Talk:Astroworld (album)

Requested move 30 July 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. WP:SNOW closure.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  07:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Astroworld (Travis Scott album) → Astroworld (album) – There isn't another Astroworld album, so the specific artist identifier isn't necessary. Limmidy (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Support – I don't see why this is controversial, if anything it should be at "Astroworld" and we could have a hatnote for the former Six Flags park. JE98 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I also think somebody should consider asking an admin to combine the page history of Astroworld (album) when/if it is moved.  Ss  112   05:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per above. No other album with the same name. Hayman30 (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I think the creation of the article with this name was unintentional anyway; merge with history. Ninjinian (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. as per JE98. '''[[User:TomasTomasTomas|⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS ]]⠀[[User talk:TomasTomasTomas|TALK⠀ ]] ''' 05:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Honestly could have been sent to noncontroversial requests. Clearly the right option. Sock   ( tock talk)  07:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NC-17
There’s a young thug feature on NC-17 Pyeatt99 (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Has it been leaked? XANNIESANDLEAN (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2018
"Stargazing" features uncredited vocals by CyHi the Prince 69.17.168.226 (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —  Newslinger  talk   02:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Astroworld (album) → Astroworld – Yes, I realize that the album just came out today and there was already a requested move to this current title, but as Six Flags AstroWorld has been closed for almost 13 years now, a hatnote for the former park can be placed here and this article does not need "(album)" after it. JE98 (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose of course it needs (album) it is brand new album. "Astroworld" in GBooks is still the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. WP:RECENTISM. It's quite possible this will become the base title in the future, but we need to wait and see.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  05:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. When I hear "AstroWorld", I immediately think of the theme park. Granted, I'm from Texas, but still, the park was around for decades. I am in favor of converting AstroWorld into a disambiguation page. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Being as the album was named after the park, I would accept that for now. I may request this again in the future. JE98 (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2018
In the critical reception of the article, please change the table to add more items since more reviews have been made available Jrrullo06 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ you can edit the page now. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 08:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Language of "rave reviews" is not neutral or appropriate
I've attempted to correct non-standard puffery language used in this article that doesn't conform to WP:Words. The language of "rave reviews" is marketing language, it's not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. I've looked across many different articles for top-rated albums from 2018 according to Metacritic (Astroworld isn't in the top 50) and none of the albums in the top 50 that I could find Wikipedia articles for with the appropriate section used the language of "rave reviews." The common nomenclature for highly-reviewed albums was "widespread acclaim" or "well-reviewed." Examples of this can be found on the articles for Janelle Monae's Dirty Computer, Christine and the Queens's Chris, Jeff Rosenstock's POST-, and many others. Nowhere was the contentious label/puffery of "rave reviews" found. It's simply not language that is standard to use on Wikipedia and it doesn't meet WP:Words. My attempts to conform the language of the article to Wikipedia standards were reverted under false pretenses with a statement that I should cite a specific reference, although in every other case and article fact-based sources like Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic were acceptable for that claim, and I made it clear in my edit notes that the Metacritic citation in the next sentence covered the claim that the album was acclaimed, as it has a factual basis for claiming "universal acclaim." The XXL reference that supposedly justified that inappropriate language of "rave reviews" is an opinion-based piece that cites a corporate A&R and is filled with marketing language like "star-studded" and "rave reviews." It is not desirable to replicate marketing language on Wikipedia, and I find it pretty remarkable that a user with no administrative or moderator authority to block anyone from Wikipedia could post a template threatening to block someone for changing a language use back to standard language with the proper references and citations in place. 47.134.137.119 (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What you adding is not supported by a reliable source, you just adding something based on your opinion, as long "rave reviews" is supported by a source there's no reasons to remove it. Pinging editors   and  in this. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's completely untrue. The claim that the album has received critical acclaim is supported by an objective, fact-based source, Metacritic that is sourced. It is absolutely not based on opinion, it clearly cited Metacritic. What is based on opinion is the claim that the album received "rave reviews." That is cited from an opinion-based XXL article that used all sorts of puffery and PR language like "star-studded" and "snubbed" for awards. My claim is standard Wikipedia language based on a fact-based citation of an aggregator, Metacritic, who says the album has "universal acclaim." Your language of "rave reviews" is promotional language that doesn't conform to WP:Words and is cited from an opinion-based article that cites a record label A&R man. Wikipedia should not simply replicate biased promotional language and that usage is not found in other similar articles, most of which use the language of "critically acclaimed," "well-reviewed," or most commonly "widespread acclaim." 47.134.137.119 (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Metacritic's wording is applied by algorithm and not by editorial oversight, the general consensus is that we may directly quote it with in-line attribution, we should not use it in the lead or echo it in Wikipedia's voice. See WP:SYNTH. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that makes no sense. Metacritic's wording, which is replicated across virtually every other album article with a critical reception section that cites Metacritic, is unacceptable to replicate because it is automatically generated by algorithms based on aggregate opinion (that is, based on factual measures of critical opinion) but opinion-based articles that use marketing language and cite record label PR men are acceptable to echo in Wikipedia's voice because... why? See WP:Words. WP:Synth is not at all applicable. I am not synthesizing conclusions. Metacritic states that the album has received critical acclaim based on their analysis and aggregation of critical reviews, and so I state that the album has received critical acclaim and cite Metacritic on Wikipedia. That is not a synthesis. But you state that it has received rave reviews, replicating the language from an opinion-based XXL article in Wikipedia's voice. That is not appropriate for an article attempting to maintain a neutral tone. It would probably be acceptable to state that an article in XXL described the critical reception as "rave reviews," but you replicated that opinion-based claim in Wikipedia's voice instead of using the standard language other articles of this type typically use. 47.134.137.119 (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to not get what I'm saying and clearly didn't read what I show you (see WP:SYNTH). What you're saying is based on your opinion and not supported by a source. You can start a RfC and see other editors will agree with you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I read it in full, thanks. It's ridiculous to think that citing Metacritic's claims that the album has received critical acclaim is based on my opinion or is somehow original research based on synthesizing sources or a source. How can this be a claim based on my opinion? I don't have an opinion on this album. I haven't even listened to this album. You're acting completely out of order and posting templates on my talk page claiming that I will be blocked from Wikipedia as if you have the power to block people from Wikipedia. You're just a user like me or anyone else. But I agree that if I post a RfC I will see that other editors will agree with me, that must have been a Freudian slip. We're clearly at an impasse here because you're not listening to my points and are instead getting defensive and acting like you have ownership over the article. I'll open up a RFC on it when I get a chance tomorrow. 47.134.137.119 (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I post those templates in your talk page, I thought you were some random editor try to be disruptive. I clearly get what you saying but if you're gonna add "critical acclaim" or "widespread acclaim" without a source to backup your claim, you just adding unsourced content. There other articles that have "rave reviews" supported by a source, Everything Is Love, Invasion of Privacy and Of the Heart, of the Soul and of the Cross: The Utopian Experience. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the apology for the templates and I take it in good faith. The use of "rave reviews" has been controversial on Wikipedia before. A prominent and well-respected editor and author of two featured articles, who you yourself have sought advice and comment from had this to say on the matter: ""Rave reviews" is editorializing language unsuitable for an encyclopedia. It's that simple. It isn't a question of finding sources that use it - lots of journals will use the phrase, but we shouldn't, because it's not appropriate and reads like an advertisement." This debate was had extensively at Talk:Yeezus, it's worth reading the debate there. That article is ranked as a good article, while this article is rated C. The conclusion of the debate for that article was changing the term "rave reviews" to "widespread acclaim," a much more standard usage, as multiple editors agreed that the term "rave reviews" was not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia and approached puffery, violating WP: Words. It's not appropriate to aggressively revert changes made in good faith to improve an article ranked in a class that indicates it needs significant work to improve it. Again, in that article, which is rated as a good article, Metacritic was seen as an appropriate citation for the claim that the album had received "widespread acclaim," but it was deemed after debate that "rave reviews" was not appropriate language. The same applies to Late Registration, which originally used the term "rave reviews" but was changed to widespread acclaim to conform to more neutral language. Just because there are other articles that have used the non-neutral usage and haven't been changed yet does not mean it is proper. The same principle applies to this article: "rave reviews" is not neutral language and it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. So, yes. Metacritic is a perfectly acceptable source for the claim that the album has received critical acclaim as per typical usage and clear precedent from other good articles, but the language of "rave reviews" should be avoided. 47.134.137.119 (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely understand what you said, I personally prefer the use of "widespread acclaim" over "rave reviews" but there are editors who might disagree on that. See Talk:Everything Is Love for example. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Per 47.134.137.119, ‘rave reviews’ is a colloquialism, unsuitable for use in an encyclopedia. Choose, as appropriate, from ‘widespread critical praise’, ‘generally positive critical reviews’, etc.—Aquegg (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I recall this being debated somewhere before a few years ago - maybe a Kanye West article? I would support a ban on it the term - to me it's hyperbolic, editorial, and yes, puffy. For our purposes, I don't see the advantage of using it over neutral phrasing like "positive reviews" or "critical acclaim" if something stronger is needed. I try to shy away from such blanket statements where possible anyway, and instead provide concrete information the reader can draw their own interpretations from - eg the album was nominated for a Grammy award, was named one of the best of the year by Rolling Stone, etc. Popcornduff (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the debate you have with other editors at the Yeezus article. I believe you're talking about this. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Appropriate - Merriam-Webster is clear about the meaning of this word: a report in which someone gives an excellent opinion of the quality of a book, performance, product, etc. How is this a colloquialism? I don't hear this phrase used in everyday conversation. In fact, I've encountered it more often in encyclopedic sources (DOZENS of encyclopedia publications, according to GoogleBooks). It's no more hyperbolic than the rave reviews of this album themselves, so the term fits. Dan56 (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The meaning of the term is not in doubt. But clearly it's something that several editors feel is inappropriate, so I just don't understand why we would fight to use it when there are other uncontroversial term instead. Popcornduff (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand, but that is my opinion, given after being solicited here. If consensus decides otherwise, so be it. I am not opposed to "widespread critical acclaim," paraphrased from the quote of "universal acclaim," attributed to Metacritic in the second sentence of the section. Dan56 (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The article could quote someone whose opinion matters saying "this album received rave reviews". But summarizing critical appraisal as 'rave reviews' is not neutral; it is a phrase with widespread promotional connotations, and is not a simple description of the fact of a critical consensus. Chubbles (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand the point about using it to summarize critical appraisal as a whole, but this is really a stupid assertion, about the neutrality of the word. Are these DOZENS of encyclopedia publications attempting to promote their subject matter by using the same phrase? Maybe they are just calling it like it is? Keep in mind, this album has not received a single unenthusiastic review. Dan56 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Each of those usages strikes me as folksy and informal; it's an engaging cliche that uninventive critics often employ (when else do we use "rave" as an adjective??). It's true that we could choose to be only as neutral as other encyclopedias in our choice of wording, but I think in this case we should exceed them; the phrase inherently drips with almost fawning approval. (I doubt people would use it to describe a once-positively-received work of art that is now derided as dated or offensive, for instance.) Chubbles (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When else do we use "enthusiastic" as an adjective, if not in the context of a response? ("Rave applause", another instance of its usage). It drips with almost fawning approval because it is describing almost fawning approval, as is the case with this album; this album is not a once-positively-received work now derided as dated or offensive. Dan56 (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm on the fence on this one. "Rave reviews" edges on puffery and hyperbole, but it's also a synonym for widespread acclaim. Maybe it should be taken out of the lead section, replaced with another term, and then in the article body it can be attributed to XXL magazine, quoting this review. In any case, I'm not in favor of putting "rave reviews" into the article twice. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just wanna point out again, because I think it's important, that the fact that "it's a synonym for widespread acclaim" isn't disputed. So are constructions like "fantastic reviews" or "strong reviews across the board" or whatever, which presumably we agree are unacceptable for Wiki - so the discussion is not about the meaning but the neutrality. To me if you feel it "edges on" puffery it sounds like you wouldn't wanna go for it, regardless of is meaning. Popcornduff (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Popcornduff's points above except that "rave reviews" isn't synonymous with "widespread acclaim" as widespread indicates that praise was given by virtually every source, and "rave reviews" just refers to the nature of the response from the sources surveyed/selected. I don't support the use of the phrase as it doesn't sound encyclopedic and carries a non-neutral tone. Moreover, "rave reviews" may mislead readers as it may be used for projects that received a number of very effusive reviews but there are also some reviews with moderate praise, moderately positive or even mixed or negative reviews. So the phrase would not fairly represent overall reception. If a source says a record received "rave reviews", I would write in WP's voice that it received critical acclaim. If sources note that majority of reception was praise, then "extensive critical acclaim" or something in that vein suffices. Lapadite (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose use - Its too promotional and informal sounding for an encyclopedia. I've frequently removed it in the past. Just stick to the basics, like "generally well received" or "critical acclaim". Sergecross73   msg me  15:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Change to "widespread acclaim" since most editors agreed "rave reviews" is not appropriate. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. This language would be supported by Metacritic ("universal acclaim") and this article by PopBuzz ("widespread critical acclaim"). Dan56 (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I add the source in the article, just in case. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Just “critical acclaim”. It’s already “widespread” by definition. It’s redundant. It’s like saying “Really, very good reviews”. “Very good reviews” is suffiencent.  Sergecross73   msg me  14:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Which part of the phrase specifically means "widespread"? Dan56 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The word "acclaim" suggests multiple sources and they're unlikely to be limited to a small area. Readers won't wonder if the acclaim was localised or limited in some way if we don't write "widespread". Popcornduff (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the last sentence of the section; it was limited in some way. Dan56 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. What's your point? Popcornduff (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ...Acclaim...? Sergecross73   msg me  19:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The degree to which something received acclaim is not in the meaning of the word. You would need a qualifying adjective to put that across. There is a reason "widespread acclaim" is popular even in encyclopedic usage; it works. And I have the impression that, while there is good intention, some are being contrarian or reactionary simply because the phrase is found in lesser sources. Dan56 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you say "acclaim" the reader understands it does not mean "one guy liked it". There's no confusion here to take care of. You can continue to cite examples of people writing things in the way that you prefer but none of it is evidence that it's better. As Mark Twain said of needless qualifiers: "Substitute ‘damn’ every time you’re inclined to write ‘very'; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." Popcornduff (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the discussion so far, we have six editors who oppose "rave reviews", two who seem on the fence or fine with using an alternative, and only one who wants to keep using it. Can we just get rid of it already? Popcornduff (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can’t see any other consensus drawn from this discussion. Sergecross73   msg me  00:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018
In the Sample Credits section, change Björk Guðmundsdóttin to Björk Guðmundsdóttir (the last letter should be an r) 199.119.119.85 (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sam Sailor 13:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2019

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 08:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Astroworld (album) → Astroworld – As it stands, Astroworld is a redirect to Six Flags AstroWorld. If you compare the pageviews, it's quite obvious that the album is more popular (and the bumps happen at the same time, indicating the "Astroworld" redirect is taking people to the wrong page).  Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work )  06:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is a 2018 album, so its natural that there is |Astroworld_(album)|Astroworld-Wish_You_Were_Here_Tour_2|Six_Flags_AstroWorld a temporary boost in page views (see WP:RECENTISM). We should not make any decision based on them. In fact, considering that the album is named for Six Flags Astroworld, I think that demonstrates long-term significance of the namesake park over the album. The current arrangement is the best solution. The matching page view bumps don't indicate people are going to the wrong page, more likely its just people simply looking up what the album was named for. -- Netoholic @ 07:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I might be receptive to a dab page at Astroworld, but it's hard to support a swap when the album is named after the theme park, which wasn't exactly a short-lived insignificant one. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a good image. But Astroworld was just at the Super Bowl, too. However, you can move it though. Because world is not capitalized in the other titles. --Quiz shows 21:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral - but I'd strongly support creating a disambiguation page at the basename of "Astroworld", as Nohomersryan suggested above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is actually a strong case to be made that the theme park article should be moved to Astroworld as COMMONNAME. I was going to take that up as a separate RM after this one closes. Just notifying in case someone is thinking of converting this redirect to a DAB. -- Netoholic @ 11:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

27 December 2019
The album's features are now credited on radios, music videos, and Apple Music. For example, the music video for "Sicko Mode" states Drake as a feature and a radio station plays "Yosemite" and states that Gunna and Nav are the features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1113:2C40:F5C9:8F6E:E603:B971 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No true, I looking at Apple Music right now and none of the vocals are not featured on the album. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Gerne of Astroworld
I think you can't list Astroworld as a Hip Hop Album I don't know what Genre but Hip-Hop isn't fitting, maybe also fitting but not solo Hip-Hop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DB:1F30:20A2:2070:664:1CE7:C2FE (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Let us complete the track listening chart
featured artists notes are below the chart; I added notes in that table, but you deleted them. What's the problem? Was it unsourced? Jag-Eun Byeol (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's unsourced because the featured artists are not credited in the track listing, they are only credited as guess vocals. Don't add unsourced content in articles, it's disruptive and you be blocked for it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. I visited on Genius site. Is this site a reliable source?
 * Pages from Genius such as this are user-generated. We avoid using Genius for track information because it's mostly incorrect and unreliable. User-generated content are unacceptable per WP:USERG. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Astroworld as a psychedelic album
I think Astroworld's genre should be classified as psychedelic, not just hip hop, as I feel it is really limiting to the trippy sonic production of the album. I can list many articles that describe the album's sound as psychedelic, and I think anyone who is worth their salt in music would be able to tell that it has a very drug influenced sound. Even the Composition section of the album details its psychedelic sound so I feel it should be listed under the genre section too, as was done with A$AP Rocky's albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.33.103.54 (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You clearly didn't look or even read the guidelines (WP:GWAR). Genre changes to sult your own point of view are considered disruptive and what you saying here is based on a opinion. The source you added didn't explicitly called the album psychedelic. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article states in big letters in the beginning, "His skill as a curator helps sculpt a sticky, humid, psychedelic world" and further down the article, it also describes him as a gold standard of "trippy-sounding" hip hop, even going as far as to say he "out-hallucinates" A$AP Rocky (who has both A.L.L.A and Testing marked as psychedelic in their Wiki articles). Besides the Pitchfork article, though, I had first linked an article that also describes Astroworld as psychedelic. You dismissed this source, for reasons unknown. I can link more sources if you'd like. I just do not see a reason why Astroworld should not be classified as a psychedelic album, the production of the album sounds like its drenched in psychedelia and just categorizing it as "hip hop" is severely limiting the scope of the albums sonic production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.33.103.54 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging into this discussion. Is this IP is right, does Pitchfork explicitly called the album psychedelic? I like to hear a second opinion on this. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that psychedelia is an element of the album, but I don't think we would be properly representing all the literature if we upgraded psychedelia from element to main genre. Plenty of album reviews exist that do not mention psychedelia as a musical genre. They say that it is hip hop, adding descriptions such as how the last seven songs are "vintage Travis with its zoned-out, hypnotic throb," according to Rolling Stone. The album is hip hop, and some songs have psychedelic influences, maybe bending it toward alternative hip hop. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's seems that this editor don't know how Wikipedia works and think their opinion as facts. So you're saying the sources are calling the album alternative hip hop then psychedelia, right? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with alt hip hop as an album genre is that it's not explicitly named in the sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What about this source from The Times, it called the album psychedelic rap. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, good catch. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good, I have add it in the article and replace the source. Here's the edit. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That works. Thank you for hearing me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.33.103.54 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Next time, add genres with sources that explicitly supports it per (WP:EXPLICITGENRE). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Plenty of album reviews that do not mention psychedelia exist, as do reviews that mention psychedelia. Which side are we to pick? Sgt Pepper's is rock, with only a few songs with psychedelic influences, yet it is called a psychedelic album because of the overall vibe of the album, which is primarily psychedelia, as it should be for Astroworld. I have to invoke A$AP Rocky again, as his albums are rightly classified as psychedelic on their Wikis because of a few songs, so why shouldn't the same criteria apply to Travis Scott? Alternative hip hop is a very vague genre, that fails to honor the individuality of hip hop artists (Kanye is also alternative, as is Tyler, as is Travis and yet they all sound completely different to each other). Besides, there are hardly any albums that are 100% psychedelic, not even Tame Impala, and yet their albums are classified as psychedelic. So my question is why is there such an aversion to classify Travis Scott and his albums as psychedelia, despite it being more than clearly his whole aesthetic? And using your own words, the last 7 songs of the album (8 if you add Stargazing, the very psychedelic first track), 50% of Astroworld, are described as being "zoned out" and "hypnotic" which are virtually synonymous with "psychedelic".
 * Let's stick to this album and its reviews. Our job is to summarize the album reviews for Wikipedia's readers. Our job is *not* to look around at other articles and invoke some sense of fairness and balance between those others and this one. And our job is *not* to listen to the album, analyze it musically, and decide for ourselves. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, let us stick to the album and its reviews. Would I be incorrect in saying that almost every review of this album describes a good chunk of the album as psychedelic using adjectives such as "zoned out and hypnotic", "trippy", "drug induced/drugged out", or "psychedelic"? And if so, does that not constitute enough reason to classify the album as psychedelic? According to you, 7 songs are classified as "zoned out and hypnotic". I added Stargazing to make it 8, and so now 50% of the album would be classified as psychedelic. Is that not enough reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.33.103.54 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like that's more of a descriptor than explicitly putting the album into that genre. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 00:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Astroworld Reversion
Why did you revert my edit on the Astroworld page? The album title is in fact stylized in all caps. Go look at many other albums with capital stylization and alternate title stylizing. That edit should stay because it is correct. Sickpanda42 (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The stylization is not heavily supported by reliable sources, and Apple Music or any other streaming platform is not considered reliable. Plus, we already had a discussion about this issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree, usually if a title is stylized the same way across multiple streaming services (Apple Music, Spotify, Tidal, YT Music, etc.) that is how the artist intended it to be stylized, same thing for titles in lowercase. In the case of Utopia and Astroworld, all the tracks are in capitalization case so it is safe to assume that the title should be as well. Also, Travis only posts the title in capital letters. I tend to visit Wikipedia mainly for gathering metadata on albums, such as track and title capitalizations or to view bonus tracks, so I definitely appreciate being able to see the official stylizations. Sickpanda42 (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So who cares? It says in the guidelines that streaming services should be avoided, period (WP:NOTRSMUSIC). If the stylization isn't supported by multiple reliable sources, it has no business being in the lead. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm… except almost all album pages get their credits adapted from Tidal… a streaming service. I guess that is now unreliable? Sickpanda42 (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There are exceptions to using Tidal for credits; the rest, not so much. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)