Talk:Title (album)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title (Straightener album)

The 2005 Japanese album is only a redirect at present but "exists" per WP:NCM. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved as there is no consensus. Note to Maranofan – you should not remove comments from IPs (as you did here) during a debate. Number 57 13:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

---

• Title (Meghan Trainor album) → Title (album)

I think that this article is the WP:PTOPIC for the suggested name. No other album called "Title" has a page on Wikipedia. The redirect, "Title (Straightener album)" doesn't look like it has been viewed a lot. In any case, a 2014 album, Which has yielded 2 top 5 singles definitely seems to be the more sought after topic here. A hatnote pointing to Title (disambiguation) would be added on the top of this article, when the move is made, making it "less" confusing. MaranoFan (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support, exactly per nom. As long as we only have one article on an album by this name, we ought to use a WP:PRECISE title. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: Not only is there one other (not-as-popular) album with the title Title, but this may be a special case where "Title (album)" may be a confusing name because it looks like a leftover placeholder that should be fixed or removed if someone's just seeing it in a Wikipedia list, rather that at the top of its actual article. An experienced editor who is fully awake for the day will probably catch on, but Wikipedia isn't just for people who already understand Wikipedia and have had their morning coffee; having a more specific link is easier than discovering when some "helpful" editor deletes it at random once in a while. (I guess one could use just "Title (album)" for the article, then always remember to use Title (Meghan Trainor album) in the links.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Closeapple: By that logic, CD (album) should redirect to Compact disc. But it has been a redirect to Album (Public Image Ltd album) since 2008 and nobody raised any questions. Marano ^fan 17:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Note that every article which linked to CD (album) intended to link to compact disc not the PIL album, so I move the redirect to CD (Public Image Ltd album) to negate the confusion. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support: It is clearly the WP:PTOPIC. The Straightener album does not even have a proper article of its own. - Lips ^{are movin} 21:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Mild oppose because I think primary topic for this redirect is most likely Title (publishing) Red Slash 22:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - even though Title (Straightener album) on Japanese Wikipedia (Amazon.com album cover) was a #23 charting album it is covered on en.wp in band bio and exists, but more that Title (album) is a very possible redirect for Album title which should be a redirect to Title (publishing). Although album titling doesn't get as much attention as LP cover art in books on popular music, there's considerable discussion in books, from Bill Bruford saying he was more indispensable as a chooser of album titles than as a drummer, to general comment on LP titling trends in Billboard. Incidentally the WP:PTOPIC for Title is Title, we explicitly exclude extension of WP:PTOPIC to primary (album) primary (cricketer) or so on, so WP:PTOPIC cannot be cited as relevant in this RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. A hatnote can be used to point readers to the other article. -- Calidum 02:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Closeapple and IIO. Irrespective of any other guideline, Title (album), is misleading. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support clear primary topic, and the album by Straightener doesn't even have its own article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Note:The above oppose discussions are probably not valid since 1. Everyone agrees it is the primary topic. 2. The arguments, as Richhoncho himself notes, are "irrespective of any guideline". 3. The article is going to have a hatnote linking to Title (disambiguation) which also clearly lists Title (publishing). Marano ^fan 16:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: A primary topic discussion would revolve around the title Title, not an already disambiguated title. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The argument here is that Title is definitely the only notable album which has a page, with the title "Title". Marano ^fan 04:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose this not the PTOPIC primary topic, because the requested title is not "Title" (Title) therefore the requested title is not a primary topic pagename, so PTOPIC does not apply. The proposed title also is not WP:PRECISE enough to identify the topic, since the title of an album is title (publishing). And it's how music databases treat album titles. So the subject of a "title" in relation to the subject area "albums" is the album title, not the album named "Title". Further having title to an album is title (property), the ownership of the album. Thus the proposed title also falls on WP:ASTONISH, as we all know what title does in IP rights, such as SOPA and PIPPA and DCMA laws. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • NOTE MaranoFan (talk · contribs) deleted this !vote (diff) AND the last time I tried to lodge a !vote (diff) (I didn't notice, thought I'd messed up a save of it or something, otherwise I'd have restored my prior opinion) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. With or without the Straightener album, "Title (album)" could easily be confused as an article about album titles, as other users have pointed out. "Title (Meghan Trainor album)" is precise and unlikely to cause confusion with either an album title or another artist's album. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:37, 26 December 2014 (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.

Booklet credits

Does the booklet actually say that Trainor is the "exec" producer of those couple of songs?  — ₳aron 12:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: The AATB CD single says so but the Title EP says: All songs written by Meghan Trainor and Kevin Kadish. Produced by Kevin Kadish. Executive Producer: Meghan Trainor. In that case I'm not sure if the EP as a whole with Dear Future Husband and Title (song) are executively produced by her. I think once we have the liner notes for the album itself all will be clarified?- Lips ^{are movin} 12:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it must been of the EP and the album, you don't have exec producers of songs. Just producers, co-producers and additional producers. You get exec producers for albums.  — ₳aron 13:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how it works but I just saw they are used on a FA Talk That Talk (Rihanna song) and thought exec producers were applicable. Thanks for pointing out. - Lips ^{are movin} 14:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it does say in in the booklet for Talk That Talk but I don't really understand what it means to be an executive producer of a song, when producers and vocal producers are also present.  — ₳aron 09:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The writing

I just made a tweak or two to the article, and inserted two explanation templates, where Wikipedia's voice is saying things that aren't factual and need contextualization. I was surprised to see that some of the changes I made are kind of a revert of this edit, which is unproductive (some of the writing is simply not good, esp. the sentence starting "sonically") and whose edit summary is incorrect (please point out the grammatical error that was corrected in the big revert). If this is to be a GA, the writing needs some serious work. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Critical reception

Would it not be best to only include prose reviews that aggregate to the album's Metacritic score here instead of cherrypicking other ones that don't? To keep the section as neutral as possible? - Lips ^{are movin} 17:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lips Are Movin: As for the review box, yes. But the section as a whole may be expanded by any relevant WP:RS. MaRAno ^FAN 17:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: I understand, I just thought as a suggestion it would be better that the prose reviews were those used for neutrality of the score it received on Metacritic and the section's opening sentence/summary, there are dozens and dozens of reviews of the album around, but that doesn't make all notable. WP:ALBUM/SOURCES also gives a guideline of what the most notable sources are to use in this regard.- Lips ^{are movin} 18:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Peer review

I recently submitted a peer review of this article, but realized that shortly thereafter the Wikipedian who requested the review was blocked and may need someone else here to review it. If someone could take that up and leave any follow-up questions as needed, that will ensure that the review is as effective as possible. Tonystewart14 (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Debut album?

According to Meghan Trainor discography, three albums have been released before this. Why is Title classed as her debut album? –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Her early albums were self-published. This album is her major label debut. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I find 'major label debut' to be cumbersome and limiting in its descriptive scope. Suggest reverting to Chase's wording, but mentioning subsequently that it is her major label debut. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the wording by BoboMeowCat. BoboMeowCat's wording is certainly not cumbersome, but instead is explanatory, and the wording provides more clarity to the reader. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks WordSeventeen, but it's actually not my wording. The debated text of calling this her debut has apparently been in the article since January. I didn't add. I just don't think it should be changed without consensus as debut seems significant.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Adam Files's recent edit might actually incorporate both elements well with this compromise edit [[1]] although I'm not clear if this is technically her 3rd or 4th album. Although it does also seem reasonable to leave off reference to her earlier self published albums unless they become more notable.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel like it goes into far unnecessary detail. What is the distinction between an indie label/self release and a major label in terms of content? Katy Perry's articles do a fine job with this. Her debut album was a very obscure release (less than 200 copies sold or something like that) but One of the Boys (Katy Perry album) doesn't gloss over this and appropriately describes it as her second album. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the version that simply calls this her 4th album gives readers the wrong impression that Trainor's been around awhile professionally, when she's really a new artist in terms of significant attn. Anyone can self-publish an album and Trainor's self-published albums only got significant attention following her big label release.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Current wording as of this writing says this is her fourth overall album and first with a major label. Why is there still a problem? Are you attempting to rewrite history to remove the existence of these three albums just because they're not notable? –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't care if she is a new or an old artist, Title is her fourth studio album, not a debut. Whether she published it herself or by a big recording company they are still her own albums. Thus I don't see the reason why don't including that this is actually her fourth album and first major release. — Tom^(T2ME) 20:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Concur with the above that it is her fourth album, regardless of label or self-release. We don't just discount albums simply for not being with major labels or things of the sort. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

How about tweaking Adam's edit for accuracy and clarity to the readers and write: "Title is the fourth album and the major label debut studio album by American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor". This seems to be a reasonable compromise. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine how is it now. — Tom^(T2ME) 20:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

My objection to the way it is now (after another revert to remove longstanding text describing this as her "debut") is that it seems to leave readers with the impression that Trainor is a longstanding established artist instead of a new artist. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Trainor is indeed a newly established artist, however, that doesn't mean she is a new artist. She has been out there for a quite a while (unsuccessfully) and that's what we are pointing in the first sentence. Title is her fourth studio album and first major-label recording. The "longstanding" text you are talking about was obviously wrong and as thus it needed to be changed. — Tom^(T2ME) 20:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Chasewc91 and Tomica said it all. It doesn't matter how long she's been famous as much as it does how long she's been working professionally. Professional work is not always famous work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The music industry has a changed a lot over the last two decades. A lot of artists, including very established ones (King Crimson for instance) self publish. Digital distribution and low cost recording technologies has eliminated the requirement for artist to use a label. So this is in no way a debut album. However, it is also true that it's her first major label album. I see no harm in mentioning that in context. The word "debut" however means something a little different. Per Collins, a debut album is the first album produced by a particular singer or band. If the concern by Bobomeowcat is that readers would get the wrong impression, we can make it clear that she was relatively unknown until her fourth album.Mattnad (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad The article currently reads, Title is the fourth studio album by American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor. Released on January 9, 2015 by Epic Records, it is Trainor's first full-length album with a major recording company. I don't see anything wrong with it. And I agree on your elaboration of debut. However, apparently BoboMeowCat is a fan of Trainor so he/she wants to forget about her 3 not successful albums and pushes the word debut, which is wrong in this case. — Tom^(T2ME) 14:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting original research (also interesting speculation regarding my motivations....I only recently started editing the Trainor suite of articles due to flurry of noticeboard activity, RfC's etc) anyway, considering that "debut" has been longstanding article content, I decided to check and see what the reliable sources have to say here, and apparently they refer to Title as Trainor's "debut": [2],[3],[4],[5]. Also, I'm not trying to get people to forget about her other albums. I'm not arguing for removal of reference to her earlier self-published albums. I just don't understand the push to delete "major label debut" based on OR. This is longstanding article content, reliably sourced, and it shouldn't be removed based on OR. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Debut is okay if there are mulitple reliable sources, although I personally think first would fit better here. Obviously, even though those sources are reliable, their editors are not well informed. — Tom^(T2ME) 14:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but Title is the third album of Meghan Trianor and don´t is the fourth.Adam Files (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why this is such a contentious issue. "Major label debut" seems also accurate based on the discussion, unless we believe that her other efforts qualify as "major label" too. As a sometimes music artist myself, there's a difference between just publishing an album and getting the green light and support of a major label (Epic qualifies). As qualified "major label debut", a) is that accurate, and if so, b) why wouldn't we want that in here?Mattnad (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Trainor's earlier self-published albums were not released via major record lables. I think this point should be obvious. However, regardless of personal opinions on what seems best or what is obvious to me, you or anyone else, the reliable sources (see links above) call Title Trainor's debut album. Most of them simply say "debut", while Rolling Stone calls it her "major-label debut". Considering most sources simply call it her "debut", I suppose we could simply use debut with no qualifiers, but considering RS also refers to this as her "major-label debut", this seems clearer and less confusing to the readers considering the self-pub albums are mentioned, so I think we should go with "major-label debut".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Cape Cod Times says "major-label debut" and mentions her first three albums. Major-label or not, calling it simply her "debut album" is very misleading. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, calling it just her "debut" instead of "major-label debut" could be confusing, but I don't think anyone has argued for that and I haven't seen anyone try to remove the qualifier.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Title (EP)

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.

---

Proposed EP section

EP Untitled Prior to the release of Title, an identically named EP was released on September 9, 2014. The four-track release includes "All About That Bass", "Title", "Dear Future Husband", and "Close Your Eyes". After writing "All About That Bass", Kadish suggested to Trainor that they record an EP of 1950s-influenced music "for fun." Epic released the EP to prove to the public that Trainor was not a one-hit wonder. The singer named it Title as a joke after various people asked her what its title would be. In Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, an "All About That Bass" EP with an identical track listing was released. The Title EP was removed from the iTunes Store when the full album was released for pre-order. Promotion of the Title EP included performances of "All About That Bass" on Live! with Kelly and Michael, Entertainment Tonight, The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon (with Fallon and The Roots), The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and The X Factor Australia. MTV premiered the song "Title" on their website and Trainor later performed it on the network. She additionally performed "Title" and Sam Smith's "Stay with Me" in a session for the National Post. AllMusic's Matt Collar gave the EP a four-out-of-five star review, praising the catchiness of its songs and Trainor's vocal ability. Jon Dolan of Rolling Stone gave the EP a three-out-of-five star review, praising its lyrics for being empowering and realistic. A writer for the Knoxville News Sentinel also gave the EP three out of five stars, but criticized it for lacking diversity. Likewise, Chris DeVille of Stereogum opined that Trainor should "[find] some new subject matter to sing about," though he praised Trainor's vocal ability, the songs' musical content, and their "cheeky" lyrics. References

Since the Title EP consists of four tracks from the full-length Title album, and the EP article largely recycles material found in the album article, I propose that the EP article be condensed and merged into the album article. I've gone ahead and condensed the EP article into three paragraphs; please indicate below whether or not you feel such a merge should take place. If there's any key information I left out, that can be added back later. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is her major-label debut and has been discussed separately by the sources. Also Title (EP) has been recently nominated for deletion, but there is currently no emerging consensus to merge it here. The result appears headed toward keeping that as a separate article. Add- The charting is different for these two albums. It would look strange. Seems better to keep separate articles for these distinct albums. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it has been discussed separately – and the bulk of content that discusses it separately has been condensed for potential merging above. Also, this merger proposal is separate from the AfD since there clearly will not be consensus to delete the article. I wanted to discuss merging more extensively so I opened this. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• First major release or not, it's not a studio album (look up the definition). Its content is already covered in the studio album article and in part at the Trainor article. On its own, it can only be a rehashing of the article on the studio album. To me, it's a waste of space. The charting can be noted in the article it will be merged with, shouldn't be an issue, nor should it be confusing to readers. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• The charting is different for these two albums. It would look strange. There are only 3 weekly charts and 1 annual chart. Collapsible chart position tables can be added or the charts can be discussed in prose. I can add this to the collapsed example above if you would like to show you how uncomplicated this would be. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support merge per reasons stated by Chasewc91. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Distinct releases. Also, procedurally, this strikes me as inappropriate because the article was already subject to an AFD when the merge request was made. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Two separate releases, each receiving separate coverage. Both meet the GNG, and both have plenty of content. I see no convincing reasons to merge. I also feel it was a bad idea to open this during an AFD, but with neither working out at all for the nominators, I guess it'll just be that much more of a stronger consensus that both are the wrong course of action. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per User:Crisco 1492 and User:Sergecross73. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per User:Crisco 1492 and User:Sergecross73. These are different releases, and has separate charting. It's not like they are the same thing. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (Weak) – The biggest problem here is that the tracks released on the EP all exist in the full studio album, and that makes it seem like the two articles should be merged. Typically this isn't an issue when the EP goes by a different title than the album, or when the EP contains a track or two that wasn't carried over. There are definitely some valid concerns here that warrant further discussion. With that said, I don't believe this proposal is the solution. Glancing through the article, I don't see how the unique content in Title (EP) can be compressed into a three- or four-paragraph section without losing a significant portion or without throwing off the sequence of events. The part about anti-feminisim didn't make the cut in the proposal, and although easily remedied, it starts to get dicey in sections that have the same title across both articles. For instance, under "Writing and inspiration" in the EP article, there are several notable events that led up to its creation. If this was constrained to a small "EP" section in Title (Meghan Trainor album), then the "Writing and inspiration" section there would have to awkwardly leave out these events (knowing they would be addressed in a later section). That might feel confusing chronologically. Of course, you could go ahead and mention the EP tracks' inspiration in that section as well, but then you've just defeated most of the reasoning behind having an EP section. It might be possible to merge the two articles in a careful way, but condensing the EP article into a single section doesn't seem like the way to go. There's enough content here for two separate articles, and having two is the easy solution. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the nominators rationale and common sense. This would be fine as just a subsection or less in the main article. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - The E.P. and the full-length album are two separate releases and both have charted differently. That would look strange if the E.P. and the album were merged. Plus, the E.P. has different critical reception than the album, and is featured as a good article. - ilovechristianmusic ^{(Talk to me!)} 11:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Distinct releases from different years even, same songs mean nada, if anything it displays lazy artistry not non-nobility, the recent trend to merge good material is quite the shame. Nearly every source but ONE i see in the article is from before the album was released! if we go by this then every greatest hits album should be merged because they have the "same songs" on them. GuzzyG (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Different releases, separate coverage, separate charting, the EP page is a GA. --Markhoris (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per GuzzyG's and Markhoris' reasoning Aria1561 (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2015 (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.

Album cover

Is there a way to make the album cover more HQ? When you click on the image, it is a great quality, but on the mainpage, the cover looks LQ. Any way to resolve this? - ilovechristianmusic ^{(Talk to me!)} 18:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Track listing template

I have read up on MOS album styles, the track listing template article, and related articles, and cannot find anywhere that says repeating the album title is Wiki standard. I'm one for facts and links, so if it is Wiki standard, please point me in the direction of an article so I may read up on it. If, however, it is standard, I will edit accordingly. Best of luck. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 18:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits

First, I made the spacing consistent to each other on the album box template and the track listing box. Second, I added the writers and producers for "Good to Be Alive", which the info was obtained from the The Peanuts Movie (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) album liner notes. Finally, I removed the lengths and producers from the Guitar Version of "What If I" and the Acoustic Version of "Title" because the lengths and producers from the original version might be different than from the alternative versions. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 04:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Title (Meghan Trainor 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 15:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Title (Meghan Trainor album) → Title (album) – Existence does not equate notability, and the Straightener album is not notable at all. See the recent move at Brothers in Arms (album) for example, as well as the imminent move at Chandelier (song). Unreal7 (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. As noted by several editors in the last RM, the proposed title could easily be confused for an article about album titles. Nothing is gained from making the article title more ambiguous. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Before anyone replies suggesting a hatnote as the solution, think about how ridiculous one would be: This article is about the Meghan Trainor album. For the Straightener album, see Straightener (band). For Trainor's 2014 EP, see Title (EP). For album titles, see Title (publishing). Chase (talk | contributions) 23:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Here's another solution: "For other uses, see Title (disambiguation)#Music". Straightener themselves aren't the slightest bit notable either. One reference and Z-listers outside of Japan. Unreal7 (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Better solution: WP:BROKE Chase (talk | contributions) 21:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Chase. Would nominator like to explain why a perfectly clear RM should be ignored? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I already did - because the artist's name provides unnecessary disambiguation, as I said above. Girl on Fire (song), Brothers in Arms (album) and Chandelier (song) (about to be moved). Unreal7 (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - I'm sorry but on what level did the nominator think moving this to "Title (album)" was a great idea ? ... It fucking isn't!, "Title (album)" could refer to any bloody album and anyone would assume it would be an article about actual albums ..... not about a Megan Trainer album, Sorry but this is a ridiculous rm by anyones standards. –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support – readers are most likely to be looking for a specific album named Title, per our standard disambiguation format. SSTflyer 08:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree - No one's going to see "Title (album)" and think "Ooh yeah that's a Meghan Trainer" article are they ? ... It can refer to any album on the planet so having her name in the title causes much less confusion, –Davey2010^Talk 13:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed disambiguator is ambiguous, as already stated above. Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Title (Meghan Trainor 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifpi.gr/charts_el.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Title (Meghan Trainor 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150110220550/http://www.ariacharts.com.au/news/49770/meghan-trainor-announces-2015-australian-tour%21 to http://www.ariacharts.com.au/news/49770/meghan-trainor-announces-2015-australian-tour%21
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160829210341/http://hitsdailydouble.com/new_album_releases to http://hitsdailydouble.com/new_album_releases
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906185517/http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/albums to http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/albums

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Publishers in references

If we use some featured album articles for reference, Control (Janet Jackson album), 4 (Beyoncé album), ...And Justice for All (album)... References do not use the publisher field wherever the website has a Wikipedia article. The references in this article are inconsistent in their usage of this field so I am removing publishers.--NØ 09:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2021

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 to Title (album) per nom. No such user (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
P.S. WP:ALBUMDAB clearly applies here (supporters reinforcing WP:PDAB#Song and album articles with no other standalone article), while concerns about potential confusion with album title have been refuted. No such user (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Title (Meghan Trainor album) → Title (album) – The only article for an album with this title, per WP:ALBUMDAB. Tree Critter (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Tree Critter and 162 etc.: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• This went to RM in 2014 [6] and closed with no consensus. Needs to be discussed. [[User:|162 etc.]] (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this is something of a special case because to most readers the Title (album) would be an article about the title as part of an album. Having the artist name is no shame, and benefits everyone. There should be times when the letter of the law not be used against readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This is, indeed, the only notable album called Title. It continues to significantly outview Title (publishing) years after release (verify), so there is no recentism at play here. I just can't imagine anyone typing Title (album) instead of Album title so the above argument never made sense to me, and unless there's proof otherwise I'm not convinced.--NØ 17:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support no need for extra parentheticals when no other album under this name has or warrants a Wikipedia page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support as it's the only notable album named "Title". There is no confusion between this and album title. JIP | Talk 20:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed name sounds like it's an article about album titles! Not helpful to our readers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support as there is not another album by this title so a disambiguation seems unnecessary. While I understand the oppose arguments, I do not think there will be confusion as a result of this change. Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support: There's literally no other albums listed at the disambiguation page and this is the only one with an article. Past consensus has established that articles have precedence over redirects (redirects with the same initial title, that is) when it comes to which of them receives the undisambiguated/shorter title (there may be a better discussion but that was the first that came to mind). The fact that something so trivial needs to be debated is confusing and nonsensical. Sean Stephens (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: See also this, indicating there is precedent for this method of page naming. Sean Stephens (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Chiming in again to say I found this discussion (see "RfC: Artist name as disambiguation regarding non-notable song titles"). There seems to be an endless amount of discussions about this naming convention, all of which appear to have established that shorter titles are necessary when only one article exists for that name. Sean Stephens (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Necrothesp, I'd also consider moving Titles (album), see also this comment. I don't think its worth the confusion with the generic meaning in addition to there also being the Straightener album (though that in its self would probably not prevent this move per WP:SONGDAB). Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. A classic case of wp:IAR. The proposed title would be so far less recognisable that it's best left as is. Andrewa (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think this is an IAR issue even, WP:PRECISION is more to the point about album titles in general which would be an exception to SONGDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support as there are no other albums named "title." The current titles fails WP:CONCISE. -- Calidum 03:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Concerns over confusion with an article about album titles in general are respectable, but misguided. Who is going to look up "Title (album)" trying to find such an article? A hatnote can be added in the rare case that someone is so confused.  Mysterymanblue  21:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing has changed since the 2014 RM discussion. feminist (+) 02:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Other than the fact there's no recentism at play and this album continues to significantly outview anything else being discussed. That isn't "nothing".--NØ 03:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom and per Mystermyman above. Lennart97 (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.