Talk:Rumours (album)

Genre change

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, 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)

I have restored the established genres. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Power G is still changing the genre without any discussion. I have left an {{uw-3rr}} template on their talk page - although from their editing history it's not only this article they have targeted. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

References

2020 chart performance

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)

Requested move 21 January 2023

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.

---

• Rumours (album) → Rumours
• Rumours → Rumours (disambiguation)

– 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)

Note: titles with page content are ineligible as "new" titles unless they are also proposed to be renamed, so this request must include the dab page move as shown above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose and speedy close rumours is the plural of rumour. Good grief. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support as the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rumors (American English) averages 8 hits per day, Rumours (British English) gets 29 hits/day, Rumor (the actual article about rumors/rumours) gets 84 hits/day, while the extremely well-known Rumours (album) gets over 4,200 per day.[1] It's obvious most readers searching for Rumours are expecting the album. Station1 (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose this primarytopic takeover. Better to leave disambiguator there. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon but better why? QuietHere (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• The album is the clear primary topic with respect to usage [2]. – Uanfala (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yet it's been like this since 2014 and readers haven't really complained. This sounds like we're trying to help readers navigate while they don't actually need much help. --Joy (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  So nothing should ever be moved unless there's an outcry from readers, many of whom don't have any idea about the intricacies of Wikipedia? That seems a bit silly. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'd hardly classify posting an anonymous message on what looks like an Internet forum in eight years - as 'outcry'. :) I agree that only one in a thousand people might complain, but even then, if in more than 90 thousand views (those stats only go back 7 years) there's not a blip, it's hard to argue that there was really that much of an issue. --Joy (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the pageview numbers which have been cited. Yes, it's the plural of a noun, but it's pretty clear that most people who are searching for that plural noun want the proper noun. --fuzzy510 (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly not the primary topic for this very common word. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, nothing to fix here. The plural of "rumour" is correctly connected to the dab page rumours. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Suprisingly, this does seem to be the primary topic, based off pageviews and the clickstream. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 12:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth to whoever closes this discussion, let it be made clear that multiple respondents have claimed this to not be the primary topic, while multiple others have pointed to statistics showing that to not be the case. Take that as you will. QuietHere (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@QuietHere that's because primary topics are not decided merely based on statistics. Please review WP:PTOPIC. --Joy (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support can't see any guideline which contradicts this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The clear primary topic by historical importance is the plural of rumor, which is no less the primary target for being at the American spelling. The album, of course, is named for the concept. BD2412 T 03:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per BD2412. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ASTONISH. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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.

Lead needs cleaning

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)

"Sales certifications"

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. Ss112 05:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Rumours at TFA?

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)

There's a question about the lead and the TFA blurb at WT:Today's featured article/April 2024#rumours. - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Specifically: is Rumours the 9th-best-selling or 10th-best selling album ever? The 9th-best statement is unsourced. 10th-best is sourced at List of best-selling albums, but most of the sources are more than 10 years old. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to Black Kite for this edit. - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Deluxe edition

Yesterday my edit that added a section on the Deluxe Edition of the album along with track listings for the extra discs it includes (2, 3 and 4) each with different songs was removed. No reason or criticism was actually given. The info on the article concerning this edition is already minimal, explaining it quickly on the Release section. I added more detailed info on the contents of each disc, as well as more info about the DVD documentary and the vinyl that comes with the edition. Along with that, the track listings help visualize and show all available versions of the songs from the album, along with extra ones. This is important for any reader who wants to learn more about this edition particularly, or any extra content from the album that shows its creation process. I think it’s important to have this information on the article and argue it should be reverted back. Or at least an actual explanation for its removal and lack of inclusion should be given, because it in no ways ruins the article. Juand.1974 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, while I was not responsible for deleting this content, I will do my best to answer. In the past, we have had editors add the deluxe editions to various Fleetwood Mac articles, including this one, but decisions have been made to delete them for various reasons. Per WP:ALTTRACKLIST, the information should be included "only when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article — such as information about recording and critical response." For this article, the deluxe editions are largely mentioned in passing and are not a central part of the article. A further discussion on the matter can be found here, which includes editors providing their rationale on why the inclusion of deluxe editions may not always be suitable for an article. Personally, I am not a hardliner on the matter, but I would be curious to hear the original editor's explanation on why they opted to delete this content. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)