This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rumours (album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Rumours (album) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2024. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power G (original) has changed the genre twice now from "soft rock" to "rock" without a source. I have reverted, as the genre soft rock is supported by the article in the Music section:
Featuring a soft rock and pop rock sound, [1] [2] Rumours is built around a mix of acoustic and electric instrumentation.
The Telegraph source supported "Soft rock". Chaheel Riens ( talk) 19:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Similar to how Dreams has a box showing its 2020 chart performance, can we have a similar box showing that Rumours is currently at #7 on the Billboard 200? Bluorangefyre ( talk) 04:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved.
result: Move logs:
source title ·
target title
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
– On the disambiguation page of this name, you've got this album, an episode of Glee named after it, a Canadian TV series which I've just launched an AfD on, and two songs that haven't got their own pages. Surely there's no way this isn't the primary subject amongst that list. QuietHere ( talk) 04:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Since I took this to FA a long time ago, the sections have been kept to encyclopedic standards and even improved in some cases. So well done.
However, the summation seems to have become bloated and confused.
Firstly, you do not need to cite anything as it should be covered in the text. And if it is not covered in the text, it should be placed there instead.
Secondly, it is best practice to not use specific publications and numbers. A general tone is preferred unless it's something super big like a Grammy win or millions sold.
Finally, you do not have to summarise EVERYTHING like every single and every reissue ever. It's simply meant to give an overview and in fact encourage the reader to explore more.
I'm happy to give it a once over but did not want to step on anybody's toes who's been working on it recently. I know how that feels.
All the best. 2A01:4B00:AD07:ED00:D4B0:4177:AAA:9FC7 ( talk) 07:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Yesterday, an IP editor took issue with my changing the caption of the table in the certifications and sales section from "Sales certifications for Rumours" to "Certifications and sales for Rumours", and so I thought I'd clarify, although that editor has now been rangeblocked for three months for disruptive editing across multiple IPs. My change was to bring the caption in line with the footnotes of the template, which state that all but two of the figures with footnotes include shipments (as distinct from copies actually sold) and streams. Along with this, two of the figures in the template are not even certifications but only sales figures, so these cannot be certifications, let alone "sales certifications" anyway.
The footnotes in the table back up the fact (contrary to what the IP editor stated, it is not my POV) that certifications include shipments in most countries. For example, in the United States, per NPR: "The ways in which the RIAA has historically tallied its numbers, however, have not always been strictly sales-based; the group previously counted units shipped to retailers, but not necessarily sold, within their calculations." That same NPR article also now says that artists can be certified without having sold a single copy, as certifications can be awarded based solely on streaming activity (four of the figures in the template, as marked by ‡, include streams). The caption should not be contradicting what the template actually includes or asserting that certifications are all or even mostly "sales" certifications. If there is an issue with the wording of the footnotes and my bringing the caption into line with it, then this seems like the sort of thing to bring up at a certification-related talk page, e.g. Template talk:Certification Table Entry. Ss 112 05:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Would it make sense to run this at WP:Today's featured article in April? I'm on the fence on this one ... I see lots of helpful maintenance edits, but it's been a long time since any formal review. Thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 02:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rumours (album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Rumours (album) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2024. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power G (original) has changed the genre twice now from "soft rock" to "rock" without a source. I have reverted, as the genre soft rock is supported by the article in the Music section:
Featuring a soft rock and pop rock sound, [1] [2] Rumours is built around a mix of acoustic and electric instrumentation.
The Telegraph source supported "Soft rock". Chaheel Riens ( talk) 19:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Similar to how Dreams has a box showing its 2020 chart performance, can we have a similar box showing that Rumours is currently at #7 on the Billboard 200? Bluorangefyre ( talk) 04:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved.
result: Move logs:
source title ·
target title
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
– On the disambiguation page of this name, you've got this album, an episode of Glee named after it, a Canadian TV series which I've just launched an AfD on, and two songs that haven't got their own pages. Surely there's no way this isn't the primary subject amongst that list. QuietHere ( talk) 04:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Since I took this to FA a long time ago, the sections have been kept to encyclopedic standards and even improved in some cases. So well done.
However, the summation seems to have become bloated and confused.
Firstly, you do not need to cite anything as it should be covered in the text. And if it is not covered in the text, it should be placed there instead.
Secondly, it is best practice to not use specific publications and numbers. A general tone is preferred unless it's something super big like a Grammy win or millions sold.
Finally, you do not have to summarise EVERYTHING like every single and every reissue ever. It's simply meant to give an overview and in fact encourage the reader to explore more.
I'm happy to give it a once over but did not want to step on anybody's toes who's been working on it recently. I know how that feels.
All the best. 2A01:4B00:AD07:ED00:D4B0:4177:AAA:9FC7 ( talk) 07:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Yesterday, an IP editor took issue with my changing the caption of the table in the certifications and sales section from "Sales certifications for Rumours" to "Certifications and sales for Rumours", and so I thought I'd clarify, although that editor has now been rangeblocked for three months for disruptive editing across multiple IPs. My change was to bring the caption in line with the footnotes of the template, which state that all but two of the figures with footnotes include shipments (as distinct from copies actually sold) and streams. Along with this, two of the figures in the template are not even certifications but only sales figures, so these cannot be certifications, let alone "sales certifications" anyway.
The footnotes in the table back up the fact (contrary to what the IP editor stated, it is not my POV) that certifications include shipments in most countries. For example, in the United States, per NPR: "The ways in which the RIAA has historically tallied its numbers, however, have not always been strictly sales-based; the group previously counted units shipped to retailers, but not necessarily sold, within their calculations." That same NPR article also now says that artists can be certified without having sold a single copy, as certifications can be awarded based solely on streaming activity (four of the figures in the template, as marked by ‡, include streams). The caption should not be contradicting what the template actually includes or asserting that certifications are all or even mostly "sales" certifications. If there is an issue with the wording of the footnotes and my bringing the caption into line with it, then this seems like the sort of thing to bring up at a certification-related talk page, e.g. Template talk:Certification Table Entry. Ss 112 05:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Would it make sense to run this at WP:Today's featured article in April? I'm on the fence on this one ... I see lots of helpful maintenance edits, but it's been a long time since any formal review. Thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 02:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)