Talk:List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 2022

Soundtracks and artist designation

I see we have the annual debate about crediting soundtracks. If you look through the last 70 plus pages of 'Billboard number-one albums' year by year, you'll notice 'Soundtrack' in the artist field. Now that it's 2022, we're going back to the 'various artists' designation. So which one is it going to be? If you want it the new way, then the other pages need to be fixed. It's going to be half-arsed as there should be uniformity amongst this pages.

@Ronherry Look at all these pages:

References

So, you want to go against the grain without purpose, yet you don't want to take the time unify the page structure. This topic has already been discussed before, and keeping 'Soundtrack' in the artist field does tidy the overall look. If anybody else wants to chime in then feel free, but there needs to consistency. WolfSpear04 (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, especially when dealing with something as mundane and inconsequential as this. If I recall right, I believe there was a Wikiproject discussion about this within the last year, and the consensus was inconclusive. Meaning there isn't particularly an established way anyways. I'll dig for it. But either way, there's zero reason to be so heated about such a silly thing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking about this discussion, which was also spurred by your actions I think, but not quite the same thing. Mostly not reject the, outside of the reminder I gave you back then - please be aware of WP:OSE. Just because you found examples of times it was done in the past, doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. You could just be pointing out other times the same error was made. I don't have strong feelings either way, but if you guys can't come to an agreement, set up an WP:RFC. But don't just keep reverting over and over again, that's just going to lead to an edit warring block. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I really do not care about the articles that has to do with the charts 10-15 years ago. Plus, they do not set any precedent for what it has to do with 2022. I'd rather stick with articles that deal with the modern era (2010-current), because that's the scope of the subject (2022). And I'll reiterate; "Soundtrack" is not an artist. A soundtrack is an album format. It's as simple as that. The word "soundtrack" is already part of the album title, therefore it is only prompt or sufficient to just write "Various artists" in the corresponding space, or preferably special terms like "Glee cast" in exceptional cases where the cast is highly notable. Otherwise, "Various artists" is the right choice. Readers do not want to see "Soundtrack" in the artists section when they already know it is one. They want to know whether it is a duo like Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper with A Star is Born soundtrack, or a curator like Kendrick Lamar & Co. with Black Panther, or like a miscellaneous one, such as Disney soundtracks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. ℛonherry☘ 19:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the practice of putting "Soundtrack" under the artist(s) column stems from the way Billboard has done this throughout the history of the 200 albums chart. Examples from the print editions: March 4, 1978: p. 74 from the left panel when viewing this; June 25, 1983: p. 75; February 8, 1986: p. 78; March 13, 1993: p. 166; February 9, 2008: p. 70; and April 12, 2014: p. 64. Just picked these examples at random, some of which feature a soundtrack at #1, and tried to cover the last five decades prior to the 2020s. But just because Billboard has done it this way doesn't mean Wikipedia has to, and I'm okay with the "Various artists" designation in the artist(s) column. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Just because Billboard simply credits it as "Soundtrack" for certain soundtracks (there are exceptions) doesn't mean Wikipedia must do it too. ℛonherry☘ 04:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

All the pages cover the same subject matter regardless of the year or era. Those other pages have been there for years, and no one have bothered to change them. So why start this format now? WolfSpear04 (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Why not? Better late than never to fix an absurd terminology. And no, nobody has to edit ALL of those 70 articles. I fixed the articles concerning 2007-current, and I think that's enough consistency. ℛonherry☘ 04:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No that’s not enough consistency… it doesn’t start with 2007, it starts with 1945. WolfSpear04 (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If the other 62 pages are all uniform and you applied changes to the last 16, how is there consistency? Consistency would require you to fix all of those pages… including the ones I created. WolfSpear04 (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how to say it any more clearly - that's invalid reasoning. I'd find another line of reasoning as to why it should remain the same if you wish to pursue this. Your current reasoning won't hold up. "We've always done it this way and nobody challenged it" only holds up until the point in which someone questions it. And we're already past that point. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Their argument is the textbook definition of WP:OSE that keeps going in a circle. Plus, I've placed all of my thoughts in this discussion already and I don't want to repeat it once again. Nothing further from me. ℛonherry☘ 17:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)