Talk:Journals (album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that the articles for all of the singles related to this album:

be merged into this article. The song articles, for the most part, contain little information other than chart placings and don't seem necessary. I believe that the chart positions for all of the singles, as well as any other information such as background and critical reviews for the individual songs, can be worked into the Journals page to discuss the lead-up to the album as a 10-week single campaign and how the singles work within the album. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose: By merging the singles in one page, we are talking about ten separate singles crammed into one page, we will have a very very long page... Plus that each song will lose its independence, the artwork of each single presently found will be gone and many of the details associated with each too. Plus that a table for chart positions would be a nightmare. Usually a table for charts would accommodate ideally 10 columns for 10 charts, whereas a look at "All That Matters" for example gives us 17 chart positions. How can you incorporate all that in a limited table for all 10 singles together. Furthermore Justin Bieber announced that Journal was just a "temporary" album release that would be available on iTunes until January 2, 2014 and after that set period, would be withdrawn as an album, but the separate individual tracks would still continue to remain available for downloads as independent singles releases indefinitely. That just proves these are "stand alone" singles by their nature and that Journals is just a transitory release. What can be done though instead of an outright merge, is I think it is very appropriate to establish and develop an elaborate "Music Monday" section on the album page itself (something we don't have now) incorporating the common features of the releases in chronological sequence rather than just a brief listing under the infobox of the Journal album page as we have now. In any case, either way, it would be nice some discussion is generated on this. My remarks are designed to invite more comments pro and con on this matter proposed by colleague Chase -- werldwayd (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, there is barely any information about most of the 10 singles – essentially, chart performance aside, they are just not notable. A better and more reasonable solution would be to add details about each of the songs to a "composition" section on this album page, and add a chart performance section closer to a single article than a discography one, with sub-sections for chart placements of each of the singles. As for 'losing' the single artworks, WP:NFCCP states, "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia." Also, I think that WP:NFCC#3a's minimal usage criterion could apply, as the Journals album cover incorporates aspects of each of the single covers. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC) // edited to add: a mock-up of what a chart performance section could look like is currently present in my sandbox –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm going to be taking Werldwayd's card in this merge discussion. I will agree with Chase that we could include brief summaries about the Music Mondays and the singles released as part of it in this article. However, making the single articles as merges or redirects into the Journals article would still be unnecessary because of the separate reviews for each of these songs (just look on Google and you'll find at least one or two for each song), their more-than-ten chart positions which wouldn't all fit in a discography article table, their cover arts (which wouldn't be worth wasting just for merging all these articles into Journals, even for WP:NFCC#3a), the composition and critical reception info from the album reviews cited here that can be included in the song articles, the fact that this compilation will be off iTunes by January 2 and all the songs will now be on store as their own single releases etc. Basically the song articles will do just fine and be long enough by themselves, and it would be a fair use of the WP:IGNOREALLRULES policy. I would especially hate it if you made "All That Matters" into a redirect or merge, since that song has started to become more popular than just a charted Music Monday release. 和DITOREtails 03:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If we merge all the songs together, it would result in an article that is too long, which would bore readers. I would agree to add a short summary about each song in the Music Mondays, but never a merge with all of the songs in one article. |CanadianDude1| 16:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging all but the first three songs ("heartbreaker," "All that Matters" and "Hold Tight"), which received significant coverage. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 21:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that I think of it, all of the songs have received coverage (I did a quick Google search and found that they have), so I Oppose a merge. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 21:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — All received significant coverage in their own right, the articles need work, but the notability is still there. Since it has been over a month and this proposal has been met with unanimous opposition, I suggest a motion to remove the merge discussion tags from the articles. STATic message me! 01:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Should we close the merger? |CanadianDude1| 05:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Journals (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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Journals (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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compilation?[edit]

How is this a compilation album? It is only new material, not a collection of previous songs. It’s clearly a studio album. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had a thought about exactly this and want to revive this discussion. There are only three sources in the article (Billboard, Complex, and Washington Post) actually calling it one, and it seems every other source just considers it another album. QuietHere (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I brought this up here to get more attention on the issue, and Sergecross73 brought up a great counterpoint there that multiple sources (USA Today, NME, and Vanity Fair among others) call his most recent album his sixth, a count that would not include this one. Maybe comp still isn't the exact right term for it still, but it's clearly not considered an official studio album with the rest of 'em so there's that at least. QuietHere (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Journals_(album)&oldid=1188459396"