Talk:Aquostic II – That's a Fact!

Remove redirect in favour of original article?
What exactly makes an album notable? This was a UK top ten album and charted in many other countries. Its chart performance profile is far more significant than the band's first few albums and several of their other albums since then; it's the direct sequel to a Gold-certified album; it's the last Status Quo album to have any input whatsoever from the late Rick Parfitt; and it's the only Status Quo album not to have an article (which feels strange in its own right: it breaks an otherwise smooth path through their infobox chronology).

I would submit that any album by a band who've sold over 100 million records and are one of the most successful in British history is notable by default, unless it bombs to an absurd extent and makes no dent in any national chart whatsoever.

If the lack of citations in the previous edit was a major problem, I don't mind doing the work. There are many sources available for the relevant info.

At the very least, this article should be folded and merged into the article for the original Aquostic album so there's something to link to (for e.g. the artist chronology). In fact, that option makes a fair amount of sense. Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * yes, the notabily guideline is met if there was any entry in the charts, no matter what position. because nothing was noted about it, someone used the redirect. the picture for the album cover has since been deleted because it was not used.anymore. I took over another chart table via source edit and adjusted the entries. Unfortunately, the german and UK-references do not (yet) work.
 * a reference for germany is this one https://www.offiziellecharts.de/album-details-315885
 * and this one should be sufficient for england https://www.officialcharts.com/search/albums/aquostic/ Eleven013 (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, this album does pass the notability requirements at WP:NALBUMS. But please note that WP:NALBUMS also says "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." Just because this album was by a famous band does not mean it is automatically notable. Richard3120 (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This poses interesting questions, in my opinion. Like the fact that Aquostic II is a direct sequel album to a highly notable (UK #2, Gold-certified) album. Hypothetically, if Aquostic got an identical reception while Aquostic II tanked to an unfathomable extent (say, failed to chart anywhere, even in the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Scandinavia, etc.; i.e. Quo heartland), would it not still be grandfathered in by dint of being a numbered sequel release? That, to me, has nothing to do with the related artist and everything to do with the fact that it's directly related, in a way few albums are, to another notable release (the answer seems obvious when considering the more common analogues in film, like - I don't know - Return of the King, flunking after the first two LOTR movies, would still get a page; but then that's true of any Hollywood release irrespective of the context). Also, would not the striking dichotomy in results/reception in the hypothetical case make the sequel notable in its own right?
 * I realise you're probably not an expert on the pilpul of WP's music notability guidelines and case law but you seem to know more than I do. And it's an interesting thought experiment in testing the edge cases regardless. (At any rate, I'm more likely to make these arguments because I'm an inclusionist who has been somewhat alarmed by the trimming down of WP even as the viability of hosting a near-infinite number of text articles and the size of WM's coffers both increase monotonically. But this is not the forum for that debate. And even if it were, that debate seems to have been settled a long time ago in favour of deletionism.) Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work! :) Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Correct spelling of the Album
Not sure about it.

On https://www.statusquo.co.uk/new-page-3 it's called AQUOSTIC II (THAT'S A FACT) , with no exclamation mark like on the album cover.

In the chart lists, both uk and the other european ones it is called Aquostic II - That's a Fact!

There are several redirects about the album and some of the links were (or maybe still are) misleading.

Aquostic II: That’s a Fact! / Aquostic II / Aquostic II: That's a Fact and this one is called Aquostic II: That's a Fact! (colon instead of hyphen and other apostrophe) Eleven013 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be whatever the most common usage is, so that readers can find it easily. And the title of the page should match the text... I used a colon because that is what is used in the article title, and also for the previous Aquostic album... it needs to be consistent. Richard3120 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the article
I was originally just going to add a little section to Aquostic concerning Aquostic II (though I disagreed with its exclusion from a full article). My original intention was simply to keep the infobox chronology unbroken for all 30-odd Quo studio albums, but all the contributors did a great job and now we've made it so that every single Quo studio album has a full page. Fantastic. Thanks! :)

FAO the guys who classify article quality for Wikiproject Albums: This no longer seems like a "Starter" class article. It's at least a letter grade according to the criteria set forth on your linked page. Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)