This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Katy Perry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Katy Perry 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.Katy PerryWikipedia:WikiProject Katy PerryTemplate:WikiProject Katy PerryKaty Perry articles
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Fourth album
Katy considers her new album the fourth. She posted this photo on "April Fools" weaks ago: https://www.instagram.com/p/BSXFMH8D3Yf/
We should change "Katy Hudson" as a debut album 'cause she considers "One of the Boys" her debut, "Teenage Dream" her second album and "Prism" her third studio album.
"Katy Hudson" might be on the 'other releases' category.
Katy Hudson was by all means her first album, One of the Boys was her second, Teenage Dream was her third, Prism was her fourth, and her next release will be her fifth. Nothing can change that. Even if an artist tries to downplay earlier material, it doesn't mean we should. Also, that post isn't a good basis for your claim when it was obviously used as an April Fool's joke (though its planning was flawed), and she does (to at least some extent) acknowledge Katy Hudson as her first release. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're mischaracterizing the merge discussion, which only agreed to merge the song navbox into the main navbox; the closure said nothing about organization proposals. Don't try to pretend otherwise. As for the "Best practice" thread, that never got any closure officially deciding the method was superior or anything. There's no good reason to sort by singles when this isn't a discography page (nor is it supposed to be like one) and not every song included is a single. It's actually closer to a "List of songs recorded by _______" page as that lists all songs recorded without regard to single release because it's not pertinent to there unlike the discography page. Such detail also isn't pertinent here. I might understand single chronology if only the singles warranted pages and were the only things included, but even in such a case, it wouldn't be as simple as "let's replicate the _______ discography page listings" without further thought. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the initial proposal where this version is specifically mentioned. You clearly don't like the outcome of the discussion, so you're trying to force it to your version. The fact remains that an artist's single is not defined by which album it is on, but is an entity in its own right. Navboxes should be organised intuitively, and there is a preference for chronological organization in any navbox. By splitting by album, this chronology is broken. And I don't know where you get the idea that it is "closer to a 'List of songs recorded by _______' page". It isn't. It's a navigational aid. That is what a "List of songs recorded by _______" article is. If that's what you want, then create that article. Do not try to make a navbox replicate that. What isn't pertinent here is what album each single is from, that is information to be obtained from the articles. The primary concern here is navigation. A chronological discography best achieves this. --woodensuperman 15:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at the proposal, and my point still applies that none of those who supported a merge other than you said anything about how to organize the tracks. Also, while I don't agree with the closure, I'm not trying to "force" the navbox to be anything as you suggest when the closure said nothing about sorting. Chronology of tracks isn't a concern here when, again, this is NOT a discography page and isn't supposed to be like one. Treating it like that isn't really intuitive since not every song that warrants and article and is listed in the navbox was a single. Furthermore, I wouldn't go so far to say there's a "preference" on the matter considering how there are other navboxes specifically dedicated to songs that don't exclusively list singles; it's really more of a case-by-case basis. As for "songs recorded by" pages, there already is one for these tracks, plus my point is that they don't have any concern for whether something was released as a single when including them and neither do navboxes that include non-singles. Album sorting doesn't hinder navigation at all or offer any "inferior" display. We shouldn't try to emphasize any certain types of songs over others when there songs of all types that warrant pages. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is all just your personal opinion of what you think a navbox should be and how you think it should be laid out. I disagree. The fact is, that we have had a precedent for many years of a standard layout which splits into album and singles chronology, and most musical artist navboxes follow this pattern. When this was brought up 6 months ago in the discussion I linked above, the consensus there was this was still the best practice. This is the best thing we have to a consensus right now, so if you want to try and make the changes, you'd need to find a new consensus. --woodensuperman 15:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calling "a precedent" is probably exaggerating when there have been various song navboxes sorted by album since long before that "best practice" thread (going back before I even registered my account in June 2013, though I couldn't pinpoint exactly when), especially when non-singles are included (which is less scattered than lumping all singles together apart from non-singles). Also, even if the thread did have any closure, it says nothing about what was previously deemed optimal. Determining what organization is most viable is a case-by-case basis; you can't just go with an oversimplified notion of "all navboxes with songs should ______" in every instance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I can see no reason to deviate from that method in this case. Especially if the version you tried to introduce is anything to go by. --woodensuperman 16:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't already clear before, we aren't supposed to give any of the songs here with articles any emphasis based on release (or lack thereof) when not everything was a single and this isn't a discography page. You might have a point if only the singles warranted pages and were the only songs included, though that's not the case here. Sorting for the sake of release chronology therefore isn't a convincing argument in this instance. While there is the idea of sorting by whether one was a lead artist or featured artist (I can understand noting when someone wasn't the main artist), I'd say album sorting is best here because it keeps all of a known era (or sub-era) together. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A single is a clearly defined product and readers are likely to want to navigate a chronology of these. This is not supposed to be a track listing of her albums. That's what the album articles are for. Navboxes like these should be grouped by type. That a song is a single is a more defining characteristic than which album it is from. --woodensuperman 16:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, if people were really looking to navigate through a chronology, then they'd go to the discography page, which is what's actually made to list songs in the order they were released. I highly doubt average reader (especially when not a music historian or a fan) would be concerned with any release a track had when looking through a navbox that lists more than just singles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
