Talk:The Beekeeper (album)

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

RIAA Gold Certification[edit]

The RIAA Web site has recently undergone a major overhaul and while the new site is nicer, the searchable database has some bugs in it. Depending on the day, or the database's mood, it lists The Beekeeper as having achieved Gold status in April of 2005, I believe it was the 25th, to be exact. At other points in time, the database does not list it. I checked it again this morning, and the album was listed again. (I think you see the pattern...???) I just wanted to point out the database's recent inconsistencies so that other Wiki-users don't think I dishonestly added the Gold status. --Pisceandreams 14:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It's been nearly 10 years and there's nothing to indicate there's still a "bug" in their system, someone is still trying to add that the album is certified gold despite no listing on their website, going so far as to add a source for the claim where the source states nothing about it. Just something to keep an eye on. LoveLaced (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

I relabeled 'Description' to 'Tour' and kept information pertaining to the tour there. The other information originally listed under 'Description' has been moved to the top of the article in the main section, since most of it deals with details of the album. The only lines I deleted are "Several later reviews however, especially on fan sites, accused Amos of having descended into a "Kitchen Sink" adult contemporary genre musically and lyrically in a bid for this accessibility. While some arguments between fan sites became quite heated, Tori was no less popular when touring for the album.[citation needed]" mainly because there were no sources for those claims. --Pisceandreams 14:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-sides[edit]

Amos recorded a "host of songs" that did not make the album? really?? I'm removing this until someone can back it up. Garlands was the only b-side anyone knows of... there's no collection! -Laikalynx 04:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, Laikalynx, The Beekeeper did not have a "host of songs" unavailable on the album. The B-Sides section was merely a template copied from articles on her previous albums. --Pisceandreams 22:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album sales/USA Today[edit]

I removed the submission from Hekerui about "current" sales figures for the album because USA Today is not a pertinent source for music sales. That same article cited Scarlet's Walk selling 600-some-thousand copies when Billboard, an authority on music sales, has reported sales at, or now exceeding, 750,000. --Pisceandreams (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singles[edit]

Each singles pages should be done ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.1.45 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on The Beekeeper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. 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 21:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:The Beekeeper/GA1[reply]

Requested move 15 January 2024[edit]

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: moved. – robertsky (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Proposing moving this page to The Beekeper (album), and moving the disambiguation page at Beekeeper (disambiguation) to The Beekeeper. The pageviews graph shows that The Beekeeper (2024 film) is the primary topic at the moment, receiving many more pageviews than The Beekeeper. However, I’m conscious that this could potentially be a temporary uplift due to the film’s recent release - hence why I haven’t included a proposal to move that page in this RM. (However, such a proposal can always be made at a later date if it becomes clear that its position as the primary topic is not just temporary.) All of the links from Beekeeper (disambiguation) (barring the one to Beekeeper itself and a link in the See Also section) start with the word "The", hence why I propose moving it to the base name. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

old RM wording, reworded above ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Beekeeper → The Beekeeper (album) – Proposing moving this page to The Beekeper (album), and retargeting the resulting redirect from The Beekeeper to the disambiguation page Beekeeper creating a disambiguation page at The Beekeeper. The pageviews graph shows that The Beekeeper (2024 film) is the primary topic at the moment, receiving many more pageviews than The Beekeeper. However, I’m conscious that this could potentially be a temporary uplift due to the film’s recent release - hence why I haven’t included a proposal to move that page in this RM. (However, such a proposal can always be made at a later date if it becomes clear that its position as the primary topic is not just temporary.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 16:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Women in Music has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Albums has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least for the time being. The 2024 film has only just released in the US, and so of course its article will be experiencing a spike in viewership at the moment. In a year's time, the movie may be completely forgotten and the Tori Amos album could end up being PTOPIC after all. If interest in a dab page for "The Beekeeper" still exists then it should just be integrated into the existing Beekeeper (disambiguation), changing the second sentence to "Beekeeper or The Beekeeper may also refer to". I would be fine with that in place of the current hatnote on the album article even if that article doesn't get moved. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuietHere: From a (different) pageviews graph, the 2024 film has consistently been getting more pageviews than the Tori Amos album ever since the article was created as The Beekeeper (upcoming film) (I can't set it by default in the pageviews link, but enabling the logarithmic scale demonstrates it more clearly in my opinion). I would argue that this is evidence that the album is not the primary topic, and that the increased pageviews of the 2024 film compared to the album is not something that has only happened since the film’s release. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 00:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't think that evades RECENT as an issue here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crouch, Swale and QuietHere: courtesy pings so you're aware I've modified the RM to make clearer what the proposal is for the DAB page. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. No primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination; Crouch, Swale and Necrothesp. There are five entries listed upon the Beekeeper (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the 2005 album's renown has remained at such a level as to dwarf the combined notability of the remaining four entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't think the recentism argument carries much weight. Take the 2024 film out of the equation entirely, and when The Beekeeper (film) (later The Beekeeper (1986 film)) was sharing traffic with the album early last year, the album did not appear to be a true primary topic (see this traffic report); it just seemed to bee the first article that existed, and when there was only one other, a hatnote sufficed. With multiple entries, disambiguation seems to be the correct solution. I'm neutral on the exact location of the dab page, though. -2pou (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clearly ambiguous now. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beekeeper_(album)&oldid=1206217740"