Wikipedia

Talk:Thriller (album)/Archive 7

< Talk:Thriller (album)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Blueberry72 in topic Lyrical themes
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Thriller sales Figure

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Harout72, Politsi . The estimated sales of Thriller was 65 million since a long (more than 2 years now here on wiki) at that time it has been certified 29 times platinum in usa .Since then thriller has sold 4 more million and now its total certification is 33 time platinum in usa but the estimated figure is the same 65 million.How its possible?You dont think its the time users would reach in a new consensus on what a more recent accurate figure? Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

TFA rerun

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I know that it's difficult to maintain an article that attracts this many edits, but I'm wondering if it's in good enough shape to rerun it on the Main Page. If possible, I'd like to add it to the current pile of potential TFA reruns (currently being developed at User:Dank/Sandbox/2). Any cleanup needed? I see one dead link at theofficialcharts.com. There's some text that appears unsourced in the last paragraph of Recording and the next to the last paragraph of Reissues and catalog sales. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like we've got Michael Jackson for the upcoming yet, so we won't need this one, but I've got it in the pile of articles to check next year. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Strike that; I like this one for the 35th anniversary of the release, this November. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4

Latest comment: 10 years ago39 comments18 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Opposition to the proposed move clearly exceeds support. bd2412 T 15:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thriller (Michael Jackson album) → Thriller (album) – I must make amends to my past proposals on this album this year. I'll declare that the prior proposal was erroneous, despite a consensus to support the current title. In effort to make up, I right now decide to propose again right away in light of events. WP:PDAB is defaulted to being removed from WP:DAB, making it very vague. Even WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that no criterion is absolute. Neither popularity nor significance makes an impact on albums of the same name, especially when the artist is most recognizable. If WP:DAB is useful, please explain why specifically. Otherwise, let's use WP:Article titles because I don't see WP:DAB handling such titles like "Thriller (album)" very well. Per WP:CRITERIA, does the proposed title make this album natural, recognizable, precise, concise, and consistent? Is the current title too precise per WP:PRECISE? If so on both, then say so. George Ho (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES. The existing title is suitable, leaving no doubt which album is being considered. The disambiguation page Thriller makes it clear that there are four or five albums called Thriller, so we need disambiguation with the artist's name. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, per WP:TITLECHANGES it shouldn't had to be moved in the first place. Check any of the RMs, the title was fine and "correct" until PDAB appeared into the scene and suddenly it wasn't correct. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Tbhotch. There are legitimate arguments to be made against this move, but TITLECHANGES as an argument against is rather perverse. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per pointless fiddling around with stuff just to find something to do. If it's not a policy or guideline it damn well ought to be. Sheesh... Begoon talk 19:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This proposal to remove PDAB existed for three months. It wasn't obscure as I notified multiple editors and WikiProjects, it included a RFC tag, and it didn't last a few days. You had the opportunity to post your thoughts there about why it should has to continue being "a policy or guideline" and why it "ought to be" one of them, but now it is no more part of P&G. If you consider it should be again part of a P&G, you should start to do something, because your comment doesn't give a reason to oppose. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Tbhotch - I certainly didn't mean to upset you. I respect your contributions enormously, and often stand in awe of them. If I've commited some sort of faux pas then forgive me. My comment was just intended as a jibe against RMs posted "for the sake of something to post" when the title seems fine as it is, which sometimes irritates me.

I don't have the in-depth knowledge of whatever PDAB is that you seem to assume I have, and I don't have time to go on the no doubt intensive course, which might be beyond my simple powers of comprehension anyway.

I don't see a need for another RM here other than someone felt like starting one, but I'll keep such subversive thoughts to myself in future. I should never have voiced an editor opinion on something so technical and beyond my capacity to understand. I thought it might be ok to have an opinion even if I wasn't one of the RM "crowd". Mea culpa. Forgive me, and I'll try not to be a party pooper in future.  . Begoon talk 19:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't upset, did I sound upset? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, per Tbnotch. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I generally see negative value in removing the names of artists from the titles of articles about songs and albums. It makes the titles less clear and less recognizable, and creates maintenance headaches due to the need to continually fuss over whether to consider some particular song as primary, as covers and new releases appear and the popularity of each of them waxes and wanes. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
This is probably going to appear WP:POINTY, it isn't meant to be, but I checked that statement in Google Books and finding several references to what was the season's most successful showtune in 1970 created Applause (Bonnie Franklin song). Of course the Lady Gaga song hasn't come out yet so a Google Books comparison is pretty unfair. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As I recall WP:Naming Conventions Music already had in it the normal caution against ambiguous disambiguation. WP:PDAB was in part necessary because of a couple of album/song/band editors making a "WP:PRIMARYALBUM" (sic) rule on MOS:ALBUM which for 18 months existed in parallel to and contradicting WP:NCM. We don't have [John Smith (primary footballer)], vs [John Smith (Scottish footballer)], we don't do ambiguous disambiguation. Thriller (Eddie and the Hot Rods album) etc. etc. listed on Thriller#Music require "Michael Jackson" be included in the dab. The album is by Michael Jackson isn't it? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not one man is it, it's every project except for 2 or 3 editors on WikiProject songs. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Response to User:Tbhotch. I don't see how any edit made 4 years ago and not amended can even be considered not to be consensus. Usual rules apply, it's stable, not subject to edit warring etc. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The page clarly starts with "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus", nowhere in WP:AT states that every project must follow their "NCX" guides, and that they should be added without discussion to the NCX pages. Also, unlike other projects, music's never is vigiled and the proposals made there usually goes nowhere, compare NCF v. NCM:a), b) or c) v. d). It is relevant as you can't say that there was consensus to add, and you can't say that a non-action to remove it is by default a consensus, it is like if somebody removes it with the same good faith it was added, the difference is that anyone will revert it because, ironically, there is no consensus to exclude. Anyway this "consensus" can change at any moment, as with PDAB, didn't it was a supposed "community consensus" when approved at VPP, and then suddenly from July to September it was clear the community didn't support it? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a lot of verbage to try and prove that something in place for 4 years without alteration doesn't have consensus. As for the PDAB argument it's all down to which team fields the most/better players on the day. If the discussions had started a month earlier/later the result would have been completely different. I don't think I've seen anybody on either side of the argument move a solitary comma towards consensus - and all over music which is designed to be transient, forgettable and money making. To make matters worse, most of the articles are no more than glorified discography entries. And all because, as in this instance, some editors think the words "Thriller" should be separated from "Michael Jackson." There is not one iota of commonsense is such an idea. Go figure! --Richhoncho (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no harm and significant benefit in keeping the artist name in the title. Thriller (album) can remain a redirect to the title with name. older ≠ wiser 13:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per WP:NOTPAPER. Yes, I do mean this. In a paper ‘pedia this album would be printed under the title Thriller only, perhaps in a subsection marked albums, or even Michael Jackson. However in the index it would be under Thriller (Michael Jackson album), to enable searchers to find the precise article they are looking for. WP is not paper and does not have an index – it has article name spaces, dab pages and other index substitutes. We then have a number of people arguing that this particular Thriller is more important than any other Thriller (otherwise why remove the words, “Michael Jackson”?). This creates another problem, does this meet the spirit of WP:NPOV? The only response to that guideline is to disambiguate all “Thriller” albums fully. We have no choice. The nominator asked us to comment whether the present title is too precise, the answer is definitely not in an electronic encyclopedia. Thriller (Michael Jackson’s 1982 album) would be though! --Richhoncho (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Simply as there are other albums called Thriller. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear case of unnecessary disambiguation for the primary topic. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:INCDAB. There are other albums with the same title. –anemoneprojectors– 11:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    • INCDAB has nothing to do with this issue. WP:PDAB used to cover it, but this section of the guideline was removed recently. 130.185.105.202 (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in the belief that the average reader looking for the album will expect it to be the primary album by this name. I am also concerned about real world effects. Will we encourage upstart bands to title their albums after existing well-known albums like Purple Rain or Spice just so they can garner the tidbit of extra publicity to come from forcing the existing Wikipedia article to be moved? bd2412 T 16:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    • If someone wanted that sort of publicity, wouldn't they call their album Main Page? :-) –anemoneprojectors– 15:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
@bd2412 I think that's a bit of a stretch, since following WP:NCM means that the option of riding on a hatnote's coat tails disappears. In fact one of the albums already did name itself Thriller as a way to boost sales, the article says. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Titles tell the reader the name of the subject. They should not be thought of as navigation aids. Nor should they be used to distinguish between articles, at least not beyond what is required by our software. There is no reason to believe that a longer disambiguator makes an article easier to find anyway. 130.185.105.202 (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no reason to believe that a longer disambiguator makes an article easier to find anyway. Sure there is. If we went only by what was required by our software, we might as well go with titles like Thriller (A), Thriller (B), Thriller (C), etc. The disambiguators are informative beyond the minimum required by the software because it does help readers find the desired articles. older ≠ wiser 18:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Even better: Thriller1, Thriller2, Thriller3, etc. Let's do an experiment and find out which version of the title yields more page views for the article. 130.185.105.202 (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
@1.53.164.15 despite this being your second edit you're evidently an experienced editor, then you know that WP:NCM had it before and still has it. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — No need to justify as justification is obvious.    DKqwerty    05:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Current title resolves ambiguity. There is more than one album called Thriller. BluesFan38 (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per pointless fiddling around with stuff. There's nothing wrong with having his name in the title. Too much time being wasted on arbitrary decisions about "primary topics" that could be spent fixing flat-out 100% errors. By the way, why does Thriller (album) redirect to a different place than Thriller album? Wbm1058 (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
We got the present title as a result of "pointless fiddling around with stuff." --BDD (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

VPN hopping sockfarm

Note to participants and closer: it seems pointless adding every 1-or-2 edit VPN comment in a RM to the long string of SPIs, so instead a note for participants to avoid spending too much time on IPs with one edit. On this one RM Support from‎ 130.185.105.202 (talk · contribs) 1.53.164.15 (talk · contribs) 5.104.105.102 (talk · contribs) 118.68.75.228 (talk · contribs) 217.78.0.210 (talk · contribs) are one voice by one community-banned User not 5 individual editors with strong opinions against full disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I believe VPN means virtual private network and SPI refers to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Good catch! Wbm1058 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thriller (album)

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I see that there was an RfD last March 2017 supporting Thriller (album) redirecting to Thriller (Michael Jackson album). This being the case essentially endorses for this topic to be at Thriller (album), implying a (unnecessary) hierarchy among secondary topics. Also, "Thriller (album)" should not be treated as a search term. There is no indication that most readers use Wikipedia's intended-for-internal-organization disambiguation terms in their searches. All secondary topics should be disambiguated from each other (which is technically the case here), which means there should not be any active linking of Thriller (album). This just means this setup is a pseudo-solution. As I attempted, the ambiguous link (not being an actual search term) should go to the disambiguation page and the hatnote removed from here per WP:NAMB. Not motivated enough to start a discussion to keep up with, though. If someone wants to see if the consensus can change, ping me, and I'll weigh in. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Erik: For what it's worth, I agree with what you did, but yes, it does go against established consensus. Due to this unique situation, I re-added the hatnote in a fashion that technically meets WP:NAMB. If there is another discussion started regarding retargeting Thriller (album) to Thriller#Albums, feel free to give me a ping. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Link to the discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 23#Thriller (album). --Hddty. (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thriller (Michael Jackson 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hyperbole about thriller breaking racial barriers

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

This article gives no reference or source that thriller / mj broke down racial barriers .

Many black artists met the president before mj ( Sammy Davis jr )

Prince was on rotation on MTV prior to mj

Please remove the authors opnion that mj broke down racial barriers

Thank you 198.228.200.149 (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It is recommended to read the article and references before asking for things. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I read the article there is no source or reference that thriller or mj broke down racial barriers . Please remove the authors opnion . 198.228.200.175 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

In the "Music videos and racial equality" there is information about this. Unfortunately a lot of the sources are dead, but number 75 from the Washington Post clearly does make this claim. Some cleanup is needed of the sources in this article. BollyJeff | talk 23:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, it would be [Michael Jackson]'s success with "Thriller," and particularly the various "Thriller" videos, that would override the subtle apartheid of pop, opening up MTV and subsequently the pop market for Prince. Before that, Prince was at best a popular cult figure whose records-"Dirty Mind" and "Controversy" in particular-received little air play. His reputation was built on precociousness (he wrote, produced, arranged and played all 27 instruments on his debut album) and on his outrageous concerts. ( Washington post article )

No where in the article does it state mj or thriller broke racial barriers . Please remove the authors opnion that thriller/ mj did . Thank you 71.234.118.65 (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"override the subtle apartheid of pop" Hello? BollyJeff | talk 13:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

where exactly again does this one article state mj /thriller broke down racial barriers? breaking down a pop barrier is not the same. i encourage you to youtube bill oreilly asking al sharpton how exactly did mj break down barriers. al sharpton had no credible answer besides lying about mj record sales. i respectfully ask you to remove the authors opnion. 68.199.0.40 (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC) //////////// Eh, NO, actually, it is NOT "hyperbole" and people should just take the time to find the links for sources:

Below are a few links:

"Michael Jackson's Thriller: pioneering album that broke down racial barriers in music industry"

Thriller, Michael Jackson's sixth studio album, cemented his title as the "King of Pop" when it became the best-selling record of all time.

At the time, a New York Times review hailed him as "A one-man rescue team for the music business. A songwriter who sets the beat for a decade. A dancer with the fanciest feet on the street. A singer who cuts across all boundaries of taste and style and colour too".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/5643920/Michael-Jacksons-Thriller-pioneering-album-that-broke-down-racial-barriers-in-music-industry.html

‘The life of a King'

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/28/michael.jackson.black.community/#cnnSTCOther2

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame:

"On February 26, 1983, Michael Jackson’s Thriller hit Number One on the Billboard 200 chart. The 1982 release was revolutionary, a watershed moment in the history of rock and roll. It earned a record-breaking number of Grammy awards, sold in record numbers, resulted in music videos that changed promotional possibilities, broke down racial barriers and left a legacy of influence that continues to this day".

- See more at: http://rockhall.com/blog/post/michael-jackson-thriller-album-number-one-video/#sthash.UuOSMCpT.dpuf

No offense, but all of these supposed "facts" are just media ran PR stories. Someone like Jackson making a pop album such as this wasn't much of a barrier breaker as it's alleged. It can be argued Prince was breaking those barriers more than Jackson was. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

////////////////// Here we go again...I notice that whenever it pertains to MJ there is always a least one complaining - regardless of what links one may supply.

1. I sent these links literally due to and in the context of the above (Read back on them for full context) complaint which was made regarding lack of credible links / certain statements (In this case, MJ "breaking down racial barriers") which were supposedly not in previous links the author posted. The above complaint basically claims that the author's inclusion of the line, "MJ "breaking down racial barriers", is simply the author's personal opinion. It isn't!

2. I decide to check this / help out by going to look for at least two links which DO reference the very words that the author included. I find them - I take time to add them... And now - regardless that I have posted links from Internet sites that are *Always* accepted as reputable for ANY-one else - as far as you are concerned, links from these sites are suddenly, Not good enough - They are suddenly "PR stories" ...Then you go totally off track by giving a rundown (which is merely *your* personal opinion, by the way) on what you assume is "...alleged" - You then continue to give *your* personal opinion by trying to determine what the "Biggest selling album in history" (Which, by the way, wasn't simply "pop", as you put it; it contained a mixture of elements such as, R&B, Rock, Ballads, Soul and post-dance...MJ, despite his title, wasn't simply "pop") basically didn't /couldn't do - even though Michael's extremely successful run as a black artist, on what was a Rock-rotating MTV at the time - is actually a huge part of what this is all about. You go on to claim what can be "...argued" (Nothing can be "argued" by the way - MJ's achievements and global status simply spoke for themselves) - You continue by suddenly pulling (Seemingly from thin air) another artist by the name of "Prince" into the picture, then continue meandering about what *you* think Prince was doing and how much he was doing it.

Posting two helpful and legitimate links bring on a mouthful of something that adds up to nothing. These links don't require your personal opinions on MJ and another artist. I'm not interested in your thoughts and personal opinions; and I'm sure that anyone else, who may simply be looking for legitimate links in reference to what the author stated, would not be interested, either. You simply come across as some bugged and rather bitter anti-Jackson troll / detractor, and one who simply refuses to acknowledge - no matter how legitimate (in this case, proof that the words were not simply of the author's opinion) the links may be. This is how you come across! It sticks out like a sore thumb!

It seems that once it is anything positive (in this case, links with proof of something) and contains some kind of good /positive standing for Michael Jackson, there will always be those who will continue to obsessively become embroiled in trying to detract in some way; no matter how *good enough* and / or legitimate everything may be.

3. Finally, I am here to post links which may be of help to some / put an end to the conflict which begins at the very start of this thread. What are you really here for?

If you have a *genuine* complaint regarding the *legitimate* links I have posted here, simply give legitimate / understandable reason/s as to why and how you've come to that conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.78.224 (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Thriller (Michael Jackson 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thriller (Michael Jackson 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Place chart information for Thriller e.g Thriller peaked at number one on the chart (date) 92.7.38.194 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 92.7.38.194 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Vocal hiccup listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vocal hiccup. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Idiacanthus 13:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox genres

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Shouldn't R&B be included considering "The Lady In My Life" and "Human Nature" are R&B? Isaacsorry (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacsorry: only main genres can stay in the infobox: genres representative of one or two songs are considered just elements; I think that art-pop should be added again: the source says "A State-of-the-Art Pop Album", not "A State-Of-The-Art" [1] Blueberry72 (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The infobox should tell the reader what is the overall album genre as reported by reliable sources, not just a collection of song genres. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion R&B isn't confirmed as main genre by the sources. Consumerhelpweb: "The age of the synthesizer was in full effect, and many of the R&B hits from that era made heavy use of synths. Michael copped to the contemporary R&B audience with songs like Baby Be Mine and PYT (Pretty Young Thing) [...] While fusions of r&b and rock are somewhat commonplace now, they certainly were not in the early 80's (this sentence is referred to "Billie Jean")"[2]. Rolling Stone: "the crossover success of “Beat It” subtly made a point that Jackson would repeat, rather pedantically, nearly 10 years later: It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white. Not everyone got the message, but those who did discovered an entire new framework for how pop, rock and R&B can merge" [3].
Neither rock and funk are confirmed as main genres:
  • funk: "This was a record that had something for everybody, building on the basic blueprint of Off the Wall by adding harder funk, hard rock, softer ballads, and smoother soul [...] the frizzy funk of "P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)"[4]; "Not many artists could pull off such a variety of styles (funk, post-disco, rock, easy listening, ballads)"[5]; "the urgent funk of opener ”Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin”"[6]
  • rock: "This was a record that had something for everybody, building on the basic blueprint of Off the Wall by adding harder funk, hard rock, softer ballads, and smoother soul"[7]; "While fusions of r&b and rock are somewhat commonplace now, they certainly were not in the early 80's (referred to "Billie Jean")"[8]; "the iconic rock stomp of ”Beat It"[9]; Rolling Stone calls the article "Michael Jackson: The Unlikely King of Rock", but in the article it is written that Thriller influenced the genre despite not being a rock album "When Fall Out Boy covered Jackson’s “Beat It” a few years ago, their punky homage had more in common with Queens of the Stone Age than it did with the King of Pop [...] Thriller, despite not technically being a rock & roll album, has had a bigger impact on rock & roll than just about any other album of the past 30 years [...] Jackson’s other major contribution to rock music comes with an exact timestamp: Thriller, side two, at the 2:49 mark, when Eddie Van Halen interrupts “Beat It” with a boiling 31-second guitar solo [...] Not everyone got the message, but those who did discovered an entire new framework for how pop, rock and R&B can merge (referred to "Beat It")"[10]. Apparently only "Beat It" and "Billie Jean" can be considered rock.
The genres in the infobox should be pop ("Thriller offers pure, transporting euphoria in pop form"[11]; "Key sound: Perfect pop" [12]), art-pop ("Thriller found a home in 26 million American households for a reason — it is a well-constructed, well-performed, state-of-the-art pop album" [13]) and post-disco ("the lustrous post-disco sound of Thriller"[14]). Blueberry72 (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The album is not an art pop album because no songs on the album are art pop. State-of-the-art means that the album is described by the writer who wrote that article as, in general terms, a top quality, highly advanced album. It has nothing to with genre but more about the quality. Also, I don't think rock should be taken out considering that Beat It, a rock song, was one of the main/most famous songs on the album. The Girl Is Mine is also rock, even if its not as heavy as Beat It. Isaacsorry (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Since we cannot reach consensus I suggest to not add or remove any genre, for now Blueberry72 (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
https://www.clashmusic.com/features/classic-album-michael-jackson-thriller calls it pop/R&B

Requested move 4 November 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago21 comments17 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: Moved. The comments in opposition, although understandable, don't take into account the aforementioned RfC consensus that "incomplete" disambiguations are allowable if, for X (Y), X is by far the primary topic for all Ys. So the question is: "is the Michael Jackson album the primary topic for all albums?", to which the answer is clearly "yes"; the most popular topics for "thriller" as a whole are the genre, the album, and the song, and there's a good argument to be made that the album may be the primary topic for "Thriller", period. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


Thriller (Michael Jackson album) → Thriller (album) – In light of this recent RFC, I say it is time to revisit the title of this page. Thriller (album) already redirects to this page, so we can be certain this album is the primary topic for the term. The proposed title also meets WP:CRITERIA, namely WP:CONCISE. Calidum 17:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. No idea how that discussion was closed as consensus for anything, let alone option #2 which did not even have a simple majority of !votes. There is no reason to have a primary here, it makes editing harder, as editors are more likely to link to the incorrect page; it makes finding an article harder, as you will be more confused about which artist you are selecting. The current page name works and there is no reason to change it. --Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: I also think it should be moved to "Thriller (album)" because it's only necessary to be at "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)" if there was another album by another artist also called Thriller. For example, if you look at other albums like one by The Jacksons called "Goin' Places", the wiki page name for that album is "Goin' Places (The Jacksons album)" because there is also another album with that same exact name by another artist known as The Kingston Trio. TrackerMercurial136 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Per other titles like Nirvana (band) vs Nirvana (British band), and Oasis (band) vs Oasis (American band). Kailash29792 (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Other albums with this title. If this was the primary topic, it would simply be at "Thriller". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. CONCISE taken to extreme brevity becomes stupidity. Removes the most important information. Hurts recognizability. Fails PRECISE. Thriller (Cold Blood album). Thriller (Eddie and the Hot Rods album). Fails CONSISTENCY for albums titled “Thriller”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose No matter how famous something is, it's just confusing if you try to make disambiguations more imprecise. WP:PRECISE should take precedent over fame.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gonnym, Lugnuts, SmokeyJoe and ZXCVBNM. The main title header should remain as is — no need to create incomplete disambiguation. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, oppose oppose oppose, pure and simple disruptive. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. This is the clear primary topic for albums titled Thriller. (Although, as long as Thriller (album) continues to redirect here, it doesn't make a great deal of difference.) Station1 (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Bad redirects like that are not worth worrying about fixing. Nothing should be linking to it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Thriller+%28album%29&namespace=0 Current 9 mainspace incoming links. The existence of bad redirects should not be considered evidence of what would be a better title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
      • All of those incoming links are all correct. That seems like additional evidence that it's a good redirect. Station1 (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
        • All of them would be better fixed to link directly, but it’s a trifling matter. Redirects are cheap, and mostly unimportant. The lack of harm of the redirect is not evidence that it would be a suitable title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
          • If this proposal goes through, they all will be linking directly! But I agree that's of minor importance. I also agree that redirects are not necessarily evidence of an article's best title. In this particular case, however, the redirect has been extensively discussed (3 times) and judged to be a positive good, not merely harmless. Station1 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONSENSE. Absolutely, far and away, the most notable album by that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I usually don't support PDABs because of their confusion but this seems to be a case where this might be allowed by the guideline as an exception. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom, and without a doubt the primary topic for "Thriller (album)". If you say, "the album 'Thriller'", everyone knows which one you're talking about. If you're not talking about that one, you have to say it explicitly ("...no, not the Thriller, Eddie and the Hot Rods' 'Thriller'"). – Levivich 22:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. If I understand correctly, it is pausible that readers can confuse an album with "most top 10 singles from an album in the US", "became the best-selling album worldwide of 1983 and 1984", that has sold "66 million [verifiable] copies worldwide", that is "the second-best-selling album in the United States", that "won a record-breaking eight Grammy Awards", including Album of the Year, that was "inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame and the Library of Congress' National Recording Registry" for being a "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant record", that receives 60K visits per month, that by typing "thr" in the search bar it is the 5th term that appears and that is linked in around 1,500 pages, with an article that, despite being titled "album" does not focus on the album at all (beyond a tracklist) and gives undue weight to its album cover? This album is the primary topic for a title "Thriller" and people merely use the genre as an excuse for not recognizing it. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 21:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Proposed title meets WP:CRITERIA better than the current title does. Recognizability and precision are moot because this topic is indisputably primary for Thriller (album) (no one challenges the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT). Both current and proposed titles use parenthetic disambiguation so neither is more natural than the other; so that's moot too. Consistency is not really applicable here. But by WP:CONCISE the proposed title clearly is favored. --В²C ☎ 21:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lyrical themes

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Blueberry72: what do you think the lyrical themes of the album should be? Thriller is the only album of Jackson's since 1979 where the lyrical themes are not in the lead. Isaacsorry (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacsorry: I think the reason is that in Music and lyrics section only for some songs there are sourced infos about lyrical themes. Lead content must summarize the content of the article, so firstly we should add in Music and lyrics section other infos about the lyrics. Blueberry72 (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thriller_(album)/Archive_7&oldid=1089898263"