Talk:Transitus (album)

Not up to standards
This article has a lot of great information but is not written to the usual standards/style of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9E16:9500:317D:A742:BEA2:8D0D (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I redirected the page. It’s not notable enough nor is it structured correctly. Doggy54321 (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The article needs some major restructuring, but it's definitely notable. Ayreon is a well-known prog project, and the previous album topped the charts in the Netherlands. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, the article needs major reconstruction. It's 98% unsourced. Also: notability isn’t inherited. Per WP:NALBUMS, "an album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." This article has 3 sources to back it up, for all I know, this is fake. Speaking of notability, the article itself isn’t even notable in the first place. It doesn’t meet any of the criteria on WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG, so it should be merged. The same thing literally happened to me at Confetti (Little Mix album), I busted my butt writing that article and then someone redirected it because it specifically didn’t meet the two notability guidelines above. This doesn’t either. I’ll wait for you to respond (please use the template), but I still feel like it should be merged. If not, then all the unsourced content needs to be deleted. ASAP. Thanks! Doggy54321 (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, sorry for my snappy edit summary. Now, while I'm not familiar with Little Mix, I see that Confetti has not yet been released and was probably subject to WP:TOOSOON. (Happened to me as well with Monuments (Edguy album) - as my posts on the discussion page shows, I was not happy!) As for Transitus, I get 210,000 google search results for "Ayreon" "Transitus", including several recent reviews. I'd rather reduce the article to a stub and start from scratch than delete it altogether. Reviews can establish notability, while the comic book (available online) can be the source for the story section. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology. You’re completely correct about Confetti. Let’s do that: reduce the article to a stub, remove all unsourced, and maybe add the storyline if it seems appropriate. It’s a little unusual to cite a comic book in an album page, but if it’s needed, why not? Thanks! Doggy54321 (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Editing style
Although please edit bold WP:BRD, I regret to see the editing style of some of the wikipedians currently taking part in editing of this article. Some take the role of a patrolling new page reviewer without being part of such special user group or other special priviledge wikipedian user group. It would be agreable to take such role while not executing the power that are entrusted with those special user groups, like deleting an article without nomination, or further discussion. Such editing typically lead to WP:EW. Just that, as the page is under construction, it would be more constructive (no pun intended) to point out problems, if the editing role a wikipedian seeks is beeing in possesion of deeper insight into wikipedia norms and guidelines. WP:AFD WP:BEFORE

Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk  ♪• look 15:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Citation and sourcing
I am inspired to take a dive into one problem that was pointed out, that the citations does not live up to “standards”.

Lets make this article a prime example in relation to sourcing, for starters. WP:CON

Album sources are discussed in WP:A/S, but there is also WP:V —> WP:SOURCES —> WP:RS. The general discussion about sources can be construed to be in conflict with the discussion in the WP:ALBUM project, but then WP:CON lead to the power of WP:PROJ to guide article creation.

Building an article on a per statement basis, as in a table of statements, will provide us with a not particularly good article flow, if we leave it at that. It will not be a good read, but provide the information some need. WP:MOS —> WP:BETTER —> WP:EPSTYLE. I propose collecting statements in a table on the talk page, so that the sources can easily be checked and verified. It is not necessary to leave a footnote after each and every sentence if the footnote applies to the whole paragraph. Footnotes on every sentence will make it harder to read the text. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk  ♪• look 15:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)