Talk:Rumours (album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rumours (album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Rumours (album) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2024.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 12, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
February 7, 2010	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Rock music Top‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Genre change[edit]

Power G (original) has changed the genre twice now from "soft rock" to "rock" without a source. I have reverted, as the genre soft rock is supported by the article in the Music section:

Featuring a soft rock and pop rock sound,^[1]^[2] Rumours is built around a mix of acoustic and electric instrumentation.

The Telegraph source supported "Soft rock". Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the established genres. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power G is still changing the genre without any discussion. I have left an {{uw-3rr}} template on their talk page - although from their editing history it's not only this article they have targeted. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lachno, James (27 January 2013). "Fleetwood Mac's Rumours: Why the under-30s still love it". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 25 February 2016.
^ Boyd, Brian (1 February 2013). "'Rumours' – pop-rock perfection". The Irish Times. Retrieved 25 February 2016.

2020 chart performance[edit]

Similar to how Dreams has a box showing its 2020 chart performance, can we have a similar box showing that Rumours is currently at #7 on the Billboard 200? Bluorangefyre (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 January 2023[edit]

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 discussion.

It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

result:
No consensus. See below no agreement to either rename these pages or not rename. In that case this article and dab page retain their current titles. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 12:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Rumours (album) → Rumours
Rumours → Rumours (disambiguation)

– On the disambiguation page of this name, you've got this album, an episode of Glee named after it, a Canadian TV series which I've just launched an AfD on, and two songs that haven't got their own pages. Surely there's no way this isn't the primary subject amongst that list. QuietHere (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: titles with page content are ineligible as "new" titles unless they are also proposed to be renamed, so this request must include the dab page move as shown above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose and speedy close rumours is the plural of rumour. Good grief. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rumors (American English) averages 8 hits per day, Rumours (British English) gets 29 hits/day, Rumor (the actual article about rumors/rumours) gets 84 hits/day, while the extremely well-known Rumours (album) gets over 4,200 per day.[1] It's obvious most readers searching for Rumours are expecting the album. Station1 (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this primarytopic takeover. Better to leave disambiguator there. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon but better why? QuietHere (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The album is the clear primary topic with respect to usage [2]. – Uanfala (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it's been like this since 2014 and readers haven't really complained. This sounds like we're trying to help readers navigate while they don't actually need much help. --Joy (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So nothing should ever be moved unless there's an outcry from readers, many of whom don't have any idea about the intricacies of Wikipedia? That seems a bit silly. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hardly classify posting an anonymous message on what looks like an Internet forum in eight years - as 'outcry'. :) I agree that only one in a thousand people might complain, but even then, if in more than 90 thousand views (those stats only go back 7 years) there's not a blip, it's hard to argue that there was really that much of an issue. --Joy (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the pageview numbers which have been cited. Yes, it's the plural of a noun, but it's pretty clear that most people who are searching for that plural noun want the proper noun. --fuzzy510 (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clearly not the primary topic for this very common word. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, nothing to fix here. The plural of "rumour" is correctly connected to the dab page rumours. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Suprisingly, this does seem to be the primary topic, based off pageviews and the clickstream. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 12:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth to whoever closes this discussion, let it be made clear that multiple respondents have claimed this to not be the primary topic, while multiple others have pointed to statistics showing that to not be the case. Take that as you will. QuietHere (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere that's because primary topics are not decided merely based on statistics. Please review WP:PTOPIC. --Joy (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support can't see any guideline which contradicts this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The clear primary topic by historical importance is the plural of rumor, which is no less the primary target for being at the American spelling. The album, of course, is named for the concept. BD2412 T 03:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per BD2412. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:ASTONISH. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead needs cleaning[edit]

Since I took this to FA a long time ago, the sections have been kept to encyclopedic standards and even improved in some cases. So well done.

However, the summation seems to have become bloated and confused.

Firstly, you do not need to cite anything as it should be covered in the text. And if it is not covered in the text, it should be placed there instead.

Secondly, it is best practice to not use specific publications and numbers. A general tone is preferred unless it's something super big like a Grammy win or millions sold.

Finally, you do not have to summarise EVERYTHING like every single and every reissue ever. It's simply meant to give an overview and in fact encourage the reader to explore more.

I'm happy to give it a once over but did not want to step on anybody's toes who's been working on it recently. I know how that feels.

All the best. 2A01:4B00:AD07:ED00:D4B0:4177:AAA:9FC7 (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Sales certifications"[edit]

Yesterday, an IP editor took issue with my changing the caption of the table in the certifications and sales section from "Sales certifications for Rumours" to "Certifications and sales for Rumours", and so I thought I'd clarify, although that editor has now been rangeblocked for three months for disruptive editing across multiple IPs. My change was to bring the caption in line with the footnotes of the template, which state that all but two of the figures with footnotes include shipments (as distinct from copies actually sold) and streams. Along with this, two of the figures in the template are not even certifications but only sales figures, so these cannot be certifications, let alone "sales certifications" anyway.

The footnotes in the table back up the fact (contrary to what the IP editor stated, it is not my POV) that certifications include shipments in most countries. For example, in the United States, per NPR: "The ways in which the RIAA has historically tallied its numbers, however, have not always been strictly sales-based; the group previously counted units shipped to retailers, but not necessarily sold, within their calculations." That same NPR article also now says that artists can be certified without having sold a single copy, as certifications can be awarded based solely on streaming activity (four of the figures in the template, as marked by ‡, include streams). The caption should not be contradicting what the template actually includes or asserting that certifications are all or even mostly "sales" certifications. If there is an issue with the wording of the footnotes and my bringing the caption into line with it, then this seems like the sort of thing to bring up at a certification-related talk page, e.g. Template talk:Certification Table Entry. Ss112 05:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours at TFA?[edit]

Would it make sense to run this at WP:Today's featured article in April? I'm on the fence on this one ... I see lots of helpful maintenance edits, but it's been a long time since any formal review. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a question about the lead and the TFA blurb at WT:Today's featured article/April 2024#rumours. - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically: is Rumours the 9th-best-selling or 10th-best selling album ever? The 9th-best statement is unsourced. 10th-best is sourced at List of best-selling albums, but most of the sources are more than 10 years old. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Black Kite for this edit. - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Lachno, James (27 January 2013). "Fleetwood Mac's Rumours: Why the under-30s still love it". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 25 February 2016.

[2] Boyd, Brian (1 February 2013). "'Rumours' – pop-rock perfection". The Irish Times. Retrieved 25 February 2016.

[1]

[2]