Talk:Brat (album)

Creating page for Brat (Charli XCX album)

I just tried to make this page and it was deleted and re-directed. Can you please hold off on suggesting deletion for redirection until I publish the page? There's enough major media outlets that have reported on the album today, thanks!

Please use this page to discuss reversion or if there's an alternative method to making a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peoplelikeyoulikeme (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

B2B/Club Classics

I couldn't find any sources that said that B2B and Club Classics are promotional singles. Sources including Rolling Stone [1] simply call them singles, or a double-single. I think because of that they should be listed as the 2nd and 3rd singles to the album, or they should just both be called the 2nd single. Squidb4ll (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, by extension, "360" should be the fourth single, as it is also called this by Pitchfork [2] Squidb4ll (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That's how it was listed for a while, and I believe we should refer to WP:SINGLESCRIT here. That Rolling Stone source, as you mentioned, as well as Stereogum, Variety, NME, and The Line of Best Fit refer to Club Classics and B2B as singles. However, Billboard Philippines, Rolling Stone UK, Pitchfork, and Hypebeast simply refer to them as "songs" or "tracks". From here, we can go to the singles criteria essay and decide how to list it. The songs fulfill "Factors that suggest a song is a single" criteria 2 and 3, but they also fulfill "Factors that may help differentiate promotional singles from regular singles" criteria 1 (Atlantic tweeted referring to them simply as "songs"), 2 (Charli posted referring to them simply as "songs"), and 10. It is also worth noting that Club Classics and B2B were not promoted to radio in any country. We need to establish a clear consensus before listing them as singles on this page. Dylx 15:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about WP:SINGLESCRIT, I didn't know that existed before. You make good points about how B2B/Club Classics is an ambiguous case for if it is a single or not. I agree that some consensus is needed first.

To try and move the argument forward, according to Von Dutch's article it was sent to Italian radio but when I looked up if 360 was, it wasn't, so that could be a case to call B2B/Club Classics singles, since they weren't the only ones that weren't sent to Italian radio. (Unless another country had 360 put onto radio) Squidb4ll (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2024

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.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Brat (Charli XCX album) → Brat (album) – WP:PTOPIC. Brat (Nnamdï album) received 1,283 pageviews last year (as well as being questionable in notability), while Brat (Charli XCX album) has gotten over a quarter of a million views in the past 10 days. Any recent views the Nnamdï album has gotten lines up with the Charli XCX album releasing and is purely for the association. Koopastar (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Support: Easily the main topic per views. Brat additionally seems to be the only Nnamdï album with an article, and even then its notability is in question. Isthmus55 (t • c) 14:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. The proposed title is both recognisable and natural – it's the name and description of the album that many more people will know by this name, and that readers are likely to look and search for or that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Concentrate2 (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Support: Inarguably the most relevant article when searching the term "Brat." Bayloom (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support Too soon to see any long-term trends but other album averaged only 5 views/day before. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support I think this already meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; the other album's page views are clearly lower than this one. Vida0007 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Wait for AfD I agree with the Nnamdï article being not notable. I proposed the article for deletion, but I think any title change decision should come after that gets resolved. ⠀^tomástomás_tomás⠀talk⠀ 03:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support It is clear that this album is the primary topic for the proposed title. Despite being released for just over a week, it has already garnered more notability than any other album titled 'Brat'. I'm unfamiliar with XCX's work, but her album has been covered by Forbes, Rolling Stone, The Guardian, and The New Yorker. Should any other album titled 'Brat' attract this much attention, we can have another discussion. But for now it's the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Svampesky (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The article seems clearly the PTOPIC as of now. Zinderboff(talk) 16:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I moved the Nnamdï album page to a further disambiguation after Charli's album was announced. After its release, it's clear to me that it's the primary topic. Dylx 16:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support as the article does appear to be the primary topic when considering both coverage and page views. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom, although I have closed the Nnamdï album's AfD as keep. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Can someone close this discussion, consensus seems to be reached. Zinderboff(talk) 08:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Inclusion of internet/political notability in top section

Not sure how to include this as I don't regularly edit Wikipedia - but I think the success of Brat's visual marketing and this being referenced by Kamala Harris (US) and the Green Party (UK) in their political campaigns makes it very notable and should be included with a sentence or two in the top section. Thoughts? - Internet is Freedom (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, though I think that reporting on Harris' campaign using it being just yesterday is why is hasn't been added yet. If no one writes it before this evening, I'd be happy to do it. Isthmus55 (t • c) 14:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead sections should summarize the content in the body, so please add sourced content to the body (perhaps the Promotion and impact section needs to be split?) before adding that to the lead. That will give us a much better idea of how the sources are actually writing about the album/brat summer. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I was aware given there was sourced material to summarize further down in the body, but given you've already started on the lede's expansion, I'll primarily focus on the body and other projects. Isthmus55 (t • c) 21:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bonus tracks

If WP:ALTTRACKLIST is going to become an issue here [3] [4], I think the discussion of the deluxe edition tracks in the prose justifies their inclusion per the style guide. I don't know how much more we could possibly write on the three bonus tracks to somehow make them pass ALTTRACKLIST to editors who fundamentally don't believe bonus tracks should be listed in the first place, but I think it's sufficient. Ss112 15:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization of title

On the album cover, brat is stylized in all lowercase. On streaming platforms it is in all caps. Right now on wiki, the first letter is capitalized with no note on stylization — this is not consistent with the album itself or its promo materials. 2600:1700:10E0:44E0:BD0E:8446:7A38:9A2E (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless a term is an acronym, wikipedia uses sentence case for article titles. Albums are generally not given a note on stylization unless the style actively changes the spelling or adds characters. See, e.g., Igor (album), Damn (Kendrick Lamar album), Astroworld (album), etc. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! Why does the article for Billie Eilish’s bad guy have a note saying it’s stylized in all lowercase? 2600:1700:10E0:44E0:BD0E:8446:7A38:9A2E (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem! I would argue that the stylization note on Bad Guy (Billie Eilish song) is unnecessary. That note is added when there's a genuine concern that the reader might need clarification on whether they're reading the right article (see this). I don't think there's any confusion on Billie's page. Alyo (chat·edits) 06:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merged: most editors thought notability would emerge after the release of the album and that's what ended up happening. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

---

I would like to propose a merge of Brat and it's completely different but also still brat into this article. At present, its notability comes primarily from its singles (particularly "Girl, So Confusing" featuring Lorde and "Guess" featuring Billie Eilish) and notability is not inherited. Furthermore, the second disc will contain the entirety of Brat and It's the Same but There's Three More Songs So It's Not as the second disc, which consitutes a reedition. Unless enough notability or article size justifies it (see Katy Perry's Teenage Dream and Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection), reeditions do not tend to have separate articles. Therefore, I propose that the remix album be made into a section on this one. I would also like to point out that the title of the separate article, while it matches the stylisation chosen by Charli, does not comply with MOS:TITLECAPS. Should the merge be accepted, I believe that this should be corrected in the potential new section here. Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 00:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I don’t think we should merge until further information about the album is released thus adding more notability. Therefore it should remain its own page since it is technically a separate type of album with the technicalities of the remixes with different artists and possibly different production. If anyone else agrees at all. However I do agree with MOS:TITLECAPS should anything happen in fixing it. Itsirlpidge (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:merge. doesn’t seem so notable as of now. seems to be a case of wp:tooearly brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 03:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• oppose. eh it seems more notable now that the billboards are up and the tracklist is revealed and it is coming soon.

Merge As almost all remixes are kept under the original song except the notable "Guess remix". I think it also makes sense to put the remix album under the original one in this article until it can verify notability and have it's own article made. Edit: Oppose per user CFA. Edit 2. Actually I think it will be better to merge, most people are going to be looking for the remix album under the actual article and having a whole seperate article dedicated to a remix album that is not even out yet just seems inconvenient.This0k (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Its a remix album not a re edition (even if the original album is included). Other remix albums like daft club and nite versions have their own articles as they are different albums. 2A00:20:404C:B6C:9063:60BD:805B:8ACF (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (not sure why this is on my watchlist): Brat and it's completely different but also still brat clearly meets WP:NALBUM and warrants its own article (e.g. [5][6][7], see Google news). C F A 💬 12:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I believe that it will have enough information that will require a separate article once it gets released, especially information about its development, critic reviews, and charts (like in the article for Club Future Nostalgia). However, the title should be capitalized like shown in the first sentence of the article. Jvaspad (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - the upcoming album is a remix album. It should have an article of their own. Ahri Boy (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge: coverage on the remix album is limited at the moment, and so it's standard to keep it together with the original album's article. If, in the future, there is more coverage showing independent notability, and the section gets to an unwieldy length, then it can be split off again. Given the subject, I wouldn't be surprised if that did happen, but seeing as the album is still a month away and not likely to reach that point until much closer to its release date, it'd be against standard practice to leave it as is for a whole month. It seems the above oppose arguments are mostly fixated on that potential future coverage, but are missing the part where we can't just assume said coverage will exist. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge for now. Of the five Oppose votes so far, four fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL and the fifth cites the same article three times, which fails WP:SUSTAINED. This can easily be covered in the mother article.--Launchballer 19:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Striking per below.--Launchballer 20:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This is similar to Rihanna's:

• Good Girl Gone Bad (2007)
  • Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded (2008)
  • Good Girl Gone Bad: The Remixes (2009)

dxneo (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Not until we know whether Brat and it's diff actually gets further separate coverage. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: The most commercially-successful single from the Brat era (Guess ft. Billie Eilish) is a single from this particular remix album and technically not from Brat itself. Another remix album single, featuring Lorde, was the subject of significant journalistic attention (despite less commercial success). That, plus the clear additional artistic effort and an independent marketing push, makes this remix album notable enough for its own article. A lot of the significance of Brat can actually be attributed to the remix album. The remix album will also likely receive its own reviews and critical assessments from several music publications. I agree that if Club Future Nostalgia gets an article then so should this album. Benn257 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how much coverage the remixes of Guess and Girl So Confusing got. Those songs' coverage belong in their articles.--Launchballer 14:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, why merge when it passes notability? (rhetorical question.) dxneo (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose this is clearly a remix album and its own body of work (even if similar to the original), it shouldn't be reduced to a section on the original's article. Also it has enough sources to achieve its own notability as of now — Artmanha (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: I concur with dxneo. Whilst we cannot guarantee that Brat and it's different will receive further sustained media coverage, it would be extraordinary should similar articles to the ones cited in the main article not be produced as further songs are released. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Same reason that Dawn of Chromatica is it's own wikipedia page. It's a different body of work. Edwyth (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose As already mentioned above, it's a different body of work, a section in the previous albums article would be far too large.Thief-River-Faller (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• This discussion has now gone on long enough that the album is actually out. While a number of the opposes up to this point aren't really arguments I would consider if I were closing--just because something is its own body of work doesn't mean that it's actually notable--we now have a whole slate of major reviews (1 2 3 4 5 6) and this can be closed. I think the "merge" votes made by @QuietHere and @Launchballer were valid at the time, but they're out of date now. @Bizarre Bizarre can you withdraw this so we can remove the tags? Alyo (chat·edits) 13:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that vote made sense a month ago, but it was always going to be a temporary solution for a section that I assumed would be splitworthy again at some point, and now it clearly would be. I've struck my vote and now oppose the merger, although my points still stand in general and especially about the poor opposition arguments. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there is now enough coverage to warrant a split, so I have struck my vote. The critical reception probably should be added to the article, but that is out of scope for this.--Launchballer 20:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree with both of you, thanks for the responses. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

Should the high quality version of the album cover really be used?

As cited by multiple sources [8][9][10][11]. The blurry cover art was intended to "save money" but later became iconic. I understand on Wikipedia, the higher quality version would be better to use but it's not very recognizable or notable in fact. 67.230.43.70 (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "high quality version". The "blurry" album title on the official cover does not mean that the cover is "low quality" (not making that text blurry has no effect on saving money because it has nothing to do with money). Someone just uploaded their own version of the cover for some reason. ภץאคгöร 00:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)