Talk:List of 2022 albums/Archive 1

Adding an additional column to the album tables
Recently an anonymous user made some modifications to the tables, where they added an additional column. The column specified if the albums were EPs, mixtapes, studio albums, compilations, or soundtracks, plus some additional items such as country of origin, if the album was a debut, or if the album was really a singles album. I have for now reverted the changes as too bold to make without a discussion. Do other users want to see a column that specifies the type of release? How about notes such as debut, or country of origin. We have defined what is allowed on the list, so I am not proposing allowing singles albums, but the other choices should be discussed. I have my opinions, but I won't state them in this opening section, I just want to open up a discussion of whether an additional column would improve the list, and what the column should be, whether it is a type listing, or notes, or both, or no additional column at all. Mburrell (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Release type" would be more doable if not for the confusion that regularly crops up around different countries using similar terminology to refer to different types of releases (Especially the Korean music industry, I've seen discussions pop up about that a few times 'round these parts), which is unfortunate 'cause otherwise I would like to have it. The rest I'm not really sure I see as all that necessary. I also worry that those blocks could easily get overstuffed in the same way Producers did, and make the page way longer/harder to navigate just by each row being multiple lines of text long. QuietHere (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Some possible things to add.
Tame impala is releasing an album on the 18th of February. Denzel curry is releasing an album, it is tba still however 2600:8800:700B:4800:BC88:ED13:2E0E:259A (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Go for it. The article is not locked, and you will gain experience by learning to enter albums and artists. People are more than willing to improve entries that don't meet standards (provided minimal effort is put into adding the album), but not everyone will leap to enter album listings at the behest of others who won't do the work. Mburrell (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the coverage I'm finding on the Tame Impala project, it appears to be a deluxe version of their 2020 album, so you're gonna have a bit more difficulty getting that added here. As for Denzel, I haven't seen anything about a release date yet that isn't speculative so it can't be added just yet. QuietHere (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Believe All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling does not belong on the 2022 list
Normally, it is pretty clear if an album belongs on a years list. However, the Godspeed You! Black Emperor album All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling could use some debate. The album was originally released in December 1994, but apparently only 33 cassette albums were released. It has now been released on Bandcamp on February 14, 2022. The album article clearly states the 1994 release is the original release and the 2022 release is the re-release. However, could it be argued that 33 albums sold back in the day makes that an unofficial release and the Bandcamp release is the official release? That is about the only argument I could see for keeping the album on the 2022 list. Otherwise, it should be shifted to the 1994 music list. I welcome other thoughts. Mburrell (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was basically my entire thought process in adding it. Sources (like the one I included plus TLoBF and Exclaim!) are calling it an "official" release even though it was known to have had that casette run back in the day. It's also not entirely clear what happened to those 33 tapes (I've seen reference so some being "lost", so presumably they didn't sell all of them). From what I've read, it doesn't sound like they intended to push that album any further than that at the time, hence it only being released this week after the full thing leaked online the other day. I wouldn't be opposed to moving it, but with three sources calling this new release "official" I would prefer to defer to that. QuietHere (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to see this list follow album article information. If the album article was modified to call the 1994 release aIn unofficial release and the 2022 release the official release, and the edits remained after any challenges, then I could support listing the album on this list.  Otherwise, we have a disconnect between the album article and this list, and I would prefer for the album article to be the dominant factor. Mburrell (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Decided our best bet was to cast a wider net for consensus so I've left a query on the album's talk page. I'll also be listing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums so hopefully we get an answer out of this soon. QuietHere (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There has been no response on the Talk page of All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling about the 2022 release being the official release. I am going to remove the album from this list this weekend unless there is an additional argument for the album being an unofficial release in 1994. Mburrell (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I no longer recognize most of the artists here. Would it make sense to make another list which is more exclusive?
The value of this list decreases when 90% of the artists are unknown or uninteresting to the public. Could criteria be set up for a more exclusive list? Dr. Universe (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You not knowing the artists doesn't make them non-notable. It's not our job to judge whether a giving act "deserves" to be listed, just to see if they meet WP's baseline requirements. This list is fine as is. QuietHere (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This isn't about artists familiar to you. This is a list of albums by artists who are notable from a Wikipedia perspective. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There are existing exclusive album lists. In the top right corner of any of the album list pages, there is a table that lists the year in music by location (Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, United Kingdom, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, & United States), and then by genre (Classical, Country, Heavy metal, Hip hop, Jazz, Latin, and Rock). Each of those lists have lists for previous years as well.  2021 in rock music lists notable events and deaths but does not list albums, but 2021 in heavy metal music lists heavy metal albums released for the year.  Maybe what you are looking for is in these more exclusive lists. Mburrell (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with QuietHere and Another Believer. 7szz (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Reference column for albums w/ articles
This proposal applies to all "year albums" articles. Is it really necessary a reference column for those albums for which Wikipedia has already an article? I don't think so. I suggest using in those cases. 7szz (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The idea of removing references from entries with self-notable articles was mainly born out of a need to reduce the size of the lists. What (I think) you're suggesting would involve adding text back to all of those spaces (not nearly as much as the references but still) simply to change their color for some aesthetic goal. If I'm getting that right, then I don't remotely see the point of it. It's just an added step to each edit which doesn't serve a needed purpose.
 * And for clarity, we don't just remove/not have refs for entries where the album has an article, but specifically when that article itself establishes a solid base of notability for the given album. If the article itself isn't sufficiently self-notable then the source should stay. Let's make sure we're clear in our language regarding that so nobody gets confused. QuietHere (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything QuietHere stated above. Tried entering, and all it does in the viewable table is to shade the cell a dark gray.  Most users won't know to use it, so that it would leave one more item for other editors to follow up and insert.  I don't see how it adds anything to the article.
 * Some background information: Originally, every album listing would have a citation showing notability, but in 2021 the album list became the largest article in Wikipedia, and after much discussion, it was decided that albums that were already proven to be notable did not have to have a citation on the album list, which is why some of the reference cells have no information in them. However, one of the goals is to keep the tables as simple as possible, with as much consistency for each album entry, which is why every album listing will have the same amount of columns for the data entry, a column for required information of artist name and album title, placed in the appropriate release date, the optional listings of genre and label, and the semi-mandatory listing of reference citation, required if the album does not have an article that proves album notability through sufficient significant coverage from reliable sources. This is why I believe the reference column is necesary, even if left empty. Mburrell (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Many things. The main purpose of is to indicate that the space has not been left blank unintentionally; it will not add many bytes, that cannot be an excuse. I quote QuietHere: "If the article itself isn't sufficiently self-notable then the source should stay." It is not our job here to determine if an article is "sufficiently self-notable"! On contrast, we must presume notability, that's a rule on Wikipedia for a topic to have an article, otherwise it must be deleted from this site. That cannot be our criteria!

Another proposal would be removing all albums without article and thus the reference column (I can think of List of YouTubers now), but that's too radical and debatable. Perhaps it would satisfy 's proposal a bit. 7szz (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I hesitate to jump straight to deleting entries en masse, especially since many are upcoming projects that don't have the coverage yet for an article but likely will in the future. On the other hand, you bring up a good point; not every entry on every list is notable, but nobody's ever gone through and checked all of 'em to see what can be pruned (at least to my memory). If you're interested in doing so, feel free, just be wary of what you're cutting. And for anything with article potential, perhaps we need to utilise Requested articles/music/Albums more often since the handful of regular editors here seemingly can't keep up with the load alone. There's plenty of material that can be salvaged, so let's put in the work there before we start chainsawing chunks out of the lists. QuietHere (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Years ago, there was no real definition of a what made an album notable. However, over the past few years, as it was debated about how to reduce article size, discussions occurred and definitions were created on what made an album notable enough to be on the album lists.  From Stand-alone lists, there are two sections for defining what goes into a list,  Selection criteria and Common selection criteria.
 * What these two sections from the guidelines state is that Wikipedia will not define what goes into a list, it is up to the list to set the definition. After observing what was being added to the list and the reasoning for citations, a definition of what to include in the list was generated and added to the top of every list of albums that defines the inclusion criteria as "The following is a list of music albums, EPs, and mixtapes scheduled for release in . These are notable albums, defined as having received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject."  So this does answer User:7szz statement that it is not our job to determine if an article is "sufficiently self-notable". If the album article does not comply with the list definition, the album article is not sufficiently self-notable, and it is our job to observe and make these calls.  Yes, we could probably propose some articles for deletion for being inadequately supported, but new articles tend to be quickly created and developed over time. I don't feel like policing all of the album articles, but it is within our purview to police the lists, since we have a clear definition of what is required to be included in the list. Mburrell (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

IC3PEAK source
Easiest to write it here. To clarify what I meant in my reversion of Pjesnik21's edit, my issue isn't with the lack of fact statements in the article, but that the article isn't actually about the album or even really about the duo, but more focused on the more famous guest artist. That alone does not look like good notability to me, and given the lack of coverage elsewhere I don't think this album would pass the notability test as an article anyway (at least not at this time). And I'm not even fully convinced the IC3PEAK article passes notability for that matter. But I dunno, maybe I'm being overly cautious here. QuietHere (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Template for "Go to" boxes
Had the thought a while ago about trying to get the "Go to" boxes at the top of the tables (the ones that navigate between the different month sections) converted into a template. Not sure what the procedure is for getting that done, nor do I know how to create it myself, but figured if I throw the idea out here someone who does know could get it done. Would be far easier than the current process of creating a new one for every new table plus having to edit all the old ones to keep them up to date. Surely there's gotta be a way to automate all of that. QuietHere (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and made a request for this (see here). Hopefully that can work out 'cause it'll be very useful to have 'round these parts. QuietHere (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like User:CBDunkerson created a template for the go to boxes, see Template:Monthbar. The user applied the new template to the List of 2020 albums. I don't think it will transfer over to the split album lists of 2021 without losing the ability to jump from first half months to second half months, but it can be applied to the 2022 list, and earlier lists. Mburrell (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we're fine without it on the 2021 list for now since that's already fully implemented and split. If you want it to be more versatile then feel free to request the change but I'm alright with it at the moment. Gonna go plug it into the rest of the list now. QuietHere (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:List of 2023 albums
Figured it's never too early to start next year's list so long as it's in draft form (and I think this one started around the same time if not earlier as a draft). Got anything to add, that's where you put it. QuietHere (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Subsections of band articles
So here's an odd and very specific question: Say an artist doesn't have their own page, nor does the release, but that artist does have a section of their band's page dedicated to them which has enough sources to establish their notability. Could we link to that for the artist and that fulfills the linking requirement? Specifically I have in mind Sarah Midori Perry from Kero Kero Bonito who just released an EP under the name Cryalot last week (currently sitting as a draft much to my chagrin). I haven't listed it yet despite it clearly being notable because she doesn't have her own page, but a friend just suggested the section should be good and so I come here to gather more thoughts. It's entirely possible this won't end up mattering if the draft gets approved soon (and here's hoping) but it's worth asking anyway for future reference. QuietHere (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. As a minimum, I would want to see a section of a band article about the band member, with citations in the section to show that the band member is notable by themselves. If the band article just mentions the band members, even if founding members, in the lead and general paragraphs, that is not enough to show notability, but if you can link specifically to a section of the band article that is solely about the notable band member, then that it is fair to link to that band member.
 * I don't remember if we have linked to band members specifically by section recently, but back when we were including a column for album producers, this was the criteria I used for whether we could link to the producer, if they at least had their own section. Mburrell (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Soundtrack inclusion questions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums

Can anyone help answer these questions please:

1) Linked above is Recordings notability criteria. It says you can use "at least one" of the 7 criteria.  The List of albums appears to strictly use criteria #1 (significant coverage from reliable sources).  Is that true, or is any of the 7 acceptable for List of albums?

2) Soundtracks (with original tracks such as Spirited, from 2022 film) meet criteria 5 (performance in a notable film), but media coverage will usually talk about the film, not the soundtrack album independently. Can Spirited be added to List of albums?  Let's assume Spirited didn't have 3 independent sources about the album specifically.

3) "Entry consists primarily of recordings which had not previously been released" For reference on other soundtracks, does this mean greater than 50%?

Thank you TheWikiCurmudgeon (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I can answer those questions.
 * 1) Album notability just states whether an album is notable enough for creating an article, but is not sufficient for inclusion in this list. Per Stand-alone lists, lists should have a clearly defined selection criteria.  The List of Albums does have a clearly defined selection criteria, spelled out at the top of the page and in the criteria section of the talk page.  Compliance with the selection criteria is sufficient for an album to qualify for inclusion in the Album lists.
 * 2) As long as the articles and citations discuss the soundtrack, then the citations are appropriate. If they discuss the movie and casually mention there is a soundtrack, that does not support album notability for list inclusion. If Spirited has three or more articles that cover the soundtrack, that is sufficient, if it does not, then that is insufficient.  A good rule of thumb is if there is enough information to build an article about an album and have it be accepted as notable, then there is sufficient notability for the album.  Recommend actually building the album article, or just a section in the article about the film, in order to have an article or section of an article to link to, since the album in most cases will be by various artists, so linking in most cases to artists won't be possible.
 * 3) We have included soundtracks in the list in the past, so by prior agreement, a soundtrack is not a compilation by an artist of prior hits, but a compilation by a studio of songs that enhance or showcase the visual elements of a film, and therefore can be included in the list.
 * Mburrell (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. The rules are meant to only specifically apply to entries where the release doesn't have its own article (or a significant section of another larger article). If it does, and that article shows clear notability, then we don't need a source on that entry here. However, if it doesn't have an article of its own then we ask that you include a reference.
 * 2. A good rule of thumb to keep in mind is that if there isn't enough coverage to make even a minimal-yet-acceptable independent article for a subject, it's likely not good enough for an entry here either. Helps to remember that the top of Notability (music) says "a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria", but not that it definitely is just by having been in a movie.
 * 3. If it's a soundtrack of original songs/recordings like Minions: The Rise of Gru (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) then it is allowable. A soundtrack of songs/recordings not original to that film probably wouldn't be allowed though. QuietHere (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Notability over time question
Hello,

Can anyone answer this question?

-Album X has 3+ independent sources at release. Is it "locked in" to the list forever? Years later, the sources go bankrupt and take down their websites. Does it lose notability?

Thanks TheWikiCurmudgeon (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no right answer here. Web archive via Wayback or other sources can make some moribund websites available, so that can still show significant coverage. Sometimes sources are not supported by web archive, and then one has to take the word of previous editors that an album had sources to be notable, and that then becomes subjective.  Also, if websites are re-evaluated and determined to be more blogs, or lacking editorial oversight, or owned by record labels, or shown to be cribbed press releases, the sources can be down-graded and the album can lose notability.  The best answer I have heard is that Wikipedia is a living document, and everything can be re-evaluated.  This comment was actually made about whether an article was the primary usage for an article name, but it applies to everything in Wikipedia. Mburrell (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mburrell's answer is a great one, but I think it can also be summarized conveniently by pointing to WP:NOTTEMPORARY which basically says just that but more briefly. QuietHere (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Split
This article is far, far, too long per WP:TOOLONG. We should probably split by month, but at the very least by quarter, as has been done on other lists of albums by year. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The only previous split we've done was by half (List of 2021 albums (January–June) and List of 2021 albums (July–December)) so if we're doing any other splits, I don't wanna go any further than that unless it's really necessary. And seeing how unproblematic the size of both of those are (well below the 500k threshold that this one has only just barely surpassed now), I don't think they need to be reduced any further, and nor should this one.
 * There's also the matter of how often we add new entries for future releases but don't double-check to see if they actually become notable later. I'm sure we could cull a lot of this list if there were a concerted effort to check everything. How much that would reduce the size of the list I couldn't be certain, but I think it's worth that effort first before jumping to a split conclusion. QuietHere (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is five times larger than an article should be at its maximum and the citation templates don't work. Why wouldn't we split this? It's not going to even render on lower-bandwidth devices. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. "The rules of thumb apply ... less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table." It may be five times larger than an article should be, but this isn't an article, it's a list.
 * 2. The templates only broke recently, and it shouldn't be hard to reduce by enough entries to get back within that breaking range. Plus the templates are unbroken because of the "#invoke" addition (which I had to readd after you removed them for no reason). The page works fine as is, so unless there's some further issue involving "#invoke" that I'm unaware of, this isn't nearly as urgent as you make it out to be. QuietHere (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And that code adds another 9,000 kB. You write "the page works fine as is" but I just told you about a problem and you don't really seem to care. Did you read what I wrote? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Did I not just respond to the problems you named? I think I've made my position clear. On top of that, I'll ask you to look at my latest edits which have reduced the list by ≈2,600 with only having looked at two week's entries. On top of that, there are several in there I didn't remove because they are clearly notable and just don't have an article yet (Just look at the coverage for Now or Whenever, Live at Montreux Jazz Festival, and Blood Red Shoes for examples). Each of those references is about 200 bytes, and so many of them could be gone with more effort on the article-making side. When I say this article is reducible, I really mean it. QuietHere (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "It's not going to even render on lower-bandwidth devices." Pages this large wouldn't load on my phone and I know that model is used by millions of Indians and Nigerians. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose splitting. This is indeed one of the largest articles in Wikipedia, and last year would have been the largest, when there was an informal effort to keep all articles under 500,000 bytes, but this year the size of the largest articles has grown and there are several over 550,000 bytes. As QuietHere has stated, this is a list, not an article, and the size limits only deals with prose size, which is just the lead paragraph for this article, which is quite small.  We are near the end of November, and December is a traditionally slow month for album releases, so the speed of growth for this list is slowing down, and soon will stop, probably around 515,000 bytes. Then, as QuietHere showed, several album articles will become self-notable as they become better developed, and the removal of citations from this list will reduce the size of the article, so that by March, I expect this article to be below 500,000 bytes, and when the references drop below 1170 or so, we can remove the invoke citation coding and reduce the article size another 10,000.  If we split the article, I will just need to stitch it together again in about March when all this happens anyway, just as I am keeping an eye on 2021 lists and watching for when I can splice the two articles back into one, to match all the other album article lists. Mburrell (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So you don't think that the WP:CHOKING issue that I raised matters? Everyone just ignores it because...? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Support split - I wholeheartedly support the split by month, or at least by quarter. Splitting is one of the realities of large articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm at least gonna double down on what I said before which is that if we are gonna split, we shouldn't go further than half because that will solve the size issues fine without dividing into even more pieces. QuietHere (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "So you don't think that the WP:CHOKING issue that I raised matters?" ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Would it still be an issue at that size? Surely cutting the page down by half would alleviate that significantly. And I've also got concerns about it as an editor where maintaining all those separate pages becomes much more difficult. Plus where would we put the TBA section? There are several concerns at hand here and I don't think cutting the article up is as great a solution as you do.
 * And I still stand by my points above. When I have more time, I'll work through the rest of the article and see what else can be culled. I encourage you to give it a look as well. Maybe start work on some articles like the ones I mentioned above. We only need a rudimentary article with the readily available sourcing on it to show notability. It's time-consuming work but well worth the effort. QuietHere (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Put TBA at List of 2022 albums and then move them to appropriate sections if/when they are released. If they are pushed back, include them in list of 2023 albums. If we cut this page in half it would be 2.5 times too large. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I support this as I usually support split requests. Also, though WP:ARTICLESIZE says 100K bytes, split discussions usually only seem to occur when a page surpasses 400K bytes. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the arguments here for splitting are decent, some are conflating other information to make a false narrative. First, let me tackle "WP:ARTICLESIZE says 100k bytes". This is taken from WP:SIZERULE, where articles with a prose size over 100 kB should certainly be divided, but in the lead paragraph of the guideline for article size, it states "Readable prose size: the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sections".  Using XTools, this list has a prose of 383 characters, which means it is well below the 100k size limit, once one subtracts out the list portion of the article.  So by this analysis, I am stating the Article size does not apply.
 * Next is the issue of WP:CHOKING. It is possible that over 500,000 bytes might cause choking of low processor capability mobile devices, so splitting once is not unreasonable.  It was posted as a hypothetical issue that pages of this size would not load on lesser mobile devices, but not stated that it was a known behavior.  It was stated that millions of Indians and Nigerians are known to use such lower capable mobile devices, but again this is hypothetical instead of proven (no citations makes that statement original research, anathema for Wikipedia).  I looked for a larger article that would be of interest to millions of Indians, and located Foreign relations of India, which has a page size of almost 370 kB, and there is no talk on the talk page of users having difficulty accessing the page, so I would say that if the article was split, a split that broke the article into portions where the larger portion is in the vicinity of 300 kB (July to December will be the larger half), then choking is not seen to be an issue.
 * Another consideration is that List of 2022 albums is not a stand-alone list, but is part of a series that ranges from 2004 to 2023, and all but one of the lists are whole, and the one that was split, 2021 was only split into two halves, one half is ~345k, the other half is ~289k, not into quarters or months, so I would oppose treating this list article as independent of the series and dividing it into excessive divisions. Mburrell (talk)
 * Support My Google Chrome web browser on my Samsung Galaxy S22+ consistently struggles to render this list. Splitting in two as in List of 2021 albums (January–June) and List of 2021 albums (July–December) would certainly improve usability. Project Termina (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, echoing Project Termina's points above. I regularly use this list to build out personnel sections for new albums, and it repeatedly crashes the app and mobile site. Sock   ( tock talk)  18:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I am sold on splitting the article based on users reporting crashing when trying to view the article on mobile devices.  I will see if I can free some time to split the article, similar to the 2021 list.  I am curious at about what size this article started causing crashing on mobile devices, so that we can set that for a limit for future lists. Mburrell (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, thanks to the links provided by Sock, I was able to purge several citations, bringing the article below 500,000 bytes, and reduce citations to 1141, which is below the 1167 which triggers the need for the invoke command. Removing the invoke command will reduce the article size by another 9k when we are ready for that step. We are not at the end of the year, and more listings will be added, with more citations, so I am not ready to purge the invoke command, but it looks promising to be able to reduce the size of the list to a manageable size, if we could just determine what a manageable size really is. I would like very much to know when these lists start crashing on mobile devices, so we can determine a practical limit for pretty much every large article in Wikipedia. It seems like Sock and Project Termina are the only two in this discussion who have experienced actual access difficulties, so when did it start, at what article size was this triggered?  Mburrell (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just stick to WP:ARTICLESIZE. It's sitewide. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If I stuck to WP:ARTICLESIZE, as mentioned above, I would determine that the list article has a prose size of 383 bytes, and that this list is not too large at all. ArticleSize is fuzzy on list sizes, so I was inquiring about practical limits, not fuzzy guidelines.  A sitewide list that does not provide guidance appropriate for this article is not the help that we need.  Therefore, I am polling users who have had real difficulties to find out when issues arise so that I can apply this to the list, and maybe even bring that to the talk page of Article size as practical limits.  Mburrell (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ">100 kb: Almost certainly should be divided". ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ">100 kb: Almost certainly should be divided" is out of context. That is from a table where the header of the table states "Readable prose size", and as I have stated repeatedly, the readable prose size for this article, as measured by XTools, is 383 bytes. I am pretty good at math, so I will state that 383 bytes is smaller than 100 kB, so if all we uses was WP:ARTICLESIZE, then splitting the article would not be required.  However, both Sock and Project Termina have reported issues with accessing the article on their mobile device, so for practical purposes, this list is currently too large.  Which is why I am starting to split it after this comment.
 * Just to re-iterate though, at the top of the Article size guideline, in the lead paragraph, it states the definition of readable prose: "Readable prose size: the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sections", which is why we subtract out the list size from the size of the article. Also, size of the article per measurements of readable prose also do not include citations, it is what is actually visible in the article, and the majority of size of this list is the citations. Mburrell (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, split the article into two halves. Please report or fix any perceived problems. Mburrell (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)