Talk:List of 2022 albums

List criteria - Consensus

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.

---

Wikipedia's stand-alone list guideline has a new section that requires list criteria be listed out in two places and a link to the discussion that established consensus on the criteria (see WP:DOCLISTCRIT). There is discussion in the guideline talk page of purging lists that have not developed a consensus and can show it by a talk-page discussion.

The list criteria for the list of albums series is as follows: These are notable albums, defined as having received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. It could be argued that there is a second set of criteria in the lead paragraph, which states list of music albums, EPs, and mixtapes released in 20xx. I have not hunted down the discussions that defined what is album types are allowed on the list, but I can if others want to further follow up on this as additional criteria to be agreed upon.

I personally developed the notability list criteria and added it, so there was no consensus, therefore I am asking for feedback at this time, to count as a discussion and consensus that can be linked to in documentation.

I spend some time looking over the history of the lists, and have probably missed some of the discussions and agreements, but I shall try to link to the various decision points. Much of the discussion took place in edit summaries rather than in a talk page discussion.

• 2014 discussion on the 2015 list talk page - Talk:List of 2015 albums#Speculation of album release's is not suitable for Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) article - A single user discussion on needing secondary sources to avoid speculation and provide verifiability.
• 2016 discussion on what makes an album eligible for listing, with references to notability and verifiability - Talk:List of 2016 albums#Greatest Hits albums and EPs - Short discussion that covers album verifiability and notability
• 2017 discussion on notability - Talk:List of 2017 albums/Archive 1#Album Notability - A single user discussion on defining album notability
• Edit summary conversations:
  • Revision as of 21:10, August 28, 2017 - Edit Summary states "Run into reflist size issue. No references were being shown. Changed reflist callout to {{reflist}, and all but three citations are shown. Article now getting warning "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." " - This is more about overly large reflist, but led to a tightening of notability requirements to try and purge non-notable albums from the list and reduce album articles.
  • Revision as of 16:45, June 22, 2019 - When the first criteria was listed in the header of the lists. At that time, the criteria referenced a link to another wikipedia guideline. The edit summary states "Provided definition of notability used on this series of lists, as Wikipedia has a article for restrictive selection criteria WP:CSC that calls for all albums on the list to have their own wiki-articles and many albums listed here (future or recent) have news sources but no articles, and some have badly prepared articles and no news sources.". The new criteria was listed as "list of notable albums (per WP:GNG)."
  • Revision as of 11:54, October 31, 201 - Another user objected to self-referencing Wikipedia, which is not encouraged. The edit summary states "For one thing, the operative notability guide should probably NALBUM, not GNG, and for another, these sort of self-referential warnings are discouraged per WP:ASR."
  • Revision as of 19:09, October 31, 2019 - This is where the criteria we have been using was written up and added to the lists. The edit summary states "User Chubbles is correct that MOS:SELFREF requests that articles don't self reference back to Wikipedia in order to allow mirroring, and it even mentions lists, but it does say that " many list articles explicitly state their inclusion criteria in the lead section". The selection criteria for this list was listed in short-hand by using WP:GNG, but if can't use short-hand then will spell out in the lead section the criteria chosen for the album series of lists"

That is the best I could do to dig up the history of how the criteria we have been using was developed. I would ask others please comment on this consensus discussion, to either buy off on the criteria as it currently stands, or to provide modifications to the criteria. This is the formal discussion to build consensus for our list criteria. Mburrell (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

If my understanding of it is correct, these new rules would override the WP:ASR concern as such a notice is now required. I think the way the notice is currently/has been written is good and can remain as such. It certainly doesn't read like this policy asks for much more than "items on this list have to be notable per [relevant notability standards], and that's what you've already got there. The only other criterium I can think of off-hand is the album and/or artist article requirement, could certainly add something about that, especially in the Template:List criteria that we're meant to add. Maybe even specify regarding various artists releases that the album article is a strict requirement. QuietHere (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, after double-checking it looks like ASR is completely irrelevant here as that page's "In list selection criteria" section reads just like a shortened version of WP:DOCLISTCRIT. QuietHere (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I also support this criteria here, and plan to use this article as the new example for the list criteria template per talk here: Template talk:List criteria. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we can safely add the list criteria template to the talk page now... Huggums537 (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Added the template. Please adjust it if it isn't right. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for taking the time to wrap this up and close it out. Mburrell (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, there have been no objections, and seems to be clear support so I think it will be safe to archive this and make a new special diff for the template. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (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.

Split

This article is far, far, too long per WP:TOOLONG. We should probably split by month, but at the very least by quarter, as has been done on other lists of albums by year. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The only previous split we've done was by half (List of 2021 albums (January–June) and List of 2021 albums (July–December)) so if we're doing any other splits, I don't wanna go any further than that unless it's really necessary. And seeing how unproblematic the size of both of those are (well below the 500k threshold that this one has only just barely surpassed now), I don't think they need to be reduced any further, and nor should this one.

There's also the matter of how often we add new entries for future releases but don't double-check to see if they actually become notable later. I'm sure we could cull a lot of this list if there were a concerted effort to check everything. How much that would reduce the size of the list I couldn't be certain, but I think it's worth that effort first before jumping to a split conclusion. QuietHere (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It is five times larger than an article should be at its maximum and the citation templates don't work. Why wouldn't we split this? It's not going to even render on lower-bandwidth devices. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

1. "The rules of thumb apply ... less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table." It may be five times larger than an article should be, but this isn't an article, it's a list.

2. The templates only broke recently, and it shouldn't be hard to reduce by enough entries to get back within that breaking range. Plus the templates are unbroken because of the "#invoke" addition (which I had to readd after you removed them for no reason). The page works fine as is, so unless there's some further issue involving "#invoke" that I'm unaware of, this isn't nearly as urgent as you make it out to be. QuietHere (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

And that code adds another 9,000 kB. You write "the page works fine as is" but I just told you about a problem and you don't really seem to care. Did you read what I wrote? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Did I not just respond to the problems you named? I think I've made my position clear. On top of that, I'll ask you to look at my latest edits which have reduced the list by ≈2,600 with only having looked at two week's entries. On top of that, there are several in there I didn't remove because they are clearly notable and just don't have an article yet (Just look at the coverage for Now or Whenever, Live at Montreux Jazz Festival, and Blood Red Shoes for examples). Each of those references is about 200 bytes, and so many of them could be gone with more effort on the article-making side. When I say this article is reducible, I really mean it. QuietHere (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"It's not going to even render on lower-bandwidth devices." Pages this large wouldn't load on my phone and I know that model is used by millions of Indians and Nigerians. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I oppose splitting. This is indeed one of the largest articles in Wikipedia, and last year would have been the largest, when there was an informal effort to keep all articles under 500,000 bytes, but this year the size of the largest articles has grown and there are several over 550,000 bytes. As QuietHere has stated, this is a list, not an article, and the size limits only deals with prose size, which is just the lead paragraph for this article, which is quite small. We are near the end of November, and December is a traditionally slow month for album releases, so the speed of growth for this list is slowing down, and soon will stop, probably around 515,000 bytes. Then, as QuietHere showed, several album articles will become self-notable as they become better developed, and the removal of citations from this list will reduce the size of the article, so that by March, I expect this article to be below 500,000 bytes, and when the references drop below 1170 or so, we can remove the invoke citation coding and reduce the article size another 10,000. If we split the article, I will just need to stitch it together again in about March when all this happens anyway, just as I am keeping an eye on 2021 lists and watching for when I can splice the two articles back into one, to match all the other album article lists. Mburrell (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

So you don't think that the WP:CHOKING issue that I raised matters? Everyone just ignores it because...? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support split - I wholeheartedly support the split by month, or at least by quarter. Splitting is one of the realities of large articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm at least gonna double down on what I said before which is that if we are gonna split, we shouldn't go further than half because that will solve the size issues fine without dividing into even more pieces. QuietHere (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  "So you don't think that the WP:CHOKING issue that I raised matters?" ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  Would it still be an issue at that size? Surely cutting the page down by half would alleviate that significantly. And I've also got concerns about it as an editor where maintaining all those separate pages becomes much more difficult. Plus where would we put the TBA section? There are several concerns at hand here and I don't think cutting the article up is as great a solution as you do.

  And I still stand by my points above. When I have more time, I'll work through the rest of the article and see what else can be culled. I encourage you to give it a look as well. Maybe start work on some articles like the ones I mentioned above. We only need a rudimentary article with the readily available sourcing on it to show notability. It's time-consuming work but well worth the effort. QuietHere (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  Put TBA at List of 2022 albums and then move them to appropriate sections if/when they are released. If they are pushed back, include them in list of 2023 albums. If we cut this page in half it would be 2.5 times too large. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Support I support this as I usually support split requests. Also, though WP:ARTICLESIZE says 100K bytes, split discussions usually only seem to occur when a page surpasses 400K bytes. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of the arguments here for splitting are decent, some are conflating other information to make a false narrative. First, let me tackle "WP:ARTICLESIZE says 100k bytes". This is taken from WP:SIZERULE, where articles with a prose size over 100 kB should certainly be divided, but in the lead paragraph of the guideline for article size, it states "Readable prose size: the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sections". Using XTools, this list has a prose of 383 characters, which means it is well below the 100k size limit, once one subtracts out the list portion of the article. So by this analysis, I am stating the Wikipedia:Article size does not apply.

Next is the issue of WP:CHOKING. It is possible that over 500,000 bytes might cause choking of low processor capability mobile devices, so splitting once is not unreasonable. It was posted as a hypothetical issue that pages of this size would not load on lesser mobile devices, but not stated that it was a known behavior. It was stated that millions of Indians and Nigerians are known to use such lower capable mobile devices, but again this is hypothetical instead of proven (no citations makes that statement original research, anathema for Wikipedia). I looked for a larger article that would be of interest to millions of Indians, and located Foreign relations of India, which has a page size of almost 370 kB, and there is no talk on the talk page of users having difficulty accessing the page, so I would say that if the article was split, a split that broke the article into portions where the larger portion is in the vicinity of 300 kB (July to December will be the larger half), then choking is not seen to be an issue.

Another consideration is that List of 2022 albums is not a stand-alone list, but is part of a series that ranges from 2004 to 2023, and all but one of the lists are whole, and the one that was split, 2021 was only split into two halves, one half is ~345k, the other half is ~289k, not into quarters or months, so I would oppose treating this list article as independent of the series and dividing it into excessive divisions. Mburrell (talk)

Support My Google Chrome web browser on my Samsung Galaxy S22+ consistently struggles to render this list. Splitting in two as in List of 2021 albums (January–June) and List of 2021 albums (July–December) would certainly improve usability. Project Termina (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support, echoing Project Termina's points above. I regularly use this list to build out personnel sections for new albums, and it repeatedly crashes the app and mobile site. Sock (tock talk) 18:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I am sold on splitting the article based on users reporting crashing when trying to view the article on mobile devices. I will see if I can free some time to split the article, similar to the 2021 list. I am curious at about what size this article started causing crashing on mobile devices, so that we can set that for a limit for future lists. Mburrell (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, thanks to the links provided by Sock, I was able to purge several citations, bringing the article below 500,000 bytes, and reduce citations to 1141, which is below the 1167 which triggers the need for the invoke command. Removing the invoke command will reduce the article size by another 9k when we are ready for that step. We are not at the end of the year, and more listings will be added, with more citations, so I am not ready to purge the invoke command, but it looks promising to be able to reduce the size of the list to a manageable size, if we could just determine what a manageable size really is. I would like very much to know when these lists start crashing on mobile devices, so we can determine a practical limit for pretty much every large article in Wikipedia. It seems like Sock and Project Termina are the only two in this discussion who have experienced actual access difficulties, so when did it start, at what article size was this triggered? Mburrell (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Just stick to WP:ARTICLESIZE. It's sitewide. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If I stuck to WP:ARTICLESIZE, as mentioned above, I would determine that the list article has a prose size of 383 bytes, and that this list is not too large at all. ArticleSize is fuzzy on list sizes, so I was inquiring about practical limits, not fuzzy guidelines. A sitewide list that does not provide guidance appropriate for this article is not the help that we need. Therefore, I am polling users who have had real difficulties to find out when issues arise so that I can apply this to the list, and maybe even bring that to the talk page of Wikipedia:Article size as practical limits. Mburrell (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

">100 kb: Almost certainly should be divided". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

">100 kb: Almost certainly should be divided" is out of context. That is from a table where the header of the table states "Readable prose size", and as I have stated repeatedly, the readable prose size for this article, as measured by XTools, is 383 bytes. I am pretty good at math, so I will state that 383 bytes is smaller than 100 kB, so if all we uses was WP:ARTICLESIZE, then splitting the article would not be required. However, both Sock and Project Termina have reported issues with accessing the article on their mobile device, so for practical purposes, this list is currently too large. Which is why I am starting to split it after this comment.

Just to re-iterate though, at the top of the Article size guideline, in the lead paragraph, it states the definition of readable prose: "Readable prose size: the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sections", which is why we subtract out the list size from the size of the article. Also, size of the article per measurements of readable prose also do not include citations, it is what is actually visible in the article, and the majority of size of this list is the citations. Mburrell (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, split the article into two halves. Please report or fix any perceived problems. Mburrell (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking to merge the two parts of List of 2022 albums back into one list.

A year and a bit ago ago or so, the List of 2022 albums was split into two parts because it was growing into a large list article that was over 500,000 bytes (at the time one of the largest articles in Wikipedia), and because there were so many citation templates that the Invoke tool was applied to manage the excessive amount of citations. At the time the article was split by me, I mentioned that when the article peaked and shrank again, I would look to merge the article back into one easily manageable list. I had estimated that the list would shrink back down to below 500,000 bytes by March 2023. It took longer than that, but as the various albums acquired album articles that were able to show self-notability, various citations have been removed, and the two articles now have a combined size less than 500,000 bytes, and still decreasing in size. List of 2022 albums (January–June) has a size of 198,324 bytes, and List of 2022 albums (July–December) has a size of 280,960 bytes, for a current total of 479,284 bytes. In addition, the size of articles has been relaxed since last year, and there are almost 50 articles that are over 500,000 bytes now. I am in favor of this merger because the combined article would be much further down the list of large articles than when it was split, and because it is easier to manage one list than two, and because over time this article will continue to get smaller as more citations are removed for self-notable album articles at a faster rate than new albums are added to the list.

Because the two lists have separate history, I cannot just cut from List of 2022 albums (January–June) and paste into List of 2022 albums (July–December), I will need to reach out to an administrator and ask for a history merge. The administrator will ask about if this merge is controversial, so I thought I would start out and ask for comments. What are other users thoughts on requesting a merger of these two halves of 2022 album lists? Mburrell (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

List of 2022 albums (January-June) and List of 2022 albums (July-December) have been merged, histories are still separate

List of 2022 albums (January-June) and List of 2022 albums (July-December) have been merged. The history for List of 2022 albums (July-December) is now contained on this page, List of 2022 albums. The history of edits performed on the earlier part of the list can still be found at List of 2022 albums (January–June), (History). Per WP:MERGETEXT, "Note: Most merged articles are not good candidates for merging of page histories because they have been edited in parallel and the collation of their edit states would create unhelpful and/or misleading diffs. In most cases, no request for a history-merge should be submitted." Mburrell (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added the {{Copied}} template to this talk page, here, to document this for attribution. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Blue October - Spinning the Truth Around (Part I)

Blue October - Spinning the Truth Around (Part I) was removed for lacking notability. I found numerous sources shown below that discuss Part I individually. Please reinstate it or explain in detail why it is not notable to help me grow as a contributor. Thank you.

https://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/85799/Blue-October-Spinning-the-Truth-Around-Part-I/

https://www.spin.com/2022/10/blue-octobers-newest-honors-the-album-journey/

https://www.velvetthunder.co.uk/blue-october-spinning-the-truth-around-part-i-up-down-brando-records/

https://www.iamtunedup.com/blue-october-spinning-the-truth-around-part-1/

https://keynotemusiccollective.com/?p=10940

https://getreadytorock.me.uk/blog/2022/10/album-review-blue-october-spinning-the-truth-around/ TheWikiCurmudgeon (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

For transparency, this is a followup to Curmudgeon asking me on my talk page about the same issue. My stance remains the same now as it has been, which is that these sources (aside from Spin and maybe Sputnik) do not convey notability of the release. I do not think an album article for the album would survive on sourcing like this, and so I do not think it is notable enough to be listed here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, @TheWikiCurmudgeon, please give WP:FORUMSHOP a read and make sure to keep it in mind for next time. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, I will not double post in the future. Can you please help me understand what is wrong with those sources? I'm fine leaving it off but just want to learn. I noticed Spinning the Truth Around Part II on List of 2023 albums which seemed like it had similar reliability in the sources to my inexperienced eye. TheWikiCurmudgeon (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)