Talk:List of 2025 albums

More albums to add

Created this list to get started. I see from 2025 in American music that there are a whole host of albums that can be potentially listed. I may or may not get to them anytime soon, so I invite others to dive on in and see if the citations are good for the potential albums for 2025 from this other page. Mburrell (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject

User:Deb added a tag that states this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

This puzzles me, as this is a global list of new albums, and has new albums from Japanese, Korean, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and Maori languages. We regularly use foreign citations.

I would like to remove the globalization tag as undefined why it was felt to be added, and encourage any editor who wants to add such a tag to first bring it to the talk page. Is there a consensus to remove the tag, to keep the tag and discuss it further in the talk page, keep the tag and each of us go find a foreign language album to bulk up the list credentials, or keep the tag and ignore it? Mburrell (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's a particularly useful tag since the page is open for anyone to add to (so long as reliable sourcing is provided). {{Dynamic list}} pretty much already covers this concern anyway. And I'm not entirely sure the tag is meant for situations like what we have on this list, since we aren't exactly providing any perspective on the subject, just a list of info. Sure, we could always do better in terms of the scope and breadth of what is included, but we are also limited by what gets covered in reliable sources. I don't think the page is in error for its current state like a tag like that would be needed for, and I'm going to remove it based on this. @Deb, please comment here if you have anything more to say on the subject. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's a useful article as it stands. It may as well be relabelled "Englsh-language albums". Perhaps I should suggest that? Deb (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Most of the artists I can find on this list with ethnic-sounding names are actually American. If you're intending to include all albums, I don't see what this list has to offer that a category doesn't. I suppose I should come back and count them and check what proportion don't originate from the English-speaking world. Regardless, producing such a US-centric list doesn't do anything to dispel Wikipedia's image as US-biased. Deb (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

One thing I think confuses people. Wikipedia has multiple versions. This particular version is the English language version of Wikipedia. There is also a Spanish language Wikipedia, a Swedish language Wikipedia, a Korean language Wikipedia, etc. Someone in Korea who doesn't speak any English is more likely to add a listing for a Korean album in the Korean language Wikipedia. This inherent language bias, where people add albums in their language of choice, causes a pull towards a certain type of release. In this case, people who read and write English tend to be the majority of editors in the English language Wikipedia. Therefore, there is a larger percentage of English language albums on this list. However, this list does not limit itself to only English language albums, and we do get a strong showing of European and Asian albums listed here. I think if we want to close the globalization gap, we should merge all language Wikipedia's into one whole. Otherwise, live with an English language bias on the English language Wikipedia. Mburrell (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I should point out that I am not paid staff, so when I enter albums on the list, I enter artists and albums that interest me. I believe everyone on this list is volunteers, spending their time to update what interests them. If there is a bias on entry, it is that we are not attracting editors from other languages who should spend their time on the English language Wikipedia. Seems wrong to me to encourage other language users to let their language version of Wikipedia languish so they can burnish the global credit for the English language Wikipedia. Mburrell (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd argue the opposite. If we think that a list of albums in a year is needed, then it surely ought to be comprehensive. If we aren't concerned about systemic bias, why not just point people to 2025 in American music (as we do in any case), which contains a very similar list so this one? Deb (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Because that list is restricted to American musicians while this one isn't. Those lists are also consistently far less comprehensive and severely undersourced. Our list is comprehensive, just limited to what can be reliably sourced. Wikipedia asks the same of other lists, especially trivia sections in articles, so I would think it's a perfectly reasonable restriction. If you know of releases the list is missing, you can add them yourself or list them on the talk page as edit requests and we'll see what can be done about them. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

"Our list is comprehensive" - frankly, that claim is absolutely ludicrous. It's nowhere near comprehensive, nor should it be. If you limited yourselves to articles that are notable in their own right, many of these would immediately disappear. Deb (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, as I said below, we offer lenience to upcoming albums, as is standard practice on Wikipedia. And I would say the list is comprehensive (or at least open to the possibility of being comprehensive) in regards to notable music releases. Perhaps we're working off different understandings of the word "comprehensive". Again, if you know of any valid releases which are missing, please let us know. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

You only need to look at the category "2025 albums" to find those. Deb (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but this list provides valuable additional information like specific release dates which a category cannot display. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Representative?

• Okay, I've done a quick count of the albums listed up to the end of February, and I've got:
  • US artists: 58 (+ 1 Puerto Rican)
  • UK artists: 27
  • Other English-language: 12
  • Other languages: 18

I'm thinking you would probably say that this is representative in terms of the number of albums issued in those countries and languages, and you may be right. However, many of the albums listed don't actually have their own articles, and I would question whether those should be included at all. Deb (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

In my experience, Wikipedia music editors give lenience to upcoming albums, and we're no different. If an album releases and receives no additional coverage beyond a couple announcements, then we would remove it, but as long as there is some coverage it seems fair to leave them up for the time being. And released albums without articles aren't necessarily non-notable, just lacking articles, and I'd rather leave them up to encourage editors to pick one and throw an article together if they can (think REDLINK). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

What establishes self-notability?

Hi. I've been using the version history of these pages for many years to track new album announcements, and I often see people removing citations on this page once the albums themselves have become 'self-notable.' Is the only criteria for self-notability whether the album itself has it's own page? I'm assuming this is not the case considering so many albums listed here both have their own pages and continue to have citations here. So what is the full criteria?

Thanks, Browk2512 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. There is a criteria for this list on what is notable. At the top of the list for every year is the following statement "The following is a list of albums, EPs, and mixtapes released in 20xx. These albums are (1) original, i.e. excluding reissues, remasters, and compilations of previously released recordings, and (2) notable, defined as having received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject."

The criteria for self-notable is that the album article qualifies per the notablity standard used by the list. For me, I generally look to see if the album article has a review table, and if I recognize the review sources as being from the reliable source list WP:RSMUSIC or the foreign language spin-offs such as the Korean reliable source list WP:KO/RS. Through previous discussion, we have determined that significant coverage is three or more reliable independent sources. So if I see a review from Rolling Stone, Paste, and Blabbermouth.net in the album article review table, I will claim the album article to be self-notable. Sometimes an album article does not have a review table, so I will look at the quantity, quality, and date of the citations. If I see that someone has built a large article describing influence, development, reaction, and supported the paragraphs with citations, say 15 or more, most written after the album has been released, I am satisfied and don't need to see that the album has been reviewed. That is generally my rule of thumb. Others may be influenced by whether the album has charted on various national charts. That does not influence me but it is another criteria to judge self-notability. Mburrell (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Whatever the Weather II

@Mburrell unclear what makes you think this album isn't self-notable. It has five reviews from publications all listed at RSMUSIC quoted in its reception section. Did you only look at the ratings table that only includes two of them and not read the quotes? I think you should reconsider your edit. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You are probably right, and it is my bias that is influencing me. The article does have five citations from reliable sources. It is just that three of the five sources are off-line and opaque to me. I have no way to verify what the sources say, I do not have access to the off-line periodicals. So my bias has me discounting those three sources as equally weighted as the on-line sources, which is probably not fair to the guidelines of Wikipedia. The Mojo magazine citation was listed as being published a year before the release of the album, but is describing the feel of the album, so it is probably the wrong date. The Wire citation is listed as being published in May of this year, which is problematic, as that is a month in the future. The more I look at the citations, the more I don't feel good about counting them, with two of the three off-line citations being suspect, and would prefer for the album article to get additional sources before I would feel comfortable about calling it self-notable. Mburrell (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe magazine issues being listed as a month ahead of the actual month of publication is common, or at least I'm fairly certain I've seen it done before. Regardless, that wouldn't mean the source doesn't exist. It's also worth noting that all three of those quotes are taken directly from the Metacritic page, so you'd have to discount Metacritic as well. Lastly, "Whatever+The+Weather+II" the Mojo review is available on the Internet Archive, so I think that should allay your concern regarding source availability. I'll leave it up to you whether you still think this isn't enough, but I will also say that I agree that this is not in line with Wikipedia guidelines (OFFLINE is relevant here). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I see, so most probably, the reviewer never saw the original periodicals, just took the quotes in whole from Metacritic. I have to say that I am unsure of that practice, as that is taking sources second hand. My preference when unsure of article notability is to just get more sources and paste them into the article, which I did. I am now comfortable that the album article is self-notable. Mburrell (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do vaguely remember reading somewhere once that it was discouraged to derive sources from Metacritic like that (though I've also looked again for where I read that since and been unable to find it). I don't know how much it matters since I don't know of any reason to not trust Metacritic to represent its sources accurately, but perhaps there is some other reason it's a problem and you're right to be concerned about it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)