Wikipedia

Talk:21 (Adele album)/Archive 2

< Talk:21 (Adele album)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by MaranoFan in topic Requested move 5 July 2021
Archive 1Archive 2

Edit request on 22 April 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"its 23-week tenure atop the UK Albums Chart is the longest by a female solo artist"

You should delete the word female - it's the longest-running No 1 album by a solo artist in the UK, period (beating Elvis Presley with GI Blues = 22 wks).

86.26.186.190 (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danger High voltage! 22:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.everyhit.com/recordalb.html

Scroll down to "Album with Most Weeks At Number One (in total)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.186.190 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

21 now 5th best selling album of all time in the UK

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Beating Thriller [1]. Please update article. 86.133.214.35 (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

stuffabout you

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

when were you burn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.166.134 (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Requesting the removal of unnecessary information.

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under "Commercial Performance", paragraph 2: "With 21 spending 23 weeks at number one and 19 spending a week at number one, Adele has had more weeks at number one than David Bowie, Dire Straits, Bob Dylan, and Eminem achieved in their entire careers and has had more weeks at number one than two of The Beatles' classic albums (A Hard Day's Night and With The Beatles)"

This is unnecessary information contributing little but excess and frankly useless information that compares across artists, and it should be removed. We have an article for most weeks at number one for anybody who is interested, but it really makes no sense to have this line in here; none of these artists have a close affiliation with Adele or 21. Billiesteen (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Argentina

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please add that 21 received 3x Platinum in Argentina! http://www.sonymusic.com.ar/DetNoticia.asp?Gac_Cod=15190 --93.229.98.252 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Charts and Sales

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Adele is debuting at number 1 in the US with 353.000 copies sold in it's first week. http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/sales/salescht.cgi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.238.214 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

ATTENTION OF ADMIN!!!. Music week amd many other reliable sources announced on 4th Decemeber that the album has now become of best selling UK album of the 21st century, overtaking Amy Winehouses' 'Back to Black'. As the page is protected can someone put this information into the first paragraph. Thanks. Here is a reference. http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1047727&c=1 86.178.73.8 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  • There is an error in the Commercial Performance category under North America. The article states that "21 returned to number one on the U.S. Billboard 200 for its 24th week, the longest since Prince's Purple Rain finished a non-consecutive 24-week run in 1985." in fact, According to Billboard magazine, the Purple Rain album spent 24 consecutive weeks at #1 on the Billboard album charts (August 4, 1984 to January 18, 1985). Can someone please correct that since the article is locked. 98.116.75.98 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC) AR

Reverted/proposed changes

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

I recently made changes to this article's critical reception section that were explained nicely in my edit summaries, given a general explanation to one of this article's main contributor's talk page, and then reverted with a brief "no" in the edit summary by the contributor. Anyway, the article's history shows my edit summaries, which should make me explaining all my changes here unnecessary, but one point he argues, and something according to him he explained before to me (a while ago when I was passing by and made one particular change, which he reverted with an edit summary), the point about which leading statement for this section is more accurate.

Journalist argues that Metacritic is not the be-all-end-all of reviews, yet it's score is atop the review template and it's used as the primary source for the lead-in statements of near all critical reception sections in WP:Albums articles, not to mention it clearly has nearly all the professional reviews of an album, especially the most recent ones. But, he insists on using this source as a source for the statement "21 garnered general praise from music critics". Note that all that article does is have an aggregate score of Adele that is 142 out of 200, which is neither here nor there as it does not specify 21, and states, "Given the acclaim for her 21 album, it's a bit surprising she didn't do even better. But then, most critics reviewed the album before she became a capital-P Phenomenon."

Other than this, I added some prose about other critics' reviews. I also removed the parenthesis from the ratings template (according to Template:Album ratings talk page, now unnecessary), which first drew me to edit this article again in the first place. And changed the template to reviewers I found more notable, an even split bewteen US and UK publications, and scores I think reflect most of the reception, which I'll admit, I adapted from Metacritic. But hey, they have almost every professional review. I hope this doesn't lead to more arguing with Journalist. He's a far more constructive, productive editor than me, but I feel I made good enough points with these changes for them to be given a chance. Comments? Dan56 (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a point that that Rolling Stone article isn't really all that great for summarizing the critical reception the album has received, given the actual text of the piece. Conversely, i can understand the desire not to overfill the article quotes with too many review blurbs; it's the general critical consensus we need to convey, for it would be impossible to quote every notable review. Still, which quotes to include and which not to can be discussed separately from this, I feel. I think your choice of reviews to place in the reviews template did a better job of covering the foremost voices in music criticism, but we do need to avoid including reviews in the template that don't have any sort of rating system (saying "Favorable" is pretty subjective and can be misleading especially if we are talking about sarcastic reviews--this template is only really effective if there's some sort of rating metric). I feel it's a bit of a leap to say "21 was well-received by contemporary music critics; according to Metacritic . . ." (I too agree Metacritic isn't a be-all, end-all,; "it's used as the primary source for the lead-in statements of near all critical reception sections in WP:Albums articles" is not true for the majority of articles on albums released before 2000, in my experience, due to the presence of books to cite for albums that are old enough to warrant books, and the decreased role of the Internet in relation to music criticism the further back you go), so I get the appeal of the current version of that section's introduction, though we do need a better source that properly summarizes critical reception. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
In response to the "favourable" point, I think the template showing that is just reaffirming what's in the prose, that a publication like the voice approved of it, basically giving the same sentiment as a four star rating or a B+. In response to adding more prose, I think I only added two or three quotes, one from Q and two from the Village Voice, both of which were blatantly removed. As for the lead-in, how about if it was "21 received generally positive reviews from music critics"? Dan56 (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Dan56, don't be stupid. What you seem to want to write is "21 received 'generally positive reviews from music critics"... according to the website Metacritic, which assigns a normalised rating out of 100 to reviews from selected mainstream critics, the album received an average score of 76 based on 34 reviews, which indicates "generally positive reviews". Does that repetitive piece of nonsense sound like good prose? Orane (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why the Q and Village Voice additions were removed as they were professional and are different, instead of echoing other reviewers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the opinions they add work well here. And taking out AbsolutePunk and musicOMH for print sources that the general audience might know better in the template it's also understandable (even though Village Voice has "favourable" instead of a score). igordebraga ≠ 19:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rolling Stone may not have done a great job summarizing initial critical concensus, but I can find a million other publications that praised the album, especially after its successful chart run. Where is the rule that says we should only use the tone set by metacritic? There are dozens of publications proclaiming 21 the best album of the year (see the latter paragraphs of the critical reception section). Are these not also critical reviews? Is there a Wiki rule or convention that states that we should only include initial reaction to the album? Because, initial reaction to the album was "generally favourable". But the critical and commercial momentum increased drastically after the album's release. It did, after all, win Album of the Year.
  • I disagree with the preference for paper sources over music websites. Apart from the fact that there is no convention/rule for this, you should also realise that this is 2012—the digital age. There are as many reputable online sources as there are paper ones, especially if they are proven to be published by authoritative companies.
  • Also, I disagree with WesleyDodds that we should aim for sources that use star-rating. Putting aside the fact that star-ratings reduce the meat of the reviews—the actual content of the analysis—to an over-simplified score (which, to be quite honest works against the articles themselves, since a reader's eyes tend to gravitate towards the score, rather than allow them to uncover the nuanced and implicit ideas in the reviews themselves [i.e. not all 3-star ratings are equals]), there are a number of reputable and authoritative sources (like The Washington Post, The New York Times and some Los Angeles Times reviews) that do not use this system. Are you advocating for their removal from the templates?
Yes, if they don't use rating systems. That's sort of the whole rationale for using the template in the first place, for a quick and dirty rundown of the scores--of course it will be over-simplified (incidentally, that oversimplification plus the inability to properly summarize reviews from super-notable publications that don't use ratings scores are the main the reasons I refrain from using the ratings template at all in articles I write). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • With that said, I am not the one who changed the reviews in the template. Another user did, and my only message to him was: 1. he must keep the number of reviews to 10; 2. I'd prefer if he kept New York Times, since it's the most reputable source among those used. The reason why I reverted Dan56 is because, not only was his addition awkwardly phrased, with misspellings and conjoined words, it was also misinformed. And he should read the Rolling Stones article before he attempts to make any other changes. I've had this exact discussion with him before. We agreed last time. I'm perplexed as to his renewed obsession. Orane (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Where and when did this agreement take place? And how did you communicate this "only message" to me? By reverting all my changes and a "no" in the edit summary? Metacritic shows all of the reviews, and it's listed atop the ratings template (for a reason?). "Garnered praise" is not only more awkwardly phrased, but it's also less accurate and non-neutral than what I'm suggesting, which is also what the unbiased source Metacritic proves, rather than the Rolling Stone article that seems slanted towards some "Queen of Pop" nominees: 21 received generally positive reviews, or it was "well-received by ...". What is awkward about that? You're blowing this praise thing out of proportion. You sound like a member of the Recording Academy. Accolades are one thing, apart from critical reviews, and this is the first I've heard from you about a "critical momentum". Critics don't revise their reviews after an album starts getting more exposure. Year-end lists and awards like Grammys are not the critical reception. And those minor publications like Toronto Sun (tabloid), Associated Press (news agency), Hollywood Reporter, and Rhapsody (digital music store), don't qualify as the more notable music reviewers. You are basing this on hype and puffery from the album's subsequent exposure, or "commercial momentum". It is what it is, reviews were positive. I tried to get through to you delicately by "proposing" the changes without getting into some ridiculous disagreement, but your tone suggests my changes are plain garbage. And where are the mispellings in my changes? Here are the changes I made through three edits to the article. Please point them out. And it must be more than mispellings you have something legitimate to oppose. I've explained my piece, and since you're dissing my changes completely, I've reached out to other editors who may give me a fair shake. Don't take it personally.
  • To your response above, what I'd really like to write is "21 received generally positive reviews from music critics." and follow with "At Metacritic, which assigns..." which would complement the leading statement as a primary source (reaffirmed by its inclusion in the ratings template). The rest of the section justifies the version of the lead-in that I'm proposing. And please don't call me stupid, Mr. "Garnered praise". Dan56 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    • That part of the sentence was not what i was referring to. You want to say "21 received generally positive reviews from music critics... At Metacritic...the album received an average score of 76 based on 34 reviews, which indicates "generally positive reviews" ". To say twice, in the same sentence, that the album received generally positive reviews, at metacritic, it received generally positive reviews. That's what's repetitive and awkward. Orane (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Sure it's a little repetitive, but that is the term Metacritic uses, so it should be clarified for readers. 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it says "generally favorable reviews" at Metacritic, but like I said before, what's wrong with either "generally positive reviews" or "well-received by..." in the first sentence? Dan56 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Dan, write whatever you want to write in the article. I don't care. Orane (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Should have brought this up before when addressing "repetitive piece of nonsense". Dan56 (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ireland

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please add that 21 is the 7th all-time best selling album ever, the longest running album at No. 1 with 35 weeks and that it received 18x Platinum in Ireland...source--79.199.21.46 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That source does not include the information you've suggested adding. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess the right source is this one. --Stee888 (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Track list

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The first UK, Poland and Bulgaria limited edition bonus track "If It Hadn't Been For Love" (track 12) is a cover by The Steeldrivers. To one of the composers could be added a interwiki to Chris_Stapleton. I'm writing this due to lack of writing rights. Saemikneu (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

MusicOMH review

Latest comment: 12 years ago28 comments4 people in discussion

I don't think we consider this reliable, especially for a former FAC. Till 14:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable in citing what? It's a critic's review. Dan56 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
It's an unreliable critic's review, as the writer holds no qualifications as an expert critic. Please see this, "We're always looking for enthusiastic music, film, opera and theatre fans who would like to write - regardless of age or location." Till 23:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Good point, but was this source brought into question at FAC? Also, Metacritic uses it in their scores, so wouldnt that qualify it in anyway? Since I've got you here, I made a revision here to the "Influences and sound" section, which I felt had a flimsy OR paragraph about the "media" calling 21 a "soul album". Since this is likely to be commented on, I thought I'd introduce it here and now. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Depends on the writer. For example, we can trust this reviewer as they studied music in university or w/e, and are classified as a 'features editor'. Whereas the reviewer for 21 is a 'contributing writer' and thus not reliable. Will take a look at the soul album issue. Till 00:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Not particularly correct. Contributing writer or "features editor" does not reference credibility. There are many freelance writers etc with the appropriate experience and credentials who only "contribute" certain pieces to a publication, or do not write as often as other writers. That's why they may be labeled "contributing writers". The term doesn't irrevocably designate a writer "unreliable" and unqualified. Orane (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Genre

Is it me or is every contribution of mine here automatically reverted? It seems hard to get something through here; had to propose above just to clean up the POV critics section. Journalist reverted my change here, claiming that the radio personality's minority opinion that the album isnt soul is valid b/c CNN interview him (looked through the article and he was the only one who disagreed) and claimed that the sentence in my revision didnt make sense. There was only one person whose disagreement was noted after the line "critics disagree with" it being a soul album, and it wasnt even a critic. The Slate sentence is appropriate following "British soul"; it gives context to British artists performing an African-American music genre. What didnt make sense in my revision? The previous revision also had a confusing line about the album being "branded by the media as a 'soul album'"? What media? The sources citing that line were critics sources! Doesnt any of this seem like original research? I'm at fault for not notifying the article's main contributors directly, but I explained myself here and through my 1st edit summary when introducing the changes. Anyway, here's my original revision. It's not like anyone was busy improving that section, so why dismiss any attempt? Dan56 (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont mean to dismiss contributions of the past contributor(s) to this article, but this "influences and sound" section has to be reexamined just a bit. Wont bother to reitorate my edit summaries, so... (after the aforementioned "soul album" revision) 2nd revision, 3rd revision, 4th (failed verification; something about instruments contributing to "exploration of blues and soul") Dan56 (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Made further changes to your additions. "British soul" isn't a general classification (i.e. genre) of music, so it shouldn't be added. The album is pop and R&B, and borrows soul elements in its lyrics and vocal stylings. And for the record, Larry Flick (the "radio announcer" who was interviewed by CNN) is a pop music critic and former senior editor of Billboard magazine. Google him. Thanks for your additions to the article, however. Orane (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Contemporary R&B is derived from soul music. There's rhythm and blues, which is the article that R&B redirects to, ("R&B" is also known to be an umbrella term for all black music), and contemporary R&B, basically soul music in the aftermath of hip hop. I've heard of indie rock being referenced as "indie", but Indie music isnt a genre (is major label a genre?), and if it is, then according to who is it a genre on this album? I still dont understand what backs up the idea that 21 is "essentially pop and R&B, but borrows elements from the American soul genre". Where in the AV Club or Paste article does it mentioned that the album borrows from soul, but is pop and R&B? The Economist article does not mention the album, but perhaps this line could be included instead: Adele is a "pop" singer "who embrace[s] or borrow[s] elements of soul, an American genre originated in the 1950s that grew out of the blues, R&B and African-American church music."? Instead of the first statement, which cant be substantiated, how about concrete quotes like in this revision? Dan56 (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I also dont understand why you dont find British soul to be an acceptable genre (but "indie music" is?). Sources for it are available, and it's just as valid as neo soul, blue-eyed soul, or Madchester, all of which are accepted elsewhere. And if your contention (or that of the Slate and Economist articles) is that it can't be soul music because the British are not culturally tied to the context of soul music (the African-American experience), then wouldnt "British soul" be all the more appropriate? Rock and roll was originally developed by African Americans, but the style ultimately became appropriated by white artists, for example. Dan56 (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I was asked to step in and give my opinion on here and I would like to remind everyone that we are to work as a community and not as a rivals. No one owns articles on here regardless of who the main contributor to the page is. Everyone is free to edit.
  1. A source in question should always be discussed in length and with consensus but if a sources has been used on more then one article then it is reliable regardless of who wrote the review and their status on the source. The source is reliable.
  2. I'd like to remind everyone that we do not want to show so much "I don't like this edit". That is unfair to other editors. If there is a source or sources that can be produced to show the genre then there is no reason for it not to be added.
I hope this helps and I hope that all who contribute to this page can work together and get along. This is not a warzone and all contributions should be welcomed with open arms. I hope this helps out. ^_^ Swifty*talk 03:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"Where in the AV Club or Paste article does it mentioned that the album borrows from soul, but is pop and R&B?" Referring to the sound of the album, the AV club writes "Adele is also something of a classicist where pop is concerned. 21 sounds mainstream, but never too slick or overloaded." In other words, it's pop and mainstream, just not what we hear on the radio today. Also, "21’s initial fire never dims. In the tradition of Dusty Springfield—another Brit with a jones for American R&B —Adele sings spirited songs of heartache, primarily directed toward an ex-lover whom she alternately scorns, begs, and makes desperate promises to."
Regarding "Paste": "this is still the stuff of a sensual modern pop-noir landscape"..."Adele emerges with a well-manicured batch of songs that, while still showcasing her interest in layered musicality, shoot straight for the pop charts with each go-round"..."On the other side of the accessibility coin, there’s the tearjerking Turning Tables," which swells from a minimal piano-and-vocal ballad into a cinematic pop anthem laced with Broadway-worthy strings" but also mentions songs as being soulful.

Anyway, I just don't have the strength anymore to argue with you over music and genres. Orane (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Pop" is a reference to either pop music or popular music (mainstream music) in general; the article references pop charts; the Billboard 200 (originally called the Pop Albums chart) does not exclude different kinds of music. It's the same with how writers use "R&B", which is used as an umbrella term for black music. There's a reason rhythm and blues and contemporary R&B have separate articles. Dusty Springfield didnt do jump blues (what R&B referred to in the '40 or '50s) or any R&B than other than soul; couldnt be referring to the hip hop influenced-R&B. There's a context to "R&B" being used as a term. Where does Paste mention songs being "soulful"? I could also find numerous articles and just highlight the quoted material that says soul. What does your last sentence mean: I can restore "British soul" without conflict? Dont know why "indie rock" was added. Dan56 (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of indie rock, which you cited with Allmusic's sidebar list, because it is usually erroneous. I've dealt with it before, and there's precedant for it. Similar to the genres listed at product pages for CDs or at Metacritic. If there's mad coverage for this album, and only Allmusic's sidebar mentions "indie rock", then it's just a matter of common sense. Dan56 (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not up to you to decide if allmusic is erroneous or not! It's a reputable source that lists "indie rock". It does not matter if it was embedded in the text of the review or not. It's clearly on the page. You are bringing your opinion and original research into the article, and are being selective. Please readd it. If you don't, I will. Thank you. A discussion between two people from two years ago does not decide Wikipedia's policies. Orane (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not opinion, it's experience. And it's not my experience either; there's a reason that discussion was archived, as was this RSN post. You're taking everything at face value. It is erroneous. Use common sense. There is nothing writtin about the album having indie rock. Why didnt you add "pop/rock" or adult alternative or neo soul, all of which are included in that source, selecting instead "indie rock"? Dan56 (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I have tried to not personally attack you, but could you desist from telling me to "use common sense", as if I'm not? I've been on Wikipedia much longer than you have, have written more articles than you have, have written/contributed to more featured articles than you have, am an Administrator and a mediator on here. And know much more about music than you do. So don't insult my intelligence and tell me to "use common sense". "pop rock" was not added because pop was already there (though come to think of if, I just may add it now). Adult alternative is a radio format that plays many genres. And neo-soul is redundant. Indie rock/indie is correct and needs to be added. Orane (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"Common sense" is what the precedents I cited recommended. And I didnt say my experience, so dont get uppity and claim seniority or some BS like that, and dont act like you know how much know do about music. Now I'll tell you to use common sense: if "Adult alternative" isnt a genre, then why does allmusic list it? Wouldnt that make the listing erroneous? I dont know how long you've been around or what you've contributed to (dont get a big head, b/c I dont care about who you are), but I'm sure the editors that previously discussed this Allmusic sidebar issue were experienced and knowledgable, and knew what they were talking about too. I wont treat you like you're right and all-knowing when I feel you're wrong in this matter. Why would I do that? Dan56 (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Allmusic says "Adult alternative pop/rock". There's a big difference and clear genre designation to the radio format (adult alternative rock, adult alternative R&B, adult alternative pop/rock). Do you get it? And these sources list Adele's music as indie rock one, this one says her first album was influenced by it, and that the second album was the same sound, as well as this one. Is it common sense to even suggest that the album's sound has some indie influence? And PS: I'm allowed to get uppity when people like you try to talk down to me. Orane (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I dont care what the Allmusic sidebar says, b/c it's unreliable (Archive36, |WP:RSN) Paste says that one song on another Adele album "referenc[ed] big band and indie-rock"? Huffington Post is unclear in which album it's describing, let alone whether it's indie rock or independent music, and Soul Culture says that "Set Fire to the Rain" "leans more towards an indie rock and roll sound in the instrumentation and her delivery of the vocal on the chorus". It seems like you're fishing for sources to support your opinion. What reliable source actually says this album is "indie rock"? PS: When did I "talk down to you" before you got uppity? Dan56 (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of things wrong with your comment. And if you want to be technical and start dealing with semantics, then you also will lose out if you don't compromise. First off, there was no consensus reached in the small discussion you showed me about allmusic, and you won't use that to deter me from adding "indie" to the article. All music is commonly accepted on Wikipedia. All aspects of it. It's not stated on the official Wikiproject: music page, which means it was never officially adopted or enforced. Secondly, you argue that the indie sources that I use are general and don't specify which album it's referring to. Well, of all the sources you used in the "influence and sound" section to support the "British soul" argument, only the first one mentions the album specifically (i.e all the others refer to Adele's music in general terms).You need to go out and find direct quotes that mention the album specifically, or, by your reasoning, they too should/will be removed. Thirdly, just like the term "alternative", the term indie references both the music style and the underground nature of the music/artist. Indie labels make indie music. Plain and simple. We need a compromise, or this will not work. Orane (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And PS: "Huffington Post is unclear in which album it's describing, let alone whether it's indie rock or independent music" Indie rock is alt-rock, which is made by indie labels. Adele is an indie artist, signed to an indie label. I don't see how this does not make sense to you. Orane (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading through Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_36#Allmusic.27s_genre_sidebar, they reached consensus, and both editors at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_130#Sidebox. agreed that it was unreliable. It simply shouldnt be used, especially if the actual review doesnt mention a lick of it. What discussion says all aspects of Allmusic are acceptable? The sidebar also erroneously lists the release date as January 24 (neither US nor UK, right?), so it’s disregarded and better sources were used for the article’s release history. Anyway, I did replace the section's paragraph with all quotes from critics. Only one directly called it "British soul" (musicOMH) just as only one called it a pop album ("SiriusXM"; "with soul leanings") I was trying to conform my edits to the way you had the influence and sound section before and argued that the previous genres were sourced throughout the article, which I checked but also ended up being discussed in the sources in general terms. You're right too, I dont see how a record label dictates the kind of music she makes, but I think we can both agree this isnt an indie rock album, right? Would a "Soul, pop" comprimise for the infobox be agreeable, then? Otherwise, I'll just wait for the other editors I requested comments from to comment here. Asked like five or six. Dan56 (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're saying. January 24th is the official release date of the album. It even says so on her website. (Early release in Japan, but official release in her country on the 24th.) Soul and pop in the info box is fine (as long as you don't use "British soul"). And for the record, I do personally classify many songs on this record as indie, to some extent. The label does dictate the sound of an album when it comes to indie (i.e. independent) music. They just have a different sound because they cater to a different audience. 21 was never supposed to blow up like it did. It's not a conventional indie album in its level of success, but songs on it are indie-folk, alt-pop/rock (styles predominant in indie music), and like the Huffington Post article says, it does qualify as indie, in the traditional sense (if you listen to songs like "Love song", "I Found a Boy", "Take It All" or even "Someone Like You"). And for the record, the album won Best Pop album Grammy. If that doesn't stand for something, then I don't know what more to say. Orane (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, meant Japan. Grammys dont have much credibility anyway. They're music industry-voted and still cater to the CD buying demographic, which I'm too young and internet savvy to be a part of, LOL. Dan56 (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
How old are you btw, if you don't mind me asking. PS: It's interesting to see what other contributors say regarding allmusic, since my definition of "consensus" is a lot more than two people agreeing on something. Either way, it's weird that a writer would be considered credible to give a lengthy opinion of an album, but then would be labelled unrelaible when classifying its genre. I don't know. Orane (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm 20 and love to check out blogspots that "file share", especially itunes copies. That's how I first listened to this album way before it blew up. The consensus seemed to be clear at the first discussion I cited, where each of the four or five users found the sidebar unreliable or questionable. The user Kerαunoςcopia thanked them for the consensus(es). The second discussion just echoed the first, but it was said at the RS noticeboard, so that seems to be a better reference point; similar to how went about transcluding one discussion at an article's talk page to be a kind of precedent here. The sidebar seems to be arbitrarily done, by people other than the reviewer. For example, for Rhythm Killers, Allmusic's sidebar lists "reggae", but the reviewer claims "no reggae in sight", as did most other sources I found when doing that article. Dan56 (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Year-End-Chart

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Please add that 21 is No. 1 in Belgium/Flanders and Wallonia again source--79.199.15.103 (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And No. 4 in Russia http://lenta.ru/articles/2012/12/28/chart/ --79.199.29.72 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And No. 1 in Switzerland http://hitparade.ch/year.asp?key=2012 --79.199.47.146 (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And No. 3 in Germany http://www.einslive.de/musik/charts/jahres_charts_2012.jsp --79.199.27.232 (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Done Added Switzerland and Germany, others seemed to be in now. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

An addition to the release history of this album

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I do not have the rights to edit the page but I wish that someone would kindly do so. On the release history table, at the bottom of the page, there is no mention of the Chinese release date for 21. I have come across with this article stating that the album has been released in China on March 13th 2013. This information comes directly from Adele's Chinese distributor, Starsing Records.

This information has been further confirmed by the China's biggest online music retailer Tmall on the ordering page for the album. As you can see, the album came up for sale the day after the release.

Joe from eu (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

13-10-2013 The word 'fete' should have been spelt 'feat' in the article for English spelling. I suggest 'ex-lover' is too lyrical for a factual based encyclopedia article and should be changed by the editor/author to 'her ex', 'ex-boyfriend' or 'ex-partner' for grammatical improvement. The reason for her success could be partly due to strongly directly relating to her peers (young women) in a fashionable current sound style (Winehouse/Duffy).

GA worthy

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As I can see, this article is now fully developed and is worth a good article. Simon (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Its highest contributor, User:Journalist rarely logs in nowadays, it would not be prudent to take this to GA without asking his opinion. But you are correct, this is definitely GA to FA worthy. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't stand in the way of anyone who wants to improve/nominate the article in any way. ;) Orane (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please change "American songwriter" to "Canadian songwriter", where Greg Wells is stated as being an American because he is a Canadian, from Peterborough, Ontario -- although he is now based out of Los Angeles where he writes and produces at his studio. His biography on his Wiki refers to his Canadian roots. Bryanldoyle (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  Partly done I have removed American - but not inserted Canadian, as, although he was born In Canada, he is now based in LA - it is unclear if he is naturalized American or how he currently self-identifies - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Useful Data

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/6738252/adele-comeback-song-hello-25 This link has actual information you can get. Love how you keep this article up to date and with reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.227.44.72 (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Columbia records?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Columbia records lists Adele as an artist but articles claim she is independent. Should Columbia be included along side XL? Zekenyan (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

UK sales number is also exaggerated

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The cited source says 4.8 million, not 5 million. http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/adele-returns-with-enormous-first-day-impact-as-25-album-records-one-of-the-biggest-first-day-uk-sales-total-ever__12069/ 84.236.73.2 (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

New Zealand

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please add that the album just reached 13x platinum in NZ. Same source as usual! Thanks... --94.16.83.161 (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Already added. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

RIAA Diamond certification.

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am having trouble with the citation syntax, and I'm not really keen on trying to figure it out, right now.

But the evidence that this is certified 1x Diamond in the USA by the RIAA is at https://riaa.com/goldandplatinum.php?content_selector=top-diamond-awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.60.248 (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Adele proposal

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a reminder that there is an ongoing discussion regarding the potential creation of WikiProject Adele. All comments are welcome and appreciated! MaranoFan (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on 21 (Adele album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on 21 (Adele album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 21 (Adele album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 21 (Adele album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Adele UK figures wrong

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You show it is platinum x 17 ie 5,100,000. How on earth do you get 5, 920,000.

Please correct this. Coachtripfan (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion
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: (non-admin closure) Not moved - Has been open for more than seven days and the answer seems fairly obvious, closing. NØ 12:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

21 (Adele album) → 21 (album) – 21 by Adele won the Grammy Award for Album of the Year, is one of the best-selling albums of all-time, and expectedly maintains a giant lead in pageviews over the other two albums. Both bullet points at WP:PTOPIC are met.-- NØ 15:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sean Stephens: we only upend Wikipedia rules for Michael Jackson. This album is not by Michael Jackson. Can we envisage the massive disruption to the project if the Michael Jackson rule was extended to every article? Then we'd have PRIMARYMOLLUSC PRIMARYCHEESE PRIMARYTVSERIES you name it. To be honest we don't even apply Michael Jackson to all albums and songs by Michael Jackson either, it's just this one album. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I don't agree with that whatsoever. These changes only ever come about as a result of consensus, and any consensus regarding changes such as these is all too rare; to effectively say it's a "slippery slope" from here onwards is completely out of touch with reality. It would cause massive disruption if it was extended to every article, hence why we don't. It's never going to get to a point where it's unmanageable, because they have to go through this process every time. Marano has done the right thing and opened an RM, which is what should happen every time. Sean Stephens (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose this album gets 16,481 views but 21 (Omarion album) has 1,074[[2]], not sure that's enough for a PDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think this one is certainly the "primary" among all albums, but as the purpose of disambiguation is to clear up ambiguity, it doesn't actually have much use at all if the parenthetical term we use clears up none.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed parenthetical puts ambiguity on the title, confusing it with Omarion or Rage or the others. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:21_(Adele_album)/Archive_2&oldid=1097912015"