Talk:List of 2024 albums

Cole Bennett/Lyrical Lemonade

The source Mister Pizza Man used to add the Cole Bennett/Lyrical Lemonade album (which is also the only reliable one I could find) calls it a Lyrical Lemonade album more than a Cole Bennett album. To my understanding, LL is the name of a brand, not an artist, so it sounds like this would be functioning closer to a V/A comp which Bennett is curating and LL is releasing as the label. I can't say I'm 100% either way though, so best to bring it to discussion here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

First an inquiry into a term. What is V/A comp? Google did not help me define it. Mburrell (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

"V/A" is various artists, "comp" is compilation album. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Now I understand what you are saying. I agree. Read with your comments in mind, the news source basically states this is a compilation album by various artists. Sounds like it will be notable, but instead of listing it as artist being Cole Bennett, it should be listed as artist is Various artists. Mburrell (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I will remove it until the album is given its own article (there is currently a redirect to Bennett's page and nothing else). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@QuietHere, in the intro, part of it says no compilations. Even if it does get an article, it shouldn't be listed. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mr. C.C. but they're all original songs for this album. That exception is for greatest hits albums where the majority is previously released, things like that. We have several label comps listed, they just need their own articles since we can't rely on an artist link. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Ed Sheeran Album

Ed is hinting at releasing a new album called Play this year [1]https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1iO9b2NWDd/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== 86.40.48.32 (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Add it to the TBA section. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Reference fromatting

Every time I format a reference they I usually do it gets changed. It's the most insignificant things too. Accessdate is changed to access-date. The way I format the writer, author, or journalists name is changed from last=|first= to author=. Publisher is changed to work. Was there any discussion where consensus was reached? If not, why does it matter how references as formatted as long as it's correctly formatted? Having references formatted all the same is tedious and redundant. The way I format it is fine. No need to change it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I change the format of the reference to be consistent with all the other references for the whole List of 20xx albums series. Every single reference is the same format. Again how does it matter how as it is formatted, as long as it is consistent. As for accessdate to access-date, at least a year ago, I got warnings that accessdate was incorrect, and that access-date was the method to use. It seems that has reverted to a general acceptance of both listings being acceptable, but again, consistency. No talk page consensus was reached, but a consensus has been reached by informal acceptance via edit summary and also user talk page discussions. Mburrell (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I was wrong, there might have been a discussion in one of the List talk pages, I am just not willing to hunt it down. The discussion was about the benefits of consistency of reference citations. In November 2022 or around then, the List of 2022 albums grew large enough that there were too many citations and it triggered a technical failure. One of the Wikipedia admins or techies or gurus applied a technical fix that bypassed the large amount of references templates by doing something, but the fix was only applied to the citations with the same formatting, which was about 99% of the citations. Keeping a consistent citation format allows for easier fixes from the gurus. I think there was a discussion in one of the talk pages sometime after that about formatting reference citations, and that issue was brought up, but I am just not feeling it to go look up what the fix was, when the fix occurred, and if there was a discussion. Just saying there is a benefit to consistency and it might have been brought up before. Mburrell (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mburrell, it would be helpful to see if a consensus was reached. But by your explanation, I take it as a no and it's just done from a technical standpoint. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Why on Earth are these not listed in alphabetical order?

All of these lists of albums are not in alphabetical order. It's maddening. I fixed some of these, but please, as you're adding entries, put them in actual alphabetical order. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

They are alphabetized by first name. That's always been the case with these lists. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not the standard on Wikipedia. We use standard alphabetization. You haven't provided a reason, just restated the problem. Is there some reason why albums in lists would break a convention in virtually all of English? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You have claimed that it is a problem, but you're gonna have to provide evidence for that first, because I don't believe so. So long as it's in alphabetical order, regardless of it being first or last name. And adding the sorting templates wouldn't make a difference since none of the tables are sortable, and aren't particularly designed to be. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

(Actual, standard) alphabetical order is possibly the least controversial way of organizing things I can imagine. The Manual of Style recommends (proper) alphabetization in several places, but it doesn't explicitly call out album list articles. The argument in favor of proper alphabetization is to find things rationally. I didn't think I'd ever have to defend using alphabetical order. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against alphabetical order. I'm only telling you that our lists are already in alphabetical order, just by first name for real names rather than last. When you've got a mix of real names, pseudonyms, and band names like we do, it's easier on the brain to just stick to one thing, and the first letter (minus articles, of course) is quickest to pick up on. I don't see anything improper about that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not actual alphabetical order. We could alphabetize based on the last letter of the term, but that also wouldn't be actual proper alphabetization. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Please also readd the cited entry that you removed. You have orphaned a page. Why would you do that? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That was an accident. You didn't mention it in your edit summary so I assumed you had only changed the order and nothing else, and I didn't see it or the caption. You can readd it. Apologies for the confusion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. To be clear, I have an editing restriction to not undo anyone's edits, so even if solicited to do so by someone, I want to be extra conservative, so I'll have to ask you to please re-add it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It has been readded. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Merci. Sorry for introducing the overhead due to my stupidity. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem; I worked quickly without checking everything first, so it's both our faults. Just next time, if you add an entry, please include that in your edit summary so nobody misses it, and keep major edits like changing list order separate so they can be cleanly undone in the matter of a dispute. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@QuietHere, or you could have reverted your wrongful removal instead of telling someone else to do it. Then again, I shouldn't have to do that since you know to do that. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mr. C.C. "You can readd it" doesn't mean "do it for me", it means "you're allowed". Plus, you're ignoring the fact that I did readd it myself. And why are you complaining about a month and a half-old comment anyway? The matter was already settled. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Grammy nominees

Moved this article discussion from my talk page to the list talk page:

Hello, can you please see below and let me know if Grammy nominees can be restored to the list of notable albums, regardless of media coverage. It says it only has to meet one criteria (major award nominee). Thank you.

Wikipedia:Notability (music)

Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: 4. The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. TheWikiCurmudgeon (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

In response to this query, I would like to link to a talk page discussion about this subject, Talk:List of 2023 albums#Selection criteria, where the album selection criteria for the lists was discussed and defined. The results of that discussion can be found at the top of every album list page, where it states:

The following is a list of albums, EPs, and mixtapes released in 20xx. These albums are (1) original, i.e. excluding reissues, remasters, and compilations of previously released recordings, and (2) notable, defined as having received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject.

The lists are not controlled by notability as listed by Wikipedia:Notability (music), but by its own defined defined criteria, as required by WP:LISTCRITERIA. Once we set up a criteria, we should abide by the criteria rather than make exceptions for apparently notable albums that fail to qualify per the set criteria.

I do believe that a Grammy-nominated album should be included in the list, but just like any new album from a notable artist, we just have to wait for sufficient news and review articles are written about the album. I don't see how an album that is nominated for a Grammy doesn't yet have sufficient coverage, but I trust the publication industry will notice an under-reported-upon album that was nominated for a Grammy, and that journalists will publish reviews of the album over time. Mburrell (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mburrell, just seen this, but do you know the article is "List of 2024 albums," right? Albums being the operative word. When each year's Grammy Awards have their own articles, why add it to a list that is strictly for albums? It's redundant to do what you suggested. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel we are talking at cross-purposes. The original creator of this section wanted to add Grammy-nominated albums to the album list, proposing that they satisfied Wikipedia:Notability (music). I disagreed, stating that for albums to be added to the album list, the albums must comply with the criteria listed out at the top of the list. I then stated that any Grammy-nominated album that did not have significant coverage from independent reliable sources were most likely to acquire significant coverage just by the fact that they were nominated for Grammy awards, and people who write reviews and news articles for albums tend to write about albums that have some sort of notability. All I stated was for us to wait until several news and reviews were written about the Grammy-nominated albums that at the time of the comment had very little coverage. At no point was I proposing that the album list call out awards nominated for an album. That is beyond the scope of this list. Therefore, I think we are in agreement, that we want the same thing. Please elaborate if I have misunderstood what is being stated above. Mburrell (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Liquid Mike

Scrolling to do see if an album was added (just to make sure, I presumed it would be), I came across and entry where the artist has no article, but the album does. As the title says, it's an artist by the pseudonym Liquid Mike. I never come across any of these lists I've edited. I would think that the artist needs an article before an album. Since I've never this before, I don't know what there is on this and what the next step is if any. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The album lists require either the artist or the album have a Wikipedia article, but does not require both, providing that the album satisfies the lists notability requirements. Occasionally, we have soundtracks or compilations, and they are described in the artist column as Various artists, with no link. That is one reason we should not deny an album listing just because the artist does not yet have an article. I personally find it weird, as my tendency is to create an artist article first and album articles second, but that is not the way everyone operates. It could just be the nature of the available citations. Sometimes there is insufficient news coverage to develop an article for the artist, but there is several good news and review articles for the album, allowing for an album article to be developed. Mburrell (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mburrell, you can't compare compilations and soundtracks with various bands and artists to an album in an artists discography. But still, there should be an article created at for the artist at some point. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead and create the articles. Wikipedia is open to everyone to edit and create, and if you see a need, please dive in and tackle it. If you see albums that have articles and bands or artists that don't, please go ahead and create articles for the bands or artists. It will improve Wikipedia, and satisfy you, so a win all around.

Not sure what you are saying about an album in an artists discography. I apologize, but that sentence didn't track for me. Could you elaborate? Mburrell (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If the artist is notable, then yes, there should be an article, but albums can be notable entirely independently of the artists behind them. Sometimes coverage exists for albums but not anything that specifically discusses the artists. This is the case with Butter 08 and Demon Queen, both one-off projects by otherwise notable artists, where the coverage I could find (I made both album articles) only discusses within the context of the album itself. There just wouldn't be enough material to make a separate article that wasn't a stub/wholly redundant. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding removal because of the originality of material

Can you kindly explain your reason for this revert? @QuietHere EleniXDD※Talk 04:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

So this is the second time the addition was reverted, the first time provided with no reason at all EleniXDD※Talk 04:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

And I am puzzled about why the originality of material is doubted. This is the first-time release of the album. EleniXDD※Talk 04:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@EleniXDD this is based on a potential issue with our rules regarding original compositions (not recordings) which I have brought up for discussion below. As for the first reversal, that's on Quwoting2 for not providing an edit summary, which hopefully they start doing in the future as it can be frustrating. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So currently, only newly composed classical music can be included in this yearly list. EleniXDD※Talk 05:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That is how I and Quwoting2 have interpreted the rule, and I think you're the first person to object to that. Hopefully the discussion below is fruitful and we'll see if things change. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

My own interpretation of the "original", is that most classical musicians release albums of famous composers, such as Mozart, Chopin, etc, and each of them have different approaches and interpretations towards it, so the album itself is original. While if the rule requires original composed music (which is less common), then most classical music albums released can not be included in this list. EleniXDD※Talk 05:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Is the discussion below available for all? If so, I think I would like to tag some other participants in WP:CLASSICAL and ask about their interpretations of the originality. See if they have more ideas to contribute. EleniXDD※Talk 05:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Classical music eligibility

This has occurred to me before, but it hasn't come up that I can remember until now. As I mentioned in my latest edit, per our current rules, it appears that contemporary classical albums would be ineligible for listing because they are not recordings of original material. Obviously we have made some exceptions, namely Taylor Swift's Taylor's Version series, but they've been slim and I think we may have asked for overwhelming notability in those instances. But does that unfairly exclude classical music? Should we adjust our rules in any way to accomodate these releases? Hard to say, since there are surely dozens of notable classical albums every year and it may be difficult to accomodate them all, but it's at least worth considering. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion I was thinking of is here. Neither Mburrell nor I, the two participants in it, used the word "overwhelming", but Mburrell said the album should be "truly notable and sufficient to stand-alone" (i.e. have a standalone article rather than be a tiny subsection of the prior work) which I agreed with at the time. "Overwhelming" notability is probably too strong a standard for anything so I would ignore that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

My own interpretation of the "original", is that most classical musicians release albums of famous composers, such as Mozart, Chopin, etc, and each of them have different approaches and interpretations towards it, so the album itself is original. While if the rule requires original composed music (which is less common), then most classical music albums released can not be included in this album list. EleniXDD※Talk 06:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87 @Aza24 @Gerda Arendt Do you guys have any ideas regarding the current album list rule on classical music, only newly composed classical music album can be added in yearly album list based on "original". EleniXDD※Talk 06:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Classical music is fundamentally incompatible with the current rules (As Eleni explains), as is a huge amount of art and folk music; although to be fair, the concept of an "album" was very much a product of popular music. Even if we're talking about the recordings of important living composers like Unsuk Chin or Thomas Ades, these rules would only include the premiere recordings of their works, which would be a bit bizarre if there are later famous recordings of vastly more importance.

Each year, there are probably only a handful, maybe 5–10, classical music albums that truly stand out in popularity or something like overwhelming notability. Most are never created into WP articles, due to a lack of interest, or they are fusion-ish like takes from The Piano Guys, Einaudi, etc. My point is, if classical music albums were included, there would only be a couple worth including. Aza24 (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Their notability would generally be very subjective and perhaps not apparent until many years after the recording has been released (I know the latter phenomenon isn't unique to classical music). Graham87 (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree that the list definition requiring original works would ban contemporary classical albums. Original works means we don't allow reissues or remasters, but a recording of a classical performance is original as in it has not been released before by that group. There is no requirement for original compositions in our definitions. For some examples, in the List of 2005 albums there is a listing for Ozzy Osbourne's release Under Cover, which is a covers album. I am sure there are other covers albums in the various lists. Another example would be the 2010 release of Interpreting the Masters Volume 1: A Tribute to Daryl Hall and John Oates by The Bird and the Bee. In the List of 2007 albums is the Cowboy Junkies re-recorded with guest performers the release Trinity Revisited. Again, I am sure there are re-recorded releases on the lists, maybe most notably the Taylor Swift versions re-releases. Then there are the live albums, such as the 2022 release of Attention: Miley Live or the release in the same year of In and Out of the Garden: Madison Square Garden '81, '82, '83.

So if we are allowing cover albums, live albums, remix albums, I cannot conceive of a reason we would ban contemporary classical albums based on an originality claim. The only limitation I can think of would be the notability requirement. Very few classical albums get significant coverage from independent reliable sources. If I cannot find three or so reviews from regionally or nationally recognized news and review sites, I would list the album as non-notable. No college newspapers, no blogs, no social media sites, no record label publications or publicity publications. For example, if it had been released later, within the range of the list of albums, I would expect to see Hush by Yo-Yo Ma and Bobby McFerrin, because that album did make a splash, it was notable. But when I looked for more contemporary Yo-Yo Ma releases, I did not find others that would comply with the notability requirements.

In conclusion, I see no issue with notable contemporary classical albums being on these lists, it is just that the news and review industry does not seem focused on reporting on these albums much. Mburrell (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

One new album which could be included is Yunchan Lim's 2024 Chopin: Études, Opp. 10 & 25, released mere days ago but already chalking up a handful of reviews: [2] [3] [4] [5] Aza24 (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, as there are notable reviews for Yunchan Lim's new album, from multiple reliable sources. I think Yundi's new album, Mozart: The Sonata Project - Salzburg, which initiate the discussion, should also be included.

_____________________

So, my point is, I agree with what @Mburrell proposed, contemporary classical albums should not be ban based on an originality claim, given the nature of classical music albums. As long as classical albums have notability, e.g. multiple reviews from reliable sources, on charts, etc they should be added. EleniXDD※Talk 05:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I am also in favor with this ruling. Glad that this has been cleared up. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Great, then I shall add the two albums mentioned above to the list EleniXDD※Talk 06:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

4batz

To be clear, when I removed the 4batz entry, it's not that I didn't see the coverage that Mburrell mentioned in their latest edit, but that I don't believe that would be enough to call notability. It's almost definitely not enough to build an article that is greater than a stub, or at least not one that wouldn't be overloaded with background info to the point of risking UNDUE. If I saw such an article, I would sooner propose a merger to the artist's page. And if that's the standard we're using then I don't see why this should be listed, at least not at this point. If it gets any critical response or significant charting then it can be listed, but I don't see how it qualifies just yet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

A year or two back, there was a discussion about what amount of coverage qualified for significant coverage as required by this lists rules for notability. I thought significant coverage was five or more articles from independent reliable sources, but there was a strong push that significant coverage was three or more articles from such sources and I believe that amount carried the day for the consideration of significant coverage. There is certainly no requirement that an album or EP or mixtape have a article at the time of listing. Once I saw three sources of independent reliable sources, from well-recognized sources, I found that sufficient coverage to support the listing. I agree that at this time I would not consider writing an article for the mixtape. To be clear, I am not a fan of 4batz or pushing an agenda. I am just trying to apply the rules consistenly. Mburrell (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I would've never suspected you of pushing or even having an agenda, and you've never given me any reason to believe otherwise of you. And for whatever it's worth, I have no opinion of the artist either and am also approaching this just from the rules. In this case, I see what you're saying, and that perhaps we've had a different approach to how we're handling these lists and that I didn't realize that difference until now. For me, I think it makes sense to have a standard like this three sources rule you mention for upcoming albums, since they mostly can't/won't meet NALBUM's criteria before they're released, but I had been operating under the assumption that only applied to upcoming albums. If our ultimate requirement for listing is notability, then surely a released album that isn't notable enough for its own article (or at least a section of sufficient size in another article) shouldn't be listed here. I don't think you've undone any of my removals of non-notable albums on these lists, which have all been based on that standard, before now, so I guess I just figured we were running things with the same mindset. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

My preference is to let the list include albums/mixtapes/EPs that are borderline for a period of time to see if notability is developed over time. DepressedPer started cleaning up some of the earlier lists, and I have followed suit, and I decided that my preference is to let lists be for about four or five years to see what happens to the albums/mixtapes/EPs, then go through the older lists and update the genres, the labels, move albums to the earliest listed release date, remove citations for self-notable albums, and purge non-notable albums. So I guess the difference between our approaches is that you are willing to let unreleased albums be borderline, and I want to give borderline albums a few years to ferment first. Either approach can work, and I see where you are coming from. I will abide by your approach for 4batz, if you want to go ahead and purge it now. Mburrell (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

My figuring is that they can always be readded later. The 4batz release might chart really well for all I know, or appear on a handful of year-end lists. But for most albums, I find that most of the coverage they get comes in the week or two before release and the week or two after, so if there aren't any reviews when the album's been out this long then it's not a great sign. Same reason why I removed the Greg Saunier entry and redirected my own article for it. Having had another look just now, it seems the 4batz situation hasn't changed since my previous removal, so I will take you up on your offer and remove it again, but again, with acknowledgement that it could come back at any time (and I hope it does so the list can be more complete). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)