Talk:Coldplay/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Genre

Coldplay, despite all the people clamoring that they are pop, are indeed still Alternative Rock. Alternative music is intended to be directed towards a different audience than "mainstream" music-which still holds true of Coldplay. The label "alternative" has little do with the actual content of of the music and the intended target audience. Perhaps they should begin to be labelled as "Alternative pop" for appealing to an alternative demographic while incorporating elements of pop music into their music. While brousing sources used by people to verify their claims of Coldplay being pop, I often find that the source are not talking about pop the genre, but rather pop, the term used to describe any music currntly popular. Yes, there is a difference! If you actually want to look at their discography, it is quite evident that they remain largely an alternative rock band with pop rock and pop influences. All of their studio releases from 2000-2008 would fit under any music scholar's definition of rock music. Mylo Xyoloto remains largely a rock album, with alternative songs such as Hurts Like Heaven, Major Minus and Up with the Birds overhsadowing what some might label as "pop", Paradise and Princess of China. Ghost Stories was a largely ambient and pop-rock album, and AHFOD maintains strong rock elements in songs such as Up&Up and the title track. Based on my reasoning in this paragraph, I see absolutely no reason to label Coldplay as "pop."

64.53.130.73 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of "A Head Full of Dreams" (song)?

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Head Full of Dreams (song). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

Subsection title 1.3, entitled "A Rush of Blood to the Head amd superstardom (2001–04)", includes the word "and" misspelled as "amd".

Thomas.w.noonan (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Don't change British to English"

How is this note even allowed? They were formed in London and they're English. British could mean Scottish, which is why it should say "English". -- HughMorris15 (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Trouble

The article has a number of inaccuracies regarding "Trouble". It says that it was released as a limited edition, and that the CD included a remix of "Yellow". In fact the limited edition CD was the remix of "Yellow" with "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas", as is clearly stated in the cited source. "Trouble" had a full release in both the UK and the US. Also, the statement that it and "Yellow" had regular radio airplay in the UK and US, while undoubtedly true, is not supported by the cited source. I am editing the paragraph accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2016

Please change, "After they formed under the name Pectoralz, Guy Berryman joined the group as a bassist and they changed their name to Starfish" to "The band originally formed under the name Starfish. In the early days, during rehearsals, they became spoof alter ego boy band Pectoralz but this was never a serious venture - just for fun. Guy Berryman joined the group as bassist". 94.174.68.119 (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Phil Harvey

Phil Harvey has been removed from the list of the band's lineup. At least one user has requested that this matter be taken up here and consensus reached under WP:BRD. I personallvingry feel that this is blatant evidence of what needs to be done, but what do others think? Rovingrobert (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That does not really qualify as a reliable source as it seems to be a one off comments thread from 2008. I think you may need something more recent and authoritative in order to establish consensus for a change. Also the heading of this thread goes to the wrong page.--SabreBD (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'comments thread'? It's essentially a press release by the band's publicist. "The band would, we're told, be enormously grateful if these inaccuracies could be corrected." Plus, Harvey is listed as a member in every album liner. Rovingrobert (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

My point is that I have no idea who the "Anchorman" is and the wording is less than authoritative (plus it was posted eight years ago and it might reasonably be argued that things have changed, including the manager of the group). A second problem that I should mention is that whether a non-playing person can really be a member of a group is questionable. Note the way the Brian Epstein situation is handled at The Beatles. Even he is not included in the groups membership, despite the very common "5th Beatle" tag.--SabreBD (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sabrebd: That's true, but I don't think The Beatles themselves came to any consensus on a fifth member. Lennon, for instance, was critical of the Fifth Beatle tag. Asking other Beatles might lead one to a different conclusion. Rovingrobert (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2016

The first line should read "Coldplay is a..." rather than "Coldplay are a...".

45.46.87.224 (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - "Coldplay are" is correct, as Coldplay are a UK band and the article is written in UK English, which uses the plural for "nouns of multitude".
Please see Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement for a fuller explanation. - Arjayay (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

New EP

Chris confirmed in a interview that a new EP will be released, titled Kaleidoscope https://twitter.com/coldplay/status/800739286807171072 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewfer5 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Coldplay willing to perform in Dictatorships

It should be noted that the band Coldplay has no problems performing under the rule of military juntas/ dictatorships. They have just announced a concert in Bangkok, Thailand which is presently under a military dictatorship. Presently hundreds of people are facing trials under the Thai military junta and for criticizing the Thai royals. One many faces a trial for insulting the former king's pet dog.It might be worth creating a list of bands on Wikipedia who are willing to work with Dictators, abusive royals and other fascists. I'm sure there are many. NaturalEquality (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2017

They did a collaboration with The Chainsmokers. 178.164.120.90 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Willing to play under military juntas

As evidenced by its Bangkok show yesterday, it can be noted that Coldplay is willing to play under regimes such military juntas. I'm sure there are many performers who do this but it is a fact that not all are willing to do business in nations whose people lack free speech and human rights. NaturalEquality (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"British" to "English".

British rock should be changed to English rock.

97.87.240.178 (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not all of the members are English. ... discospinster _talk 15:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"British" to "English".

British rock should be changed to English rock as most articles on bands from England have it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean12065 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Dean12065 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

ColdPlay Userbox

As part of Wikiproject Userbox, I have added Template: User ColdPlay to the bands area. Feel free to use. Tim Quievryn

Concert footage airing

In case there are any misconceptions, the concert slated as being a DVD release earlier in the year has been shown on BOTH SPANISH AND CANADIAN TELEVISION. Somebody is continually deleting my alterations even though it WAS DEFINITELY shown on Spanish television, according to the official website.

Whoever wrote this is an idiot. It was never aired on Spanish television according to the band manager.

Closing three sentences in first paragraph of history...

...which read:

"By 1997, Martin had also met then Classics student Tim Rice-Oxley. During a weekend on Virginia Water, they asked each other to play off their own songs on the piano. Martin, finding Rice-Oxley to be talented, asked him to be Coldplay's keyboard player but Rice-Oxley refused as his own band, Keane, was already active. Days after, this event would shape the second line-up of Keane and keep Coldplay's unaltered, thus leaving both bands as quartets.[7]"

contain information other than what appears in reference 7, which focuses on artist departures from the EMI label, and on speculation as to whether Coldplay would renew with EMI at a particular point in their history. (Martin meeting Rice-Oxley, weekend on Virgina Water, M's invitation to R-O to join Coldplay, R-O's decline of invitation and its relation to Keane—essentially none of these BLP facts are supported by the given reference.)

As well, the closing sentence, and in particular, the phrase "this event would shape the second line-up of Keane" has no clear meaning as it stands (what is a "second line-up"?), and is also not supported by the citation given. As such, tag placed and this note added. Sincerely, a music apprec. prof.

Recent Festivals

Shouldn't we put in the recent festivals coldplay played at? This includes Concert4 CVille

How Did They Get Their Name?

This article could explain how they got the name "Coldplay". I do not know myself, I just thought it would be interesting if any one who does know put this in the article. Vorbee (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"British" to "English".

Is there a reason why British rock can't be changed to English rock? Coldplay are a band from England, so does that make them an English rock band? What prevents my change to change British rock to English rock?

Dean12065 (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Your question has been answered above. ... discospinster _talk 15:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Why are Coldplay listed as a 'British rock band' whereas others such as Radiohead are listed as an 'English rock band' on their page. Surely this is an inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.177.223 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The answer is in Archive 3 Talk:Coldplay/Archive_3#English_or_British. I was wondering about this myself.User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 17:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Logos

Why is there images of various logos on Coldplay's Wikipedia article? If the band is switching between types of logos, shouldn't there be no logo images on the article? May I delete them? Dean12065 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Coldplay doesn't have official logo. They're changing logo on every album releases. Esambuu (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Coldplay are to Coldplay is

Why did the page say "Coldplay are a British rock band" instead of "Coldplay is a British rock band"? I don’t know why it says are, not is. Bfdi1234 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

We say are because they are British. British bands are referred to as a plural noun. Where as American bands are referred to as a singular noun. If they were American, we would say Coldplay is... Bowling is life (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

"Band members" Section

There should be a timeline within the "Band members" section in the article. Dean12065 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

        I agree, I looked into creating the PGN for Coldplay but couldn't quite figure out how to create it and apply it to their main page- I have the code edited for Coldplay here. Code template borrowed from other band pages. AvocetWing (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

For a long time, the infobox image of the article was the one on the left, but at some point, it was changed to the one on the right.

The image on the right is certainly serviceable and shows all the band members well enough, but to me, it's not a very interesting image. The shot of the band performing is much more visually appealing. It's an action shot, shows the lighting/visual effects of the band's show, and depicts the band members in their roles with their primary instruments. If given the choice between a performance image and a curtain call image at comparable zoom levels, I would almost always prefer to see a performance image. And from a photographic perspective, the left image is better compositionally and technically. I would like to see if others agree with me about changing the image back. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, I think being able to see the band members clearly is more important than a visually interesting shot. Instead, you could possibly put that under the A Head Full of Dreams section as an example of a concert from that era. Paul Webb (PaulWebbtheTechExpert) (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

How is it any more difficult to identify the band members in the left image? You can see each of them in the image at a standard thumbnail size (and even more so at the larger thumbnail size when used in an infobox), and you have the added benefit of seeing them perform their instruments, which to me, is a much contextually relevant detail than how large their faces are in the image. The image on the right just strikes me as something you would not use in an encyclopedia unless there were no other options to consider. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

After more careful consideration, I agree with you. It would be more crucial to see the band with their respective instruments than their faces. I support the change back. Paul Webb (PaulWebbtheTechExpert) (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you have reconsidered, but I wanted to see if anyone else had thoughts on this before I change the image. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for starting a discussion. I would say the one on the right is better for three reasons: 1) It depicts sufficiently well all band members (except Phil) and their faces can be recognised clearly. In my opinion the main purpose of the lead image is to show the members (like in The Beatles, Pink Floyd or Toto), in the article one can find many shots from different eras of them performing with their instruments; 2) The image is from the A Head Full of Dreams Era, but is generic enough not to be strictly associated with that period. Conversely, the one on the left depicts the kind of show that was typical of that period, but Coldplay is not just visually bombastic shows and colourful animations, for example think about the Ghost Stories Era or the recent Everyday Life Era, with their very particular and intimate shows; 3) The image is not of lower quality compared with the first one, there are not many photos like this one. For all these reasons I would prefer to replace the current image with the previous one. FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 12:41, 6 May 2021 (ECT)

Why remove the logos?

I’ve noticed that the logos between eras have been removed. Why were they removed and was consensus established beforehand? Paul Webb (PaulWebbtheTechExpert) (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

My first thought was that it was because of some copyright issue, but then I saw one of the sections above, where someone said that the band has no official logo and that the logos therefore should have been removed. Personally, I don't think it was a good idea to remove the logos. Even if none of them were ever a permanent thing, they still represent Coldplay's history and stylistic evolution, and that one logo that they had at the beginning, which was written in Albertus, had been used from the very beginning of the band up until the band's fourth album, so it actually became somewhat iconic. Considering how much and how long that one logo was used, I think it might have actually been planned to be the band's permanent or at least semi-permanent logo until Viva la Vida came along and the band decided to change their logo for each album going forward. It's also worth noting that each of the old logos are still being used in merchandise associated with their respective albums. 2601:58D:301:C060:592D:F5C6:8090:62E4 (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Currently, the article has 12 images. Repetitive "Coldplay" logos with different fonts don't add anything to the page. You see the "history and stylistic evolution" of the band through their visual live performances or by listening to the samples of their songs (i.e. "Yellow" vs. "Adventure of a Lifetime"). Should we use these logos at Madonna? No. Madonna has reinvented herself many more times than Coldplay and it's not a reason to saturate that page with logos either. There is no reason to add that Coldplay moved from Times New Roman to Gill Sans Ultra Ultra Bold. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point about not wanting to clutter the page with logos. In that case, should each of the logos go on the pages for their respective albums instead? The one for Viva la Vida is already there. 2601:58D:301:C060:7063:D4E7:FA7:7DC4 (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a good compromise. They belong there anyway. Paul Webb (PaulWebbtheTechExpert) (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

New photo and Phil Harvey's function in the band

I would like to change their current photo to this one, it is newer and you can see all the members much better. One might argue that they're not playing instruments on it, but neither are The Beatles or Radiohead on the introduction photo of their featured articles. As for Phil Harvey's function, he branded himself as co-manager of the band on a TikTok comment posted today, and it's not the first time actually. Should we just remove the "(1998–2002)" part? --GustavoCza (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@GustavoCza: That is high-quality photo. I think it would be a good idea to use it. Bowling is life (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

While a great image that we should include in the article, the bottom third of it is obscured by fans and it does not show the band members playing their instruments, which I think is infinitely more interesting and preferable for an infobox image. As for the images for the articles on the Beatles and Radiohead, I don't buy that argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The amount of images freely available for any given topic is completely variable. There may not be many closeup shots of all of Radiohead together that freely exist and thus, the contributors to that article made a decision unique for that topic. The Beatles only toured for a few years in their history, so free images of them performing are harder to come by. With Coldplay, we probably have hundreds of free images from which to pick, and where possible I think a performance image is more interesting, dramatic, and informative. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the most important thing of the infobox should be presenting the object of the article properly (a.k.a. the reader being able to see their face), not being "interesting" or "dramatic" (which by the way is not even part of their brand, Coldplay have always been dragged for being just four regular guys making [in my opintion, great] music). Besides, there's plenty of photos of them performing throughout the page, we can even move the current one to the AHFOD Era section as well. --GustavoCza (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm fully agree with Gustavo, band photo should be updated regularly. Esambuu (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Esambuu: @Bowling is life: Well, since apparently there's a consensus that the photo can/should be changed, I'll be doing it later. How about the Phil situtation?

--GustavoCza (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Two days and two responses is not a consensus. If you're going to start a discussion seeking a consensus during the holidays, you need to allow for more than 2 days before declaring a consensus has been reached. The infobox image is not meant to be a digital photo frame or a desktop wallpaper that we should change just because people get sick of looking at it. It should be a high quality, well representative image. If over time better images become available that fulfill that criteria better than the existing image, great! Put them in. But it should not be swapped out just because of a compulsion to change it. As a reader, I would expect an image to be somewhat topical. If it's a sports topic, like an athlete, I would think an image of them playing their sport is probably the most well representative image. For music topics, such as musicians or artists, I would expect that to be an image of them performing if there aren't better alternatives. And I don't see how a high quality image of them performing, showing each band member's respective role in the band, should be replaced with one just standing without their instruments, with the entire bottom third of it bokeh-ed by a crowd. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 06:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I assumed consensus because these two are the most frequent collaborators other than me. This page is not rather empty because of the holidays, it's empty because Coldplay fans are more casual, not the Wikipedia-editing type. Just look at their awards page before I joined and now that I'm finished. And again: the infobox image should be able to depic the article's topic well, if I was a new fan I would want to see their faces first. Besides, most media outlets only use Chris photos, the current photo in a way also follows the pattern in spite of having the other members, while the new puts them on equal ground of exposure. And please don't move the Other Activites section up, I placed it in the bottom for the article to first discuss Coldplay a musical act and THEN talk on other sides of them. It's just what makes sense. --GustavoCza (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and I was just looking at this picture again and Will's entire face is bokeh-ed. An irrelevant third of the picture being bokeh-ed is a problem to you but one of the "objects" of the article's discussion not? --GustavoCza (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Itemized

I'm not going anywhere so you're going to have to just tough it out. Here's a good place to explain each of my edits and if you have objections hash them out. You're not even using good grammar in your edit summaries.Justanother2 (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I already explained: Your edits are not contributing to the article, you're just changing the words up to your liking, same for the Super Bowl LVI article where everyone is complaining about and even filing reports against you. I had some back and forth with fellow Coldplay editors before but at least they were giving real help, so we were always able to reach consensus. --GustavoCza (talk)

And I always put my edits on a grammar checker before publishing them, so I don't know where are the mistakes you keep pointing out. You don't need to act like I'm dumb just because English is not my main language, it's actually the third by the way. --GustavoCza (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You may find it hard to believe but I had guessed you speak 2 or 3 languages. Gustavo is a first name and Cza is an abbrev. I am willing to point out errors or omissions. For starters you have Chris kicking out Will three times; that's redundancy and not necessary. As well you left out the word the (completing the final examinations).Justanother2 (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, their History section is the only one in the article that is old and in need of improvements. If you're feeling like actually doing something feel free to go there, but everything else has been revamped and corrected already. --GustavoCza (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You are not listening. Their, I meant not the for examinations. I showed you some mistakes. It says Will was briefly fired, then Chris had kicked him out and felt badly. That's being repetitious. If you want to show me some of the edits you aren't agreeing with we could look at those.Justanother2 (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Again. The History section has not been revamped yet, that part is not my responsibility. I'm reverting the stuff from other sections, which as I mentioned, it's just you changing the wording up to your liking. --GustavoCza (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't care how it's worded; I am changing the grammar when it is wrong.Justanother2 (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Except that none of it is wrong. I used multiple grammar checkers and other users revised it before. You're not unique or anything dude. --GustavoCza (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Unique, if I was I would not tell you. That would be infringing on my privacy. You seem to be distracted; I am editing the history section. I have shown you places where edits are not right. Grammar checkers do make mistakes. If you list places you disagree with I'll show you why the edits are not right.Justanother2 (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

You edited multiple other sections the other day (including Other Activities, Public Image and the heading) and is only doing things properly now because you have been reported by other people. Don't play the victim with me, it's not going to work. --GustavoCza (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Administrators - please see this report for all of the places and all of the editors that are having problems with Justanother2. Back Bay Barry (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Rock to Alternative

I think it fits them better since it would encompass both alternative rock and alternative pop which are their main genres. GustavoCza (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting the British/English/no nationality discussion

Hey guys. As this is one of a few points of contention when it comes to this band/article and the people who regularly edit this article are different from those who regularly edited the article back in 2009, I figured it might be worth revisiting the topic of this discussion and seeing what people think/if anyone wants to come up with a new consensus. GustavoCza believes that the band's nationality should be British, their first revert indicating that it's because of a couple of members' nationalities; I believe that it should be English, as the band was formed/is based in England, most of the members are English and it would be consistent with other English bands such as The Beatles, Oasis, Tears for Fears, Whitesnake, Black Sabbath, even DragonForce (who have had a lot of different nationalities), but understand why the original consensus was to leave the nationality out altogether. Keen to get some thoughts – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I personally think it's not worth changing the previous consensus because: a) It's correct, they're all British. b) It's inclusive, considering all band members' nationality. c) This change would imply editing every single Coldplay article on Wikipedia, I'm a prolific editor and fan of theirs (see my edit history), but not that prolific. -- GustavoCza (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Pectoralz

I removed the name from their Info Box a while ago but here's the proper source now, the previous ones were taken from Twitter and the Coldplaying Forum: https://web.archive.org/web/20090426025721/http://www.coldplay.com/oracledetail.php?id=643&page=0 GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Found one more! http://web.archive.org/web/20230125134429/https://vivacoldplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ezine7.pdf
GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Moon Music (TBA)

I'm not an expert on this but it seems that usually an upcoming album is included in the discography only when its title is officially confirmed and the release date has been established. Is it like that or am I wrong?

I ask this because the inclusion of Moon Music in the discography, despite having a source, does not seem very encyclopedic or notable, given that it was only mentioned in an interview. As far as we know we are not even sure of the title, it might actually be "Music of the Spheres vol. II, Moon Music" or something similar.

I don't know much about discography rules, I'm just asking! FilBenLeafBoy (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either so let's just remove it for the benefit of doubt. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi GustavoCza!

Thanks as usual for your reply! Yes, and I'm sure that sooner or later we'll get some update on the matter. FilBenLeafBoy (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

FilBenLeafBoy, you are correct – that's when we would start to include the album in the section. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)