Talk:Pure Heroine

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articlePure Heroine has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starPure Heroine is the main article in the Pure Heroine series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 9, 2018Good article nomineeListed
July 7, 2018Good topic candidateNot promoted
March 22, 2019Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

What's the inspiration for, or meaning of, the album's title?

And by meaning, I mean more than the definitions of the words pure, heroine and heroin. I hoped to find this information in the article. Does anyone else think it should be in it, assuming it can be found in a good source? (If it's in the article, I missed it because I skimmed parts of it.) --anon. 71.183.139.60 (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously word play between "pure heroin" and "female hero", but it would indeed be nice to know how it was founded. Apparently there are no sources for that, otherwise it would be in the article? Though, I have heard that Wikipedia is not perfect or completed. 91.154.188.185 (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

Just to clarify, they call her the 16 year old art pop sensation in the genre cite, but when they discuss the genre of the album, they simply say "pop". As they state that more specifically for the album opposed to the artist, I think we should stick with terms specifically referring to the album in question. I don't necessarily disagree with the art pop being part of this album, but the other cite is just stronger in this case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems very similar to what you did to what you did here [1] They don't refer to it simply as pop, which could be used simply as a placeholder, they say Art-pop a specific type of pop music. Just like some Hard rock, Surf Rock, and Garage rock bands are simply called rock. That doesn't mean they are just "rock" I think it's weird you try to put words in the authors mouth, saying he meant this instaed of this.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not putting words in. He clearly says "Genre: pop". He uses art pop to describe Lorde. It's not hard to figure out. Judging by your edit here where you say " Keep in mind pop is often used as a place holder or a meta genre for other genres of pop.". Do you have a source that says that about that site? I'm still leaning closer towards where they explicitly state the genre of the album. It's a stronger source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to use the word "source" a lot in your edits, sometimes subjectively. The source was intended to be used for art pop not pop. Also if you actually read the article you know that pop is being used as a parent genre, not the genre itself. It's kind of like when people say "Led Zeppelin is the Greatest rock band" that doesn't mean they play the same kind of music as Elvis or Chuck Berry. The fact is you are removing sourced content and changing it based on your feeling toward what it should be. Kind of like what you did to the California Gurls article. Maybe we would be better off removing the genre infobox.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I use source, because that's usually the problem. Whatever the source was intended for, doesn't reflect what the article says. So I fixed it. When it doesn't reflect it, I remove it. Which is what we are supposed to do. I don't see a reason to remove it, because the article clearly says "Genre: pop". I don't even really agree, but it's not about factual information (how could it be anyways? genre is so subjective and means different things to different people. if one says pop and the other says art pop, does that make one or other wrong? do we write both? how does that help people?). It plain truth, it doesn't! I just leads to stupid edit wars in my view. I put up a proposal to remove or change the infobox standards about music here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Genre in the infobox). If you want to put in your opinion, please do. :) (please read or at least skim the whole thing before replying.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds pop to me. I say keep it pop. Anonymous 09:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.201.136 (talk)
Andrzejbanas I think you are missing the bigger picture here, even If we keep pop or Art pop it still doesn't cover the eletronic influnces of the Album such as Indietronic and synth pop, keep in mind the article for pop says,"The terms popular music and pop music are often used interchangeably, even though the former is a description of music which is popular (and can include any style)." That means any type of music can be considered pop. That's why we need a sub-genre of pop for this album. Now back to the source since we both can't decide rather they are refering to her music as pop or art pop maybe it would be better to remove the source.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Music and lyrics section says the album's production contains a variety of genres including electronic pulse, pop, rock, EDM and electrohop. Clash Music praised the albums "glittering, forward-thinking pop soundscapes". Time Out found Little's "minimal and sinewy ‘hip-pop’ sound" as a highlight of the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.43 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with those sources is they are talking about individual songs or are being to vague. "pop soundscapes" doesn't necissarily mean it's a pop album nor does having a "hip hop sound" make your album fit to chart on the hip hop charts. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be simplistic to categorize this album only as "pop." For example, in most of the articles in other languages (on Wikipedia) they mention, at least, two or three genres (Spanish, Italian, Russian, Portugese). I like what they've done because "pop" definition is not specific enough or maybe not even a completely accurate description. --Helptottt (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simplicity is often better. The infobox is supposed to give the user an idea what they are getting into, not every single genre each song is. Just because other wiki languages do this, doesn't mean we have to follow their rules. You can explain how different styles are reflected in the songs in the prose, as that gives a better example than just tossing it in the infobox. Besides, we already have a cite for Pop. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Helptottt It's exteamly simplistic and redundent to have only pop in the Infobox. Like the article says pop just mean popular music. anything on the radio can be considered pop. " The infobox is supposed to give the user an idea what they are getting into" an Encyclopedia isn't used to promote music, and thousand of other albums have more than just "pop". Maybe you are just being stubborn. I would like to hear from other users.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but we need a reliable source categorising the album under any genres we list. Pop is the only one sourced at the moment. Note that pop music is not the same as popular music. Adabow (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The terms popular music and pop music are often used interchangeably" So what we can find a better source, than a source originally intended for Art-pop. Keep in mind there are several other reliable sources.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other sources, you haven't used them. There's nothing wrong with being simplistic about it, I'd rather be vague in the infobox, and more specific in the prose than specific in the infobox which isn't accurate or what a citation has said. If the only thing you can add is "me being stubborn" than you are attacking me instead of addressing the points I'm trying to make. That suggests you don't have anything to add other than personal attacks. If there is no further research done or no more information, I think we can consider this conversation closed pretty soon. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I for one disagree with the simpisity. I think if I or anyone else can find a reliable source It should be added. Just look at Daydream Nation four different rock genres, why not remove all those and just add rock? As far as making a personal attack by calling you "stubborn", that makes as much sense as someone being racist and then me calling them a racist. It's not a personal attack.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other articles are doing something else is not an excuse, the cite we have says "genre:pop". Clear as day. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done talking about this, you have shown that you are not willing to compromise the genre. All i ask now is that you agree with my mediation request--Fruitloop11 (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for mediation, but I don't see what the point will be as the cite clearly says what's stated and I think my points stand. Yours has been basically "well, but I think this" without much back-up. Just a few questions, what is art pop? does the average reader know what art pop is? I'd say no as it's not common. Wikipedia should not use abstract terms without giving better explanation. Which this article wouldn't be doing with that genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't know if you guys are still going through with your request for mediation or not, but since it seems that nothing has happened here in several weeks, I figured that I would add my thoughts to the discussion. First of all, I don't think that Andrzejbanas is just being stubborn. The request for a proper reference is only in keeping with Wikipedia policy, and I completely understand the viewpoint that since the article uses the term "art pop" to refer to Lorde herself, it shouldn't be applied to the actual album. After all, artists will occasionally record albums outside of their typical genres. Personally though, in this specific case, I feel that it should be okay to use the article to show that the album is art pop; the reason being that it's Lorde's first album. Yeah, she recorded The Love Club EP first, but all of the tracks on that are included as bonus tracks on Pure Heroine. Any article referring to Lorde as an art pop artist only has one thing to go on, and that's the music on this album. Once she records a second album, then something specifically referring to that album will be needed, but at this point in her career, I feel that anything said about her overall musical style can be applied to Pure Heroine. --Jpcase (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This review from a professional music journalist's blog refers to Pure Heroine as an art pop album. [2] --Jpcase (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the author of that blog? He or she must meet WP:SPS to be classed as a reliable source. Adabow (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ewan McGee. According to the About section of the blog, [3] he has worked as a music journalist for ten years. --Jpcase (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Searches for "Ewan McGee" music and "Ewan McGee" journalist don't return any hits for articles by him in notable publications. We need a third party source to establish his reliability. Adabow (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the bio on his official website [4] (which is separate from his blog) and it says that he worked as a freelancer, among other jobs, and it seems that he's stopped writing for professional publications. I'm not sure that any of those things should keep him from being treated as an expert in his field, but you're right; we need some examples of which publications he wrote for, if we're going to use him. I haven't been able to find any, but I did find these (both from magazines). [5] [6] --Jpcase (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any further thoughts on this? --Jpcase (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we have more specific things than I suggested, I suggest we leave it with pop. That's still my thought. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What specific things are you looking for? The 303magazine source that I linked to above lists the album as Art Pop/Electronica. --Jpcase (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out that link? Ctrl+F finds nothing for me here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link. [7] It's one of the two magazines that I mentioned in my February 26 post. The other magazine (this one [8]) says "Pure Heroine largely succeeds in its musical melting pot of electro, art pop with peppered influences of Hip-Hop in underpinning minimalist sounds on superb standouts "Tennis Court" and "Glory And Gore", which is a little less definitive, but seems to be saying that the album itself is electro/art pop, while some of the individual songs are hip-hop and minimalist. However, that second magazine probably isn't necessary, since the first magazine gives a very clear classification of the album as being Art Pop/Electronica. --Jpcase (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the 303magazine, they seem to be a social media and graphic design type business. Why are we using them for a music article? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
303 Mixed Media, the parent company, seems to primarily deal with social media, graphic design, and the like, but the actual magazine is defined as a "Lifestyle, Fashion, culture, and entertainment company". Admittedly, the "About" for the magazine does go on to say that it is "redefining online advertising with its social, content-driven publishing, technology and unique events", and I'm not really sure what sure what to make of that. But whatever the magazine's overall focus may be, the article itself is entirely focused on music and was written by someone whose role is described as a music editor. I don't see any reason to discredit it. --Jpcase (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good points! I think it's not too bad then. But my only qualm with them is their use of the / in Art pop/electronic. Which do we use? both? Do we still include pop? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on genre, so I can't say for myself whether I feel that Pure Heroine is really an "electronic album" or not. But I would be inclined toward using both art pop and electronic in the infobox, since that's what the source says. And I don't feel that there's any need to still use pop, since the use of the art pop sub-genre will make it clear to everyone that the album is also a part of the overall pop genre. --Jpcase (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people call her style minimalist, but she herself says that she makes pop songs. Listen here: [9]. BollyJeff | talk 14:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use artists discussing their own genre. You can use that in an article, but for more specific stuff, it's better for a third-party source per WP:RS. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh brother. Well, itunes lists the album as "Genres: Alternative, Music, Electronic, Rock".[10] It is obviously not rock, but it did land first on the alternative charts. BollyJeff | talk 14:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since we don't even have an author who's writing the iTunes stuff, what makes them an expert on genre? Who places their albums in that genre? The author? the company? the publisher? the music label? I wouldn't use it as a source for genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andrez is correct that iTunes link cannot be used as a valid source for genre, not authoritative. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"So then what or who is the accepted genre guru for most mature (GA, FA) music album articles? Rollingstone, Billboard? BollyJeff | talk 15:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather use a source that focuses on music first or at least a major newspaper over some magazine(?) website(?) that seems to focus on social media more and graphic design. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bollyjeff:, yes you are correct, Rolling Stone, Billboard, would be good authoritative sources for genres. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked their articles. They mention pop more than anything else, but they do not definitively classify her, so I don't think that we should either. BollyJeff | talk 13:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


So how does everyone feel about using the 303 Magazine ref to list the album's genres as "Artpop", "electronic"? --Jpcase (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would be we be removing the other cite? I think there has to be a better source out there than 303. Has anyone looked further to just find what other sources are saying about genre and not just hunting for the genres they like? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard or Rolling Stone or a high profile newspaper might be preferable. But again, I don't see any reason to discredit 303. If we do use it as a reference, then I don't think that it would really matter whether we continue to use the Globe and Mail reference or not; they don't contradict each other, since art pop is just a type of pop. Also, like I said in my first post, I personally feel that the Globe and Mail reference could actually be used to support the art pop genre, since at this point in Lorde's career - when Pure Heroine is the only album that she's ever released - any article that calls her an art pop artist, will clearly also consider Pure Heroine to be an art pop album. I understand why you might want something a little more direct, but I really do feel that this would be okay.
Feel free to look into what other sources are saying if you want. Or I can try to do some more research on it later. --Jpcase (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Compromise regarding album genre

Dear Pure Heroine article editors:

Hello there! My name is Tristessa, and I'm from the Mediation Committee. I am currently working on a mediation case regarding this article, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pure Heroine. In that mediation case, the two active parties have been engaged in a dispute as to whether this album should be categorised as either Pop or Art pop. Agreement has been reached between them that it would be acceptable to include both. My suggestion to them, which they have accepted, is that inline citations within the article lead are added to justify this, as follows:

Original text: Pure Heroine is a pop album built around minimal production, deep bass and programmed beats. Lyrically, the album discusses youth and critiques of mainstream culture.

Amended text: Pure Heroine is built around minimal production, deep bass and programmed beats. Lyrically, the album discusses youth and critiques of mainstream culture. The album's genre has been described as pop [1] and art pop[2].

The infobox genre parameter would then be updated accordingly, with the appropriate references.

For the above example, I merely used dummy {{cite}} tags — could someone please be kind enough to hunt down those two reliable sources? Obviously, as mediator, I cannot be directly involved in editorial decisions regarding the content of the article. I would like to stress that I am mediating the specific dispute to which an application for help was made to the Mediation Committee and not to the article at large; these are merely suggestions and there is no obligation for any editors here to follow the above, nor be involved in the mediation (but your help would be extremely gratefully received).

Therefore, I'm writing here to find out whether such a change would have broad consensus. Could editors here please indicate below whether they would consider this an acceptable compromise? If you have any questions regarding this, please do let me know. Many, many thanks for your help. --Tristessa (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pop source is: Wheeler, Brad (4 October 2013). "In an age of manufactured stars, Lorde is a refreshing change". The Globe and Mail. Toronto. Retrieved 14 October 2013. Genre pop. I have yet to see a reliable source call it art pop. Adabow (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in the conversation above, this 303 Magazine article [11] classifies the album as "Artpop/Electronica". It strikes me as a "reliable" source" by Wikipedia's standards, but whether it's good enough to settle this matter is debatable I suppose. --Jpcase (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About 303 Magazine: "Lifestyle, Fashion, culture and entertainment company published by 303 Mix Media Agency. 303 Magazine is redefining online advertising with its social, content-driven publishing, technology and unique events. 303 provides daily original lifestyle content across the social web to its audience." I don't think it's reasonable to rely only on a magazine which is primarily an advertising organisation. The writer of that article doesn't claim any sort of expertise or qualifications. If art pop is such a significant genre, and considering the amount of media attention this album has received, then surely a more well-known source, easily seen to be reliable, would identify this genre too. Adabow (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel Lang (the writer)'s qualification is that he was hired by the magazine as a "Music Editor". He also works as "an artist manager for up-and-coming Denver musicians", which should mean that he has at least some expertise in this area. Whatever the magazine's overall purpose is, Lang probably knows what he's talking about when it comes to musical genres. Having said that, I understand your hesistancy over using 303 as a defining source for this album's genre. --Jpcase (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments To my best knowledge, Consequence of Sound described the albums as "muted-electropop", NZ Listener identified the album as "electronica", and Drowned in Sound said that the album mixes "pop aspects with electronic undertones, hip-hop influence and the occasional R&B nod". What do you think? Simon (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are reliable sources; electropop (a.k.a. synthpop) and electronica could be added. Adabow (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tristessa's version 2

Hello! Thank you to Adabow, Simon and Jpcase for your comments above. I agree that there seems to be more WP:RS evidence for the additional genre influences being "hip hop" and "R&B", and for the description "muted electro-pop". How about the following proposed text?

Original text: Pure Heroine is a pop album built around minimal production, deep bass and programmed beats. Lyrically, the album discusses youth and critiques of mainstream culture.

Amended text: Pure Heroine is built around minimal production, deep bass and programmed beats [citation needed]. Lyrically, the album discusses youth and critiques of mainstream culture. The album's genre has been described as "muted electro-pop"[3], electronica [4], and influenced by elements of hip hop and R&B[5].

The one source that we are still lacking, then, is one for the phrase "minimal production, deep bass and programmed beats" (I have marked this with a {{cn}} tag above). Can someone please find this one remaining source, and could people indicate as to whether this compromise text would work for them? --Tristessa (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that that is a false quote. I think we should just remove that first sentence. Adabow (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The new text is much better. But can we remove "pop", because electropop (or synthpop) already combines pop and electronic elements? Much regards, Simon (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)
  2. ^ {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)
  3. ^ {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)
  4. ^ {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)
  5. ^ {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)

Some parts sound like just straight reviews.

I'm pretty sure that's contra policy...... so. forming sentences with excerpts from positive reviews and conjunctions is not okay just because the reviews are cited...

98.206.88.14 (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the section with {{quotefarm}}. You are welcome and encouraged to jump in and help clean the section up! Adabow (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Pure Heroine. 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) 16:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pure Heroine. 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) 08:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Pure Heroine. 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) 17:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good topic?

See also: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Pure Heroine/archive1

@De88: I think the collections of articles related to this album meet WP:Good topic criteria. Have you taken a look, and might you consider a nomination? I'd be happy to help if needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the collection?TomasTomasTomas (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: I completely forgot that Pure Heroine is now eligible to be a WP:Good topic candidate. I am unfamiliar with the process of doing this and where to nominate it as well. De88 (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are criteria, and here is nomination information. Take a look if you're interested, or let me know if you'd like me to help out? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of these articles have been promoted to Good status: Pure Heroine: Tennis Court (song), Royals (song), Ribs (song), Buzzcut Season, Team (Lorde song), Glory and Gore, No Better, Bravado (song), The Love Club (song), and Swingin Party. Unless you think some of the other tracks without articles qualify for one, I think the topic is eligible. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: After reading the criteria, it does seem like Pure Heroine is eligible to be nominated as a "good topic". I just submitted the nomination but I am unsure of what to do after I click on "leave comments". De88 (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're fine, but I'll double check and see if I can get someone familiar with GT to take a look. Thanks for submitting the nom! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: Hello! If you have a quick moment, I am wondering if you might be willing to take a quick look at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Pure Heroine/archive1 to make sure 1) the nomination is submitted properly and 2) the GT seems eligible? I'm asking you because I know you have had successful GT nominations before. Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To both AB and De88, sorry I had to oppose it since the accompanying Pure Heroine Tour is still not GA. —IB [ Poke ] 03:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@De88: Ah, I'm so sorry, I didn't think about Pure Heroine Tour. But, no worries, the template is now ready for go once the tour article has been promoted as well. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Track number sections

Is there a reason that under "Songs" the tracks are split between 1-5 and 6-10? It reads (to me anyway) as though those tracks are related to each other somehow. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks. Xx78900 (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Pure_Heroine"