it was you that added it back with your edit summary being "Labels without articles get their full names listed." If you think it's good that someone brought it up, you could and should have. You also shouldn't have added it back. It's not up to one person to decide what should be done. Thousands upon thousands of discussions have been had since Wikipedia began to reach consensus on stuff. One should have been done for this with a consensus being reached. I'm of the mindset that it shouldn't be one for this and another way for that. If it's a label, regardless of article or not, it should be consistent. Now that a discussion, on this issue, is happening, consensus should be reached. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think it was such a big deal that it needed a discussion/to be changed, just a quirk that I wasn't so sure about. I've gotten in enough arguments about the tiniest details of style nonsense on this site and they are very unfun discussions, so I'm certainly not gonna pick at 'em myself if I don't have to. I fix things like that only 'cause I know if I don't, someone else will, most likely Mburrell, so I might as well if I get a chance to. But if it turns out there's a consensus that that's not a fix, and in fact should be the other way around, then I'm fine with that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The convention of fully spelling out a non-linked label listing while trimming off the Records or Entertainment is a style decision that predates my involvement in the music lists, which for me started in 2014. It is one of the styles I have maintained, and still support. It is also why even when a label has a trimmed off short cut that leads to the label listing, I still support the full label listing followed by the alias listing, so that a cursor hover over the linked label listing will still show the fully spelled out label without requiring clicking to the new page to read out the label full name. As a side note, I will mention that Wicked Awesome Records has a section on the Kid Cudi page, so that there are hyperlinks to the section, so that one could do the abbreviated Wicked Awesome, or my preferred spelled out and aliased link Wicked Awesome, so there is no need to do a non-linked listing.

I do not believe there has ever been a discussion in a Wikipedia wide forum about whether to keep or trim off the Records and Entertainments off of labels, or even the Musics which I think are part of the name and not part of the corporate listing. Maybe there should be. I know that I am one that is for keeping them visible in album infoboxes and lists, whether by fully spelling out the non-linked labels or in the hover-text visible of the linked labels, but someone could initiate such a conversation on such a forum as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Mburrell (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)