Talk:Woman Worldwide
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Classification[edit]
As there's a pending draft for the album at Draft:Woman Worldwide, Woman Worldwide is a studio album as the press release material for the album explicitly states:
Justice plans to present Woman Worldwide as a true studio album, as opposed to the how A Cross The Universe and Access All Arenas were seen as live projects. [1]
I'm surprised you didn't argue that it was a live album. Please let me know your thoughts, Lazz R. – TheGridExe (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, my apologies. I was oblivious to the draft's existence and created the article for Woman Worldwide. It is definitely notable now, with its chart positions and extra coverage in sources.
- Wikipedia's rules aside, in my opinion, (and I'm sure many fans would argue), it's kinda rediculous to put Woman Worldwide in the same list as their completely original works. This album's track list comprises live-like mixes of already released material. It's clearly meant to follow the chronology of A Cross the Universe and Access All Arenas, rather than be the next original album after Woman. The CD cover overlay describes the album as "10 years of Justice mixed and remixed", which does not really shout "original artist/studio album". From this, I gathered that it makes most sense to describe it as a mix/remix album. However, we do have rules; a studio album doesn't necessarily have to be recorded in a studio, and this album obviously fails the quota for being considered a live album, as it was not recorded live. But we are a tertiary source, not a secondary source, so as you pointed out, we have to go by what sources say. You are correct in saying that that press release calls it a studio album, however, all of these sources call it a live album. I think we can agree that it is not a live album, and I hope you understand my reasoning behind disputing its classification of the "studio" title. So we have to make a judgement here. Lazz_R 12:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries, Lazz R. I appreciate the fast reply and I was kind of worried about the draft due to there's no alert when editing the main article. The draft can be declined as a dupe either way as it seems the material was transitioned to the new page. My initial edit for the album was reverted because all of these articles you stated above were from a press release after their Google I/O performance (note that everything has the May 10 date). I can see the argument for remix album based on the definition on its article page. I mean I'm ok with either argument at this point (either as studio or remix) because there's enough material to support either one. In other words, I'm ok with how it's stated as a remix album unless further discussion comes up noting anything. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Cool, okay. Feel free to re-add any details I missed from the draft. I see, yes, you are right about the performance/press release. Thank you so much for understanding my points and for your co-operation. Nice, yes I think it's safe to leave as is unless someone else is willing to make a bold argument, but we should be fine for now. Lazz_R 21:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)