The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that William Bowery, who co-wrote two songs on Taylor Swift's album Folklore, appeared to have no online presence, and is possibly a pseudonym?
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taylor Swift 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.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional folk music 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.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music articles
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I'd like to edit some points in the introductory paragraph as well as to request a reliable source for the line "often referred to as the quintessential lockdown record". That line can't just be thrown in there without citing the supposedly couple of critics that called it that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.79.86 (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. DigitalChutney (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can edit stuff in for you, if you want?! If you're still interested could you please message again and say exactly what you want done and I'll do it for you of I get a chance. ButWeWereDancin (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I'd like to remove the line: "often referred to as the quintessential lockdown record" because no source citing any critics/people calling the album that was provided. 108.54.79.86 (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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: no consensus. There is no consensus on whether the exclusively pageviews-based argument is appropriate or a slam-dunk, with concerns of recentism brought up repeatedly. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Nelly Furtado album is also notable for long-term significance. Shwcz (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it should be noted that just 5% of all pageviews for Nelly Furtado's album come from people who searched for the album. See the clickstream at WikiNav. aaronneallucas (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A ratio of 1 to 20 clearly indicates that the latter is the primary topic in regards to albums. ℛonherry☘ 06:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as WP:INCOMPLETEDAB. There are at least six albums with this title that have articles devoted to them on Wikipedia. Part of the reason this one is currently most popular is just WP:RECENTISM, as this one is only two years old and the Nelly Furtado album is 19 years old. The popularity of this one is declining over time, as shown by its pageview history, which is what typically happens to album releases. Partial disambiguation is very rare on Wikipedia and has a very high threshold for its application. Including the name of an artist in the title of an article about one of their works is generally helpful to readers. — BarrelProof (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the pageviews for this album alone doesn't provide the full picture. When comparing the pageviews of the Taylor Swift album to those of other albums with the title Folklore (linked in my !vote below), it can be seen that even this album's stable, post-decline numbers are many times higher than any other contender for the title. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BarrelProof. I think partial disambiguation is unhelpful 90% of the time, but I can see the logic if the other topics are marginally notable stubs. The Nelly Furtado album sold 2 million copies, so it clearly isn't marginally notable. Thus, I don't see any real reason to make this title more ambiguous. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as WP:INCOMPLETEDAB. This is not how Wikipedia works, even for immortal deities like Michael Jackson and Taylor Swift around whom the planet of mere mortals revolve. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this, you say, "This isn't how Wikipedia works, even for immortal deities like Michael Jackson and Taylor Swift". But this is already something that has been done for both of these artists. Thriller and Reputation both only have the qualifier "(album)" despite other albums with that name. It is because they both outnumber any other albums of the same name in pageviews. Reputation had two discussion about whether or not it should be "(Taylor Swift album)" or "(album)". The result of both discussions determined that "(album)" was the most appropriate. aaronneallucas (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 20:1 probably isn't enough for a PDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - none of these singles from the albums listed are well known enough for one of these to stand out as the primary "Folklore" album. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This IS how Wikipedia works. See WP:PDAB and particularly Wikipedia:Partially_disambiguated_page_names#List_of_partially_disambiguated_article_redirects, not to mention the many RMs where the opposing position presented here has failed. Most of the opposition here is comprised of rationalizations of WP:JDLI, and that’s no reason to oppose. A 2:1 ratio of page views to all others combined is plenty to meet the basic PT threshold of “much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined”, and the undisputed 20:1 ratio here is 10 times that. To contend that’s still not enough for a PDAB is plainly ridiculous. I urge the closer to discount the opposition arguments here accordingly. —-В²C☎ 15:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the appeal to RECENTISM is unwarranted here. RECENTISM is about brief flash-in-the-pan surges of interest in a topic that totally subside with a few days or maybe weeks. Here opposition has conceded the dominance is at least two years old now, with no end in sight. Should the interest level drop to below 2:1 over all others combined, years from now, maybe, then we can revisit this question. If it ever happens. In the mean time, I urge the closer to discount the RECENTISM oppose argument as well. —В²C☎ 03:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Attached find a link to the relative pageviews of each album with the title Folklore. I've chosen a period beginning in April 2021, after the initial hype for the Taylor Swift album had largely died down, to try and give a better picture of the stable pageviews of the album. The results are clear – Taylor Swift's album continues to receive over 15 times as many views as all of the other albums combined. WP:INCDAB and WP:PDAB both provide explicit allowances for incomplete disambiguation in certain circumstances, and with a dominating primary topic, this is undoubtedly an appropriate location for the INCDAB to be used. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per reasons listed by others, the difference in pageviews is more than vast enough to justify WP:INCDAB. Ultimograph5 (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not RECENTISM. See the last dozen !votes where it’s addressed by at least two of us. And PDABs are normal. See Thriller (album). —В²C☎ 22:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's recentism, as it is from after the start of the pandemic, so it is a recent release. All popular recent releases will inevitably have more accesses than older ones. A popular recent release is not a good idea to PDAB something. -- 65.92.244.114 (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you’re aware that WP:RECENTISM primarily addresses problems related to premature reactions to breaking news. This album is long past that point. Last week is recent. Maybe last month. Not two years ago. Sheesh. Furthermore, this album is far more popular than the others have ever been. It’s a fricking Grammy ALBUM OF THE YEAR winner. That gives it enormous historical significance over the others. This one will continue to dominate among albums named Folklore indefinitely. Opposing this proposal is nonsensical. —В²C☎ 05:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another strong indicator of the almost certain lasting dominance in interest of this album relative to the others named Folklore is it has at least about 10x more content than the others. This article is over 200k bytes in size. The others are 28k or less; most are much less. В²C☎ 06:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BarrelProof, Nohomersryan, et al. While I understand the supporting arguments, I don't think they're sufficiently compelling to make this title more ambiguous, or at least not yet. While there's no doubt that Swift's album is currently much more popular than the others, its also the most recent so that's not particularly surprising or persuasive. (I should note too that the advice at WP:RECENT is about more than just avoiding changes based on "breaking news"; it's also explicitly about the importance of taking a long-term, historical view. Do we have a long-term historical view of an album that was only released in 2020? I'm not sure we do.) ╠╣uw[talk] 10:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Swift’s album won the Grammy Album of the Year. That guarantees long-term historical significance, particularly relative to the others, none of which were even nominated for anything significant, much less Grammy Album of the Year. If you think the relatively high popularity of this album is due primarily to it being the “most recent”, you’re not paying attention. Read each of the articles in question. This is a remarkable album in countless ways. There’s no comparison. —В²C☎ 18:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if in the longer term the album continues to stand out then this can be revisited, but for now it's best to retain the current title. ╠╣uw[talk] 09:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why wait to go through this again? All evidence already indicates this use is far more notable in the long term. Page views are flat, if not increasing. Certainly not decreasing. —В²C☎ 18:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to relist. RM counter en.wp norms failed. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting is a good idea. The !vote count slightly favors oppose, but the support arguments are much stronger. Some more fresh eyes would be good. —В²C☎ 18:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
@Lovinqxcherry: It doesn't matter that Taylor Swift doesn't approve the release of the live album, it's still a Taylor Swift project that was released between Lover and Folklore. Don't remove content that based on your opinion (WP:NPOV). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
taylor said herself "This release is not approved by me. It looks to me like Scooter Braun and his financial backers, 23 Capital, Alex Soros and the Soros family and the Carlyle Group have seen the latest balance sheets and realised that paying $330 MILLION wasn't exactly a wise choice and they need money. In my opinion … Just another case of shameless greed in the time of coronavirus. So tasteless, but very transparent." u said wikipedia was based on facts right? it says it right there on the wiki page. this release was scooter's plan to trick swifties into giving him streams and money. and u say that i'm trying to start an "edit war" which is just truly more than false. Lovinqxcherry (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat AmazingPeanuts' point. We simply do not care whether Swift owns it or not. It IS credited to her name! Regards. ℛonherry☘ 14:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Joe credited as a producer when the albums liner notes say he produced nothing? 82.18.192.18 (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he was credited as co-producer on "My Tears Ricochet", "Illicit Affairs", "This Is Me Trying", "Exile", and "August" by the The Recording Academy after Folklore won Album of the Year at the Grammys. Gained (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. DigitalChutney (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)