Talk:Hackney Diamonds

Social media profile?
The article currently claims "the band's social media profiles posted new artwork by Paulina Almira" with a broken link as a citation. I can't find any verification of this on current social media pages. BotleySmith (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * From Goldmine:
 * Showing up on Rolling Stones' social media was what is believed to be the front and rear covers for the album, the front consisting of a diamond heart being fractured down the middle by a dagger, with a pair of legs wrapped around it. The rear photo features a new take on the tongue logo, with this one being a fractured version.
 * ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah that Goldmine quote is incorrect. There has been nothing on their social media profiles. The artwork was accidentally posted on the website of the design agency, and has since been taken down. --Viennese Waltz 09:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sometimes reliable sources are wrong. If you have a reliable, verifiable source that contradicts it, then you can post that. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would you post a reliable source that you know to be wrong? --Viennese Waltz 16:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not done that, no. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This Goldmine quote vaguely refers to "Stones social media" as in the wider community, but doesn't support what the article asserts, which is that the *band's official social media* posted it. That would appear to be incorrect, and I'm going to remove the text until such time as it appears for real. BotleySmith (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2023 - corrected "Watt" -> "Watts"
Voodookeef (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, sarcasm aside: the drummer was called Charlie Watts; so Watt is probably just a harmless mistake. He died some time ago, maybe that confused the editor. PS: I can see, that this was nonsense-Ralfdetlef (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The producer is Andy Watt. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Who wrote this.
Don’t think this was written by anyone in the Stones organisation as it contains syntax and style errors. Suspect it was someone wanting to make a name for themselves. Also anyone in the Stones organisation would know if McCartney and Elton John had played on any tracks and what the song titles are. Brenmar (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * If you want to know who wrote something, check the history. I have no clue what errors you think there are, but if you have reliable sources about things like which track(s) Elton John and Paul McCartney appear on, go ahead and share them. If not, then why are you talking about things that can't be verified? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Missing category
Missing category Category:2023 in British music. Thanks for adding. 109.37.137.225 (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ That category is for events, not every single album or single release. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2023
change Watt to Watts 67.162.210.185 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * No. Why would we do that? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023
Additional Recording was done across Studios A and E in Metropolis Studio, London. Assisted by Joe Brice and Barnabas Poffley. 157.231.98.150 (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  13:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Proof? See WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2023
Rolling Stone Blues is written by Muddy Waters 89.132.122.175 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Source? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Personnel order
The current personnel listing features Watts before Wood. I know that an overhaul will obviously be made once the record actually comes out, but there are two points that make me question the current status: One, that the previous Stones studio album (Blue & Lonesome) has Wood listed over Watts, establishing precedent. Obviously that's not much of an argument, which is why I'm more focused on the second point which is, much as I hate to say it, Charlie is gone. He's not only no longer an active Rolling Stone, he's also only on two tracks on this album. Aside from "alphabetical order" (which if you look at personnel in other articles for recent Stones releases — Licked Live In NYC, Steel Wheels Live, Voodoo Lounge Live, etc. — is clearly not applied across the board) I just don't know what the argument for having Charlie above Ronnie would be. Seeing as it's currently listed this way, though, I thought I'd better put in a Talk post rather than editing it myself. Any thoughts? McCartney75 (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It's just alphabetical order. And he was a member of the band at the time, whether he is now or not. Instead of coming up with some random order about who is better or who should go first. It's just alphabetical order. It's easy. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, he was a member of the band at the time of recording the two songs he's on. The other ten all post-date Charlie's death, don't they? Or, at least, that's the impression I got from Jagger and Wood's public comments about recording the album between Christmas '22 and Valentine's '23. McCartney75 (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Actual album in hand, the listing for members of The Rolling Stones is Mick, Keith, Ronnie. I think this would warrant putting Wood's name above Watts', if not moving Watts to the "Additional Personnel" section entirely (which is sad, of course). However, I'll hold off on making that editorial decision myself since there's a discussion going about this very topic. McCartney75 (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We aren't beholden to reproducing liner notes exactly as they are published. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Watts' only contributions to this record are posthumous ones, and he's isolated from the current members of the group on the album itself, receiving the same track-by-track personnel treatment that Steve Jordan does. That doesn't mean we have to be "beholden to reproducing liner notes exactly as they are published", but Watts was not  a member of the band during the making of this album and isn't even credited as such for his two posthumous contributions. McCartney75 (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was: he was a member of the Rolling Stones in 2019 when they recorded the songs that include him. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks like WP:OR. I agree with, let's follow the liner notes. Bondegezou (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is in no way original research that Charlie Watts was a member of the Rolling Stones in 2019. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The question at hand is not whether Watts was a member in 2019; it’s how to list people with respect to this album. Your chain of logic (he was a member in 2019, so he should be listed a certain way here) is your original research. Bondegezou (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not "original research" to state that the members of a band were in a band. Where are you getting this from WP:OR? ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The question at hand is how to list the personnel for this album, not who was in the band in 2019.
 * Given no-one else is supporting your position and we’ve been discussing this for a while, it is probably time to move on and go with ’s edit. Bondegezou (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Who was in the band in 2019 is relevant, because the album was recorded in 2019. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The album was recorded in "February 2019, 2020, December 2022 – January 2023", the article says, and the album was released in 2023. It's WP:OR to insist that the small amount of recording in 2019 means that the band's membership at that time overrides other sourcing.
 * You remain alone in voicing this view. You can start an RfC if you really want, but it's a bit pointless you just repeating the same thing over and over. Bondegezou (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Alone in voicing this view": yeah, because everyone else who agrees just looks at the article and says, "Yeah, that's right". It's a silent majority. If you want me to find sources that explicitly state that Charlie Watts was a member of the Rolling Stones, I can do that, but it seems excessive and unnecessary. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Outside opinions sought for the general issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Rolling_Stones and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums. Per WP:BRD, please leave it at the status quo ante. If you feel like other parties should be involved, please feel free to solicit them. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's great to seek further views on the matter. When doing so, it's generally best simply to ask people to come to the discussion here rather than asking tangential questions without context. I have now provided a link to the discussion here at both those places. Bondegezou (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free. I also think it's best to ask about a general question that applies across all articles rather than have the same dispute dozen and dozens of times. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It's generally best to list the personnel the same way they're listed in the album credits. If a consensus or a majority of editors working on a particular article agree that there's some compelling reason to deviate from that, then that would justify an exception. Speaking for myself, I think that in this case it's best to follow the album credits as we usually do. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Additional thoughts on this: I think Koavf has presented a reasonable idea, as I understand it. Watts was a member of the Rolling Stones when they started recording this album, and he appears on several tracks, so it might make more sense to list him as a band member in the personnel section. That's not original research, it's an opinion that in this case it would be better to deviate from the general practice of following the album liner notes. In my opinion, it would still be better to stick to the liner notes here. That said, if most editors wanted to list Watts as a band member in the personnel section of the article, I'd be willing to go along with it. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To date, three of us here + in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums have supported the article following the liner notes. (Two more editors have not taken part in Talk discussion, but have made that same edit.)  wants Watts listed with Jagger/Richards/Wood. (One more editor has not taken part in Talk discussion, but has made that same edit.) So, that's 4:1 (or 6:2 if we track editing behaviour) in favour of following the liner notes on this matter. Consensus is clear for now. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for what it's worth, if the liner notes are directly stating that Watts is no longer an official band member then I do think the article should reflect that. My earlier comments in that discussion were on the assumption that this was a style question, not an informational one. @Koavf you really should've linked this discussion there in the first place so that it was clear why you were asking. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 14:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I prefer to ask a general question to get an answer about principle rather than a specific one and have to have the same conversation dozens of times. Someone being dead for two years precludes him from being in a band. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your change to the article. See the above discussion. It seems like there is not as clear a consensus if you are in favor of the original way this article was listed. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Koavf, I didn't realize there was already a discussion on this. Thanks for sending me to the right place!! EPBeatles (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, we discussed this at length. Please do not change it without establishing that consensus has changed. One additional editor does not change the consensus. I suggest you start an RfC if you want to push this. Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviews
As mentioned in edit summaries; the reviews section needs significantly trimmed in my opinion, it is difficult to read at a glance as it's a wall of text. It has nearly 40 reviews, which is the most I've ever seen in an album on wiki (for a quick comparison see reception sections of some featured album articles I just selected at random: ...And Justice for All (album), 4 (Beyoncé album), Dookie, God Hates Us All, Maya (M.I.A. album), Red (Taylor Swift album), Year Zero (album), Thriller (album), Disintegration (The Cure album)). Each paragraph is just a giant dense block of "In [publication], [writer] gave Hackney Diamonds [score] and said this album [opinion]" over and over. I propose a trim/rewrite by doing multiple things:

-re-wording some reviews to trim and breakup the monotony [ie changing a "[xx] writing for [publication] stated this album [three sentences of opinion]" to a "[publication] called the album [summary of review]". I don't even think the reviewer needs to be mentioned unless they're independently notable (such as Steven Hyden or Stephen Thomas Erlewine)

-removing reviews that mostly re-state what other reviews say (there doesn't need to be like 15 "[xxx] called it the best Stones album in xx years" reviews, those could hypothetically be grouped into a "Many publications - including [xx], [xx], [xx], ect - called the album the best modern stones" for reviews that don't say much unique.)

-removing reviews from publications that aren't typically included in articles. [This will be the part that obviously needs the most discussion, there's some obvious ones - like I know it's the Stones, but an AARP: The Magazine review, really?]. The review publications I personally haven't seen in many articles are: The Arts Desk, The Big Issue, Evening Standard, Financial Times, The Scotsman, AARP, Assosiated Press, The Australian, Esquire, Hot Press, Irish Examiner, Irish Independent, Irish Times,  No Depression, RTE, Salon, Slant, Spill, Toronto Star, Wall Street Journal.


 * That's half the reviews right there, not saying they all need to be removed or that I'm any sort of authority on what should be included, but I've not seen those listed in critical reception sections often, and I spend the majority of my time on Wikipedia [reading and editing] on album articles. I'm listing them for convenience of discussion. A good point might be to look at the nearly 20 reviews listed on Metacritic too for what could/should be included.

This is the discussion for the potential changing of the reception section. Of course there's no strict guidelines for this section and maybe nothing should be removed, the section just seems excessive to me. Please respond below.RF23 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting.
 * When it comes to structuring, I'm fine with a rework that maybe focuses on common themes rather than the current format, which is: aggregators, British press, foreign press, round-ups, best-of lists. E.g. all reviewers talking about how "this is a return to form" could be mentioned in one or two sentneces.
 * Re: including the reviewers' names, I agree, but in the past, when I've tried to get an FA, I got pushback for not including it, so now I always do. Cf. Illinois (Sufjan Stevens album). Do you know of FAs where the critics' names are not included?
 * Re: purportedly obscure reviews, I have seen many of these many times and included them myself. As for using Metacritic for inclusion, that also seems like a convenient rubric that I have personally used or proposed, but discussion at WT:ALBUM has been against it, as Metacritic includes reviewers that the project doesn't think of as reliable sources.
 * ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * INSANE amount of reviews prose. No structure or them, rhyme or reason. Two or three substantial paragraphs, at most(!) for positive responses, an additional albeit shorter one for more reserved or dissenting responses...
 * Also, you need ONE dissenting score in that review box! Both aggregates have roughly 1 or 2 out of 10 or 20 scores being in the "mixed" range of scoring, which is roughly 10%. Which is one score, out of the 10 in that box being represented. I vote for Pitchfork. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "No structure or them [sic], rhyme or reason." I just explained it above. There is no requirement that three paragraphs have to be positive and one negative: there aren't even that many negative reviews. If anything, pointing out negative reviews when virtually all of them are positive would be undue weight. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Virtually all of them are not positive. At least two -- The Observer and Pitchfork -- are critical or reserved in praise, and there are a handful of others close to it. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 01:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How is two out of c. 50 "virtually not all"? ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * are all the review sources you counted considered notable or reliable by Wikipedia's standards? I count 20 on Metacritic, not 50. What am I missing? 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 01:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I pointed out above, I did not include reviews included by Metacritic but not considered notable here, e.g. Beats Per Minute. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No way close to the web traffic or notability of the dissenting reviewers. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 01:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how that responds to what I wrote. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I see sources like Irish Examiner and RTE cited. I don't think these equal The Observer or Pitchfork in popularity, readership or name recognition. Readers are expected to take those representative publications seriously. I think seeing such marginal review sources will diminish the effect. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 01:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They are just different kinds of venues: some are music-dedicated publications and some are general interest. Some are digital-first and some are legacy media. Some are domestic, some are foreign, etc. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is talking about requirement. We are suggesting common-sense alternatives to this embarrassingly unweildy monster of a section. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 01:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We are talking about requirements, as that was the concern in the first place. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The concern I saw above was readability. That, in a general sense, is required. This section is totally unreadable. It's bad writing on a fundamental level. You don't need a specialized prescription of rules for this section to notice that. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 01:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree: this is a completely intelligible section and I have no problem reading it. Do you have any data that it's hard to read five paragraphs on critical reception? ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's borderline unreadable. The prose is written like [and I say this in the nicest way possible as I myself am] an autistic person wrote it, there's no flow or variation on any of it. Also pulling the article up on mobile view on my phone the review sections requires me to scroll about 6 times before getting to the next section. I'm not sure the actual technical guidelines of readability, especially in relation to mobile view, but I know I have rarely seen any section that large in an article. RF23 (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, taking into account the fact that multiple persons have complained about readability, I am motivated to make the section shorter for that sake. If others will give me the courtesy of 48 hours, I'll try to make this more readable and reduce the prose by at least 20%. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * nearly three weeks later almost no edits have been made to the section besides a few smaller edits from User:Popcornfud, do you still plan on cutting the prose? RF23 (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I messed up and made this pledge before going on vacation to a friend's wedding, which was stupid. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s looking better. I still think it needs a rewrite for better prose as it’s still just “this reviewer said this” over and over. That’s a little out of my wheelhouse but as another editor mentioned see Guts (Olivia Rodrigo album), where the section is done very well. Should it be noted for the AARP review that AARP is the sponsor of their tour? Seems like a pretty big conflict of interest for the publication (which is as far as I’m aware not particularly known for music reviews) to have a glowing review (it’s also not mentioned in the review itself). RF23 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable question. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally disagree. A LOT should absolutely be removed. Theres notning that makes this case special so as not to demand succinct and concise paraphrasing and selection in the manner of, say, Guts (Olivia Rodrigo album), where I was rightfully battled by another editor to enforce stricter more disciplined approach to summarizing a virtually universally acclaimed album's reception. And this record isnt close to that other one's acclaim. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 01:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How acclaimed it is is not the point: mixed or negative reception is just as notable as positive. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to insult you; you're generally a great and experienced editor. But let's just say as far as this discussion we're at a standstill. Either I will find some time to introduce my own revision(s), or a request for comment is in order. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 13:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel in no way insulted and appreciate that you've given your perspective. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"Hackney Diamonds is the 24th British and 26th American studio album"
It's not at all clear what this means, and makes for a clumsy opening sentence. Whatever it means, if it's genuinely important, we should explain it in a sentence. If it's not important, we should leave it out of the lead. Popcornfud (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I favour taking it out. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see this pattern is used across every Rolling Stones album page, so I've started a discussion on the main Rolling Stones talk page. Popcornfud (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Rolling Stones themselves announced Hackney Diamonds as their 24th album (Fallon interview / BMG Publishing Company global news 6. sept.). The numbering is based on the UK releases.         Bill Wyman, their best archivist, divides and specifies the UK and US releases in his books. I think wiki should follow the same pattern. If not, base the numbering on albums released in the band’s own country. In fact some of their first albums released in US were mainly compilations of singles and EP-tracks released in Europe, where tracks for LP’s, EP’s and singles were separated in another way. Kmaxe (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

, please undo this edit. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello! I see that you have made similar edits on a number of other Rolling Stones album articles.  Perhaps you will want to undo those also.  For a lot more on this subject, please review Talk:The Rolling Stones. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Marketing description in lead
The lead currently ends: "Marketing included publicity stunts, merchandising such as worldwide fashion retail pop-ups, and cross-promotion with several sports teams." I removed this at some point, but someone added it back. While worthy of coverage in the article, is this of such significance it needs to be in the lead? I can't think of other album articles that describe such marketing activities in the lead. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The lead needs to include an overview of everything in the article. It is not common to have pop-up shops, 50-or-so album covers with MLB cross-promotion, or announcement events with TV hosts, so there should be some mention of the (sourced) marketing campaign. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead cannot cover everything in the article. It needs to be selective. There’s plenty not in the lead that’s more significant, like the role of Andrew Watt.
 * Is there any sourcing saying that the marketing campaign is of particular note? Bondegezou (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are multiple pieces in Music Week specifically about the marketing campaign, including one presently in the article. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Music Week is a specialist publication that talks about things like marketing campaigns for an album. I meant, have any newspapers or similar periodicals made particular note of this issue? Bondegezou (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is exactly my point: do they write multiple articles about the marketing campaigns of all albums? ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not all albums, but, yes, they write about the marketing campaigns of major releases all the time, e.g.:, . Here's even 2 articles about Ed Sheeran promoting a sauce: , ! Music Week is trade press, this is the sort of stuff they cover. I don't think that demonstrates that the marketing for Hackney Diamonds was so notable that it warrants mention in the lead over, say, Andrew Watt producing and co-writing. Bondegezou (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No one wrote that it does. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry,, I don't understand what point you are making.
 * The lead currently has a sentence on marketing, but does not mention Watt. I propose removing the former and adding the latter. What do other editors think? Bondegezou (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is: go ahead and mention Watt. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Releases?
Is it appropriate to add a chart listing the releases, or wait until future reissues for its 25, 50th anniversaries, etc? Orastor (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It is appropriate. See WP:ALBUMSTYLE or examples of good articles like This Stupid World. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Songs Descriptions
Would it be bad to write about the 12 songs on the album, like on other major albums, Abbey Road? The first 9 tracks definitely deserve this I think... Classics in the making. Orastor (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Descriptions of the songs would be a good addition, but bear in mind it all has to be based on independent reliable sources (such as reviews in professional music publications). No personal analysis. Popcornfud (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I want some help then as far as sources and wording goes.... Orastor (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But we discuss topics not based on how classic they are, but if third-party, reliable sources discuss them in a meaningful way. It's not in any way a value judgement, but a recognition of what has been published elsewhere. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)