Talk:Tapestry (Carole King album)

bad link for reference [1]
The link is no longer valid. Please fix. Jtagchair (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Tapestry (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/06/local/la-me-jim-mccrary-20120506
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.billboard.com/news/chart-beat-miley-cyrus-billy-ray-cyrus-taylor-1003948403.story#/web/20100606170518/http://www.billboard.com/news/chart-beat-miley-cyrus-billy-ray-cyrus-taylor-1003948403.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 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, per consensus. — usernamekiran (talk)  09:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Tapestry (album) → Tapestry (Carole King album) – Incomplete disambiguation. There are two other albums named Tapestry. This page should become a redirect to Tapestry (disambiguation). Shadow007 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongly support, no question. There are multiple "Tapestry" albums with their own pages, none of which are primary. Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support WP:Disambiguation WP:NCM In ictu oculi (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:INCDAB. The threshold for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status of a partially disambiguated page name should be very high. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tapestry is one of the most important albums ever recorded, and hugely popular. It gets more pageviews than the topic of tapestry and 12 times the views of the Don McLean album.|Tapestry_(album)|Tapestry_(Don_McLean_album)|Tapestry_(Keith_Getty_album) The Keith Getty album is not really notable. The hatnote is fine, but could point directly to the only 2 other albums. Station1 (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This reasoning is insupportable. See, e.g. Thriller (Michael Jackson album). The concept of a primary topic does not apply to disambiguation. Shadow007 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not? The logic is exactly the same, i.e. readers typing a string in the search engine or as a wikilink should be directed to the article they most likely are seeking. Thriller (album) is a redirect to Thriller (Michael Jackson album), the opposite of this proposal, and as you can see from the talk page, even that much of a change was highly controversial. Although the proposed change will not affect a large number of people, relatively, you haven't explained what the benefit would be and how it would outweigh inconveniencing those who do search for or link to "Tapestry album". Station1 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You have opposed both proposals. What is the basis for opposing Tapestry (album) being moved to Tapestry (Carole King album). As far as I can see there is not reasoning which can support your opposition to that. I have provided the reasoning - it is not the only album of that name and is only partially disambiguated. Shadow007 (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're referring to by "both proposals", but I've already explained the basis for opposing this proposed move: It would inconvenience a few users with no discernible countervailing benefit. Station1 (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect that what is referred to as "both proposals" is what I described as the "two separate questions" below, and the nom is requesting to consider the first question separately from the second one. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Another key example is, discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 9. , , and  are the only cases of "primary album status" that I'm aware of on Wikipedia in cases where multiple stand-alone articles exist (other than this one). I agree that we have no clear evidence of notability for the Keith Getty album, but the Don McLean album seems clearly notable (although not very well discussed in the Wikipedia article) – it was his debut studio album. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The McLean album is definitely notable, just significantly less so than the extremely notable King album. That Revolver RfD was a bad decision imo based on a 3-2 !vote. Revolver (album) gets 17 hits/day, almost half of all the hits Revolver (disambiguation) gets. Certainly the vast majority of readers landing on Revolver (album) want the Beatles album, so maybe 14 or 15 people per day are being inconvenienced for no reason, however slightly. Station1 (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 17 hits/day isn't all that much. Some of those are Wikipedians like me who are just using it to satisfy their curiosity over whether it currently redirects to the Beatles album or the dab page. I've personally used it several times in the last couple of days for that purpose. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it isn't all that much, and I'm guessing a Tapestry redirect would be even less, but why inconvenience anyone at all for no offsetting benefit? Station1 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We can treat the nominator's suggestion as two separate questions: 1) Should the artist's name be added to the title of the Carole King album article?, and 2) If so, where should the partially disambiguated name lead? Of the three discussed examples, only Tommy (album) does not include the artist's name in the article title. I personally think it is generally helpful to include the artist name in the titles of articles when there is any ambiguity. That way the reader gets a more prominent and immediate indication of where they have landed, and I don't think any significant number of readers find the inclusion of the artist's name irritating (at least when the album name and artist name are not very lengthy). Discounting the Keith Getty album as lacking evidence of notability and discounting the Revisited tribute as obviously subordinate, we are basically in a WP:TWODABS situation about where the PDAB title should lead. In the other cases, there seem to be a larger number of serious candidate topics. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree again. Except the proposal specifically says that the current title should redirect to a dab page, so I oppose on that basis. If it redirected to the album, there would be far less reason to oppose. My only qualm would be that a redirect target is far easier to change, unnoticed, than an article title. Station1 (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we're here primarily to consider a requested move of this article, and the suggested target of a redirect from the current article name is just part of the nominator's provided rationale. If there is disagreement about where a redirect should point to, that can be discussed further at Redirects for discussion (with a notice placed on the Talk page of the redirect). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, the current title is insufficient. The Thriller (album) nonsense should not be repeated here. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 21:15, 18 March 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.

10 million sold?
This is very suspicious.

Tapestry released February 10, 1971.

Certified 'Gold' June 7, 1971.

'Platinum' was only introduced in 1976, and 'Multi-Platinum' later. Thus, certifications could only come later.

But, on March 1, 1993, Tapestry was certified both 'Platinum' and 'Double Platinum'. ie. As of March 1, 1993, Tapestry had sold over TWO million copies in the USA. And, as it was released February 10, 1971, it had thus sold two million copies in 22 years.

However, we are THEN told, that on July 17, 1995, Tapestry was certified TEN times Platinum! Or, in other words, Tapestry sold two million copies in its first 22 years..

...and then sold EIGHT million copies in the period March 1993 - July 1995!

That is highly improbable, and actually, impossible.

The only reason for this sudden "ten million" 'certification' is because stories had been rolling around since the 70's that Tapestry was 'the biggest selling album of all time' based on...well nothing really.

The TWO million certification in 1993 was reality.

The sudden bump up to TEN million two years later was to try and maintain the myth.

Thus, RIAA is NOT a Reliable Indicator of ACTUAL record sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.140 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)