Talk:List of 2022 albums: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albums List‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Lists List‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Years List‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To be included on this stand-alone list, each entry should meet the following list criteria (see discussion): (1) List includes notable items defined as having received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject, and (2) includes music albums, EPs, and mixtapes released or scheduled for release in 2022.

Section sizes Section size for List of 2022 albums (18 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 702 702 First quarter 18 100,049 January 21,934 21,934 February 31,140 31,140 March 46,957 46,957 Second quarter 19 93,007 April 33,316 33,316 May 29,527 29,527 June 30,145 30,145 Third quarter 18 126,059 July 34,804 34,804 August 31,581 31,581 September 59,656 59,656 Fourth quarter 20 144,710 October 66,427 66,427 November 62,250 62,250 December 16,013 16,013 References 221 221 Total 464,748 464,748

Recently an anonymous user made some modifications to the tables, where they added an additional column. The column specified if the albums were EPs, mixtapes, studio albums, compilations, or soundtracks, plus some additional items such as country of origin, if the album was a debut, or if the album was really a singles album. I have for now reverted the changes as too bold to make without a discussion. Do other users want to see a column that specifies the type of release? How about notes such as debut, or country of origin. We have defined what is allowed on the list, so I am not proposing allowing singles albums, but the other choices should be discussed. I have my opinions, but I won't state them in this opening section, I just want to open up a discussion of whether an additional column would improve the list, and what the column should be, whether it is a type listing, or notes, or both, or no additional column at all. Mburrell (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Release type" would be more doable if not for the confusion that regularly crops up around different countries using similar terminology to refer to different types of releases (Especially the Korean music industry, I've seen discussions pop up about that a few times 'round these parts), which is unfortunate 'cause otherwise I would like to have it. The rest I'm not really sure I see as all that necessary. I also worry that those blocks could easily get overstuffed in the same way Producers did, and make the page way longer/harder to navigate just by each row being multiple lines of text long. QuietHere (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tame impala is releasing an album on the 18th of February. Denzel curry is releasing an album, it is tba still however 2600:8800:700B:4800:BC88:ED13:2E0E:259A (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. The article is not locked, and you will gain experience by learning to enter albums and artists. People are more than willing to improve entries that don't meet standards (provided minimal effort is put into adding the album), but not everyone will leap to enter album listings at the behest of others who won't do the work. Mburrell (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the coverage I'm finding on the Tame Impala project, it appears to be a deluxe version of their 2020 album, so you're gonna have a bit more difficulty getting that added here. As for Denzel, I haven't seen anything about a release date yet that isn't speculative so it can't be added just yet. QuietHere (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, it is pretty clear if an album belongs on a years list. However, the Godspeed You! Black Emperor album All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling could use some debate. The album was originally released in December 1994, but apparently only 33 cassette albums were released. It has now been released on Bandcamp on February 14, 2022. The album article clearly states the 1994 release is the original release and the 2022 release is the re-release. However, could it be argued that 33 albums sold back in the day makes that an unofficial release and the Bandcamp release is the official release? That is about the only argument I could see for keeping the album on the 2022 list. Otherwise, it should be shifted to the 1994 music list. I welcome other thoughts. Mburrell (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was basically my entire thought process in adding it. Sources (like the one I included plus TLoBF and Exclaim!) are calling it an "official" release even though it was known to have had that casette run back in the day. It's also not entirely clear what happened to those 33 tapes (I've seen reference so some being "lost", so presumably they didn't sell all of them). From what I've read, it doesn't sound like they intended to push that album any further than that at the time, hence it only being released this week after the full thing leaked online the other day. I wouldn't be opposed to moving it, but with three sources calling this new release "official" I would prefer to defer to that. QuietHere (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this list follow album article information. If the album article was modified to call the 1994 release aIn unofficial release and the 2022 release the official release, and the edits remained after any challenges, then I could support listing the album on this list. Otherwise, we have a disconnect between the album article and this list, and I would prefer for the album article to be the dominant factor. Mburrell (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decided our best bet was to cast a wider net for consensus so I've left a query on the album's talk page. I'll also be listing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums so hopefully we get an answer out of this soon. QuietHere (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no response on the Talk page of All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling about the 2022 release being the official release. I am going to remove the album from this list this weekend unless there is an additional argument for the album being an unofficial release in 1994. Mburrell (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had the thought a while ago about trying to get the "Go to" boxes at the top of the tables (the ones that navigate between the different month sections) converted into a template. Not sure what the procedure is for getting that done, nor do I know how to create it myself, but figured if I throw the idea out here someone who does know could get it done. Would be far easier than the current process of creating a new one for every new table plus having to edit all the old ones to keep them up to date. Surely there's gotta be a way to automate all of that. QuietHere (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and made a request for this (see here). Hopefully that can work out 'cause it'll be very useful to have 'round these parts. QuietHere (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:CBDunkerson created a template for the go to boxes, see Template:Monthbar. The user applied the new template to the List of 2020 albums. I don't think it will transfer over to the split album lists of 2021 without losing the ability to jump from first half months to second half months, but it can be applied to the 2022 list, and earlier lists. Mburrell (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're fine without it on the 2021 list for now since that's already fully implemented and split. If you want it to be more versatile then feel free to request the change but I'm alright with it at the moment. Gonna go plug it into the rest of the list now. QuietHere (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The value of this list decreases when 90% of the artists are unknown or uninteresting to the public. Could criteria be set up for a more exclusive list? Dr. Universe (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You not knowing the artists doesn't make them non-notable. It's not our job to judge whether a giving act "deserves" to be listed, just to see if they meet WP's baseline requirements. This list is fine as is. QuietHere (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This isn't about artists familiar to you. This is a list of albums by artists who are notable from a Wikipedia perspective. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are existing exclusive album lists. In the top right corner of any of the album list pages, there is a table that lists the year in music by location (Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, United Kingdom, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, & United States), and then by genre (Classical, Country, Heavy metal, Hip hop, Jazz, Latin, and Rock). Each of those lists have lists for previous years as well. 2021 in rock music lists notable events and deaths but does not list albums, but 2021 in heavy metal music lists heavy metal albums released for the year. Maybe what you are looking for is in these more exclusive lists. Mburrell (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with QuietHere and Another Believer. 7szz (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal applies to all "year albums" articles. Is it really necessary a reference column for those albums for which Wikipedia has already an article? I don't think so. I suggest using {{CEmpty}} in those cases. 7szz (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of removing references from entries with self-notable articles was mainly born out of a need to reduce the size of the lists. What (I think) you're suggesting would involve adding text back to all of those spaces (not nearly as much as the references but still) simply to change their color for some aesthetic goal. If I'm getting that right, then I don't remotely see the point of it. It's just an added step to each edit which doesn't serve a needed purpose.

And for clarity, we don't just remove/not have refs for entries where the album has an article, but specifically when that article itself establishes a solid base of notability for the given album. If the article itself isn't sufficiently self-notable then the source should stay. Let's make sure we're clear in our language regarding that so nobody gets confused. QuietHere (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything QuietHere stated above. Tried entering {{CEmpty}}, and all it does in the viewable table is to shade the cell a dark gray. Most users won't know to use it, so that it would leave one more item for other editors to follow up and insert. I don't see how it adds anything to the article.

Some background information: Originally, every album listing would have a citation showing notability, but in 2021 the album list became the largest article in Wikipedia, and after much discussion, it was decided that albums that were already proven to be notable did not have to have a citation on the album list, which is why some of the reference cells have no information in them. However, one of the goals is to keep the tables as simple as possible, with as much consistency for each album entry, which is why every album listing will have the same amount of columns for the data entry, a column for required information of artist name and album title, placed in the appropriate release date, the optional listings of genre and label, and the semi-mandatory listing of reference citation, required if the album does not have an article that proves album notability through sufficient significant coverage from reliable sources. This is why I believe the reference column is necesary, even if left empty. Mburrell (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many things. The main purpose of {{CEmpty}} is to indicate that the space has not been left blank unintentionally; it will not add many bytes, that cannot be an excuse. I quote QuietHere: "If the article itself isn't sufficiently self-notable then the source should stay." It is not our job here to determine if an article is "sufficiently self-notable"! On contrast, we must presume notability, that's a rule on Wikipedia for a topic to have an article, otherwise it must be deleted from this site. That cannot be our criteria!
Another proposal would be removing all albums without article and thus the reference column (I can think of List of YouTubers now), but that's too radical and debatable. Perhaps it would satisfy Dr. Universe's proposal a bit. 7szz (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to jump straight to deleting entries en masse, especially since many are upcoming projects that don't have the coverage yet for an article but likely will in the future. On the other hand, you bring up a good point; not every entry on every list is notable, but nobody's ever gone through and checked all of 'em to see what can be pruned (at least to my memory). If you're interested in doing so, feel free, just be wary of what you're cutting. And for anything with article potential, perhaps we need to utilise Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Albums more often since the handful of regular editors here seemingly can't keep up with the load alone. There's plenty of material that can be salvaged, so let's put in the work there before we start chainsawing chunks out of the lists. QuietHere (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, there was no real definition of a what made an album notable. However, over the past few years, as it was debated about how to reduce article size, discussions occurred and definitions were created on what made an album notable enough to be on the album lists. From Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, there are two sections for defining what goes into a list, Selection criteria and Common selection criteria.

What these two sections from the guidelines state is that Wikipedia will not define what goes into a list, it is up to the list to set the definition. After observing what was being added to the list and the reasoning for citations, a definition of what to include in the list was generated and added to the top of every list of <year> albums that defines the inclusion criteria as "The following is a list of music albums, EPs, and mixtapes scheduled for release in <year>. These are notable albums, defined as having received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject." So this does answer User:7szz statement that it is not our job to determine if an article is "sufficiently self-notable". If the album article does not comply with the list definition, the album article is not sufficiently self-notable, and it is our job to observe and make these calls. Yes, we could probably propose some articles for deletion for being inadequately supported, but new articles tend to be quickly created and developed over time. I don't feel like policing all of the album articles, but it is within our purview to police the lists, since we have a clear definition of what is required to be included in the list. Mburrell (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easiest to write it here. To clarify what I meant in my reversion of Pjesnik21's edit, my issue isn't with the lack of fact statements in the article, but that the article isn't actually about the album or even really about the duo, but more focused on the more famous guest artist. That alone does not look like good notability to me, and given the lack of coverage elsewhere I don't think this album would pass the notability test as an article anyway (at least not at this time). And I'm not even fully convinced the IC3PEAK article passes notability for that matter. But I dunno, maybe I'm being overly cautious here. QuietHere (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Figured it's never too early to start next year's list so long as it's in draft form (and I think this one started around the same time if not earlier as a draft). Got anything to add, that's where you put it. QuietHere (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So here's an odd and very specific question: Say an artist doesn't have their own page, nor does the release, but that artist does have a section of their band's page dedicated to them which has enough sources to establish their notability. Could we link to that for the artist and that fulfills the linking requirement? Specifically I have in mind Sarah Midori Perry from Kero Kero Bonito who just released an EP under the name Cryalot last week (currently sitting as a draft much to my chagrin). I haven't listed it yet despite it clearly being notable because she doesn't have her own page, but a friend just suggested the section should be good and so I come here to gather more thoughts. It's entirely possible this won't end up mattering if the draft gets approved soon (and here's hoping) but it's worth asking anyway for future reference. QuietHere (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As a minimum, I would want to see a section of a band article about the band member, with citations in the section to show that the band member is notable by themselves. If the band article just mentions the band members, even if founding members, in the lead and general paragraphs, that is not enough to show notability, but if you can link specifically to a section of the band article that is solely about the notable band member, then that it is fair to link to that band member.

I don't remember if we have linked to band members specifically by section recently, but back when we were including a column for album producers, this was the criteria I used for whether we could link to the producer, if they at least had their own section. Mburrell (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]