Talk:Norman Fucking Rockwell!

Mariners Apartment Complex

Somebody should make a page for Mariners Apartment Complex. Mallory Steen (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

not quite sure if it meets the music/song notability requirements yet.Melodies1917 (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

can we move this to a draft space or not yet?

wondering if we can create a draft of the album article yet. currently redirecting to lana del rey. Melodies1917 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Histmerge?

@Anthony Appleyard: Hey Anthony, I just tagged you but at a second glance I'm not sure what's happened, but what was at Draft:Norman Fucking Rockwell looks exactly like what is here now. I believe DRnfr copied most of what was at the draft (that they contributed to) into here. Perhaps you can assess whether it needs to be merged, but this mainspace article also has a history predating the draft's January 2019 creation. Ss112 19:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Ss112: Sorry, I can't history-merge Draft:Norman Fucking Rockwell to Norman Fucking Rockwell, because they are WP:Parallel histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Anthony, I'm not bothered if they are histmerged or aren't, I just thought it should be brought to your attention. Thanks for looking. Ss112 01:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Vulgar word in article title

This article contains a vulgar word in the title referring to sexual intercourse. It should be removed or there should be warning for explicit content when someone visits it.2A0A:A543:DD7:0:91D:D0B2:BC83:EB38 (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

its literally in the title of the album, and does not refer to anything sexual. there are other pages with the word in the title.Melodies1917 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Norman Fucking Rockwell Tour article is a little too soon

@Ss112 and Anthony Appleyard: either of you think so? the album isnt even out yet and there's only a few dates. draftify it or merge/redirect back here?Melodies1917 (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You can't edit in pings like that (AFAIK), they have to be in a whole, new post with signature. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Name

So why is a move to Norman Fucking Rockwell! being resisted? There's no explanation given. It seems to be the actual name that the artist has given to the album. Uncle G (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree, the title of the album includes an exclamation mark, no different than a title that includes a question mark... Mikevanoost (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

"Released" parameter and future dates

For anyone trying to add the release date to the infobox, please see Template talk:Infobox album#"Released" parameter and future dates about whether the parameter that says "Released" can be used for future dates. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

GA - Good Article

Somebody please make this article about this great album a Good Article! Reylanno / @ 18:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Genre

@Ilovetati91:@Gentlecollapse6: I have some doubts about the genres in the infobox

• folk-rock is sourced with an article which says "an hour of contemplative folk-rock tunes and lovelorn piano ballads" [1]; "folk rock tunes" is suggestive of folk-rock elements rather than folk-rock album

In context, "folk-rock tunes" seems pretty clearly synonymous with "folk-rock songs" or "-tracks" IMO, not literal melodies or "elements"—especially given that the sentence's next object is "piano ballads" and not some more specific stylistic element. You could say the same about the "psych-rock jams" referenced in multiple articles—is this not an element, rather than an album-wide label? If the track is full of folk-rock songs, then I don't see why it wouldn’t be included. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Even "psych-rock jams" isn't ideal, but "folk-rock tunes" reminds me of expressions like "pop melodies", "hip-hop rhythms", "rock guitars", which usually are considered elements rather than main genres Blueberry72 (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've never seen piano ballad or simply ballad in an infobox. Many songs of Lana Del Rey are ballads (Hope Is a Dangerous Thing for a Woman Like Me to Have – but I Have It, Mariners Apartment Complex, Ultraviolence...), but they don't have "ballad" as a genre in the infobox, despite "ballad" is sourced in the body of these articles Blueberry72 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I don’t see why this would make its inclusion invalid. It would be misleading to include "psych-rock" and not "piano ballads" when they are both being used equally by critics as a label. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

But is piano ballad a genre? its page says: "a piano ballad is a piece for solo piano written in a balletic narrative style" Blueberry72 (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

According to this scholarly music journal, it is a genre. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Blueberry72: I agree; I don't think piano ballad is a genre per se. I am sure we could find scholarly sources to say most things are genres. Plenty of singers make piano ballads; that doesn't make it their genre. It says something about the majority of users' views on Wikipedia that you won't find it in basically any other infobox listed as a genre. Because whatever you want to put in front of it, "ballad" is not a genre. Ss112 20:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112:@Gentlecollapse6: I don't know if it is a problem of my computer, but in Gentlecollapse6's source I can only see the frontispiece of a book, I don't even see an abstract with a mention of piano ballads. Anyway, we could discuss about this question in the wikiproject, because if we add "ballad" in this infobox we should be free to add it even in other infoboxes Blueberry72 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that piano ballad is not a genre, it is simply a type of song. A piano ballad can be of any genre. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 06:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Piano ballad is more of a style than a genre. It should be removed. “Folk rock tunes” reads as a pretty direct labeling of folk rock though to me. I don’t support the removal of that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Piano ballad isn't a genre and the article it links to doesn't even have anything to do with modern popular music. Many sources note the album's piano ballads and I agree that it should be prominently mentioned in the article and lede, but just because something's important doesn't mean it belongs in the infobox. For example, if several reviews pointed out that an album had fast tempos, you wouldn't put "fast tempo" in the genre section of the infobox, because it simply wouldn't belong. Currently this discussion has 5 editors opposing the inclusion, and 1 in support, so I have removed it from the infobox for now. Jimmio78 (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess we agree that folk-rock must remain in the infobox and piano ballad shouldn't be added again. I think that trip-hop should be removed too. @Ilovetati91:, removing desert-rock from the infobox, said that "desert rock is not mentioned in the majority of sources"; trip-hop and desert rock are both sourced with an article of The Independent which says "The album is sultry and soporific, sitting somewhere between the minimalist trip-hop of Del Rey’s early days, and the scuzzy desert rock she has toyed with over the years" [2]. This sentence doesn't confirm trip-hop more than desert rock, it seems an example of partial attributions that we can find in Genre warrior project page WP:EXPLICITGENRES. Blueberry72 (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that trip hop and desert rock are maybe sourced a bit too tenuously for now. The Pitchfork review even says that the album is a departure from the trip hop of her past records. Similarly The Atlantic says: "Over five albums, Del Rey’s sound has swung between glacial, expansive rock and cabaret and glossy trip-hop. Rockwell plunges deeper into the first mode". I do still think that Rolling Stone's description of the album as a "pop classic" is a strong enough source for pop's inclusion. "Lana Del Rey has always been a pop classicist at heart — but she’s finally made her pop classic" sounds to me like he's talking about pop as a genre, not popular music as a broader term. Jimmio78 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Consequence of Sound review says "The album features expansive psych-pop lullabies, tales of complicated, consuming romantic love, and overt odes to the tarnished dream of California." [3] 2402:1980:24E:C393:9DCD:1611:FF90:163D (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jimmio78: This is an ambiguous situation, because I think it has never been discussed in Wikiproject; probably if an album of Christina Aguilera or Miley Cyrus was defined a "pop classic", nobody would say that it means "popular"; I invite @Ilovetati91: to take part in the debate. @2402:1980:24E:C393:9DCD:1611:FF90:163D: in my opinion Conequence of Sound's review adequately confirms psych-pop. Blueberry72 (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to keep the selected four. The "pop" reference is too general and is not clear if it refers to genre or "popular" music in the provided source. Wiki genre sources have to be explicit. I also don't know if psych-pop is mentioned enough beyond the Consequence of Sound article. ilovetati91 (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2019

I don't see where is the indication that Rolling Stone and No Ripcord are referring to "popular music" ("a sharp popular record" would be nonsense). According to Consequence of Sound the album features "psych-pop lullabies"[4]. Why should it be less explicit than "folk-rock tunes" [5] or "psych-rock jam sessions"[6]? Blueberry72 (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ilovetati91: You're seriously trying to remove every form of pop from the info box? This is tedious. When an article calls a song, album, or artist "pop", we use this a source that the musical item is pop music, not popular music. I don't see how this is any different. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Since multiple genres are sourced, the infobox should note those most commonly supported by reliable sources (without having a laundry list of genres). Soft rock and folk rock are only cited by one source. A psychedelic sound (psych pop and psych rock) is mentioned by several sources, as is pop. Piano ballad is not a genre; a piano ballad can be a ballad of any musical genre (soul, r&b, soft rock, country, pop, folk) incorporating piano. Lapadite (talk)

References

Single vs Promotional Single

So this is an issue I’ve had with a lot of articles, but I question if some of the “singles” from this album would be better categorized as “promotional singles”? In the past an editor told me that the difference between the two was that singles were released to the radio, but most of the singles from this album were not. Would someone like to clear this up for me?Gagaluv1 (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Was the title of the album changed?

I just bought a copy of the album and it's simply titled "NFR!" on the cover, spine, and on the CD itself. I know this article shows the uncensored title for the cover art, but that's not the version I'm seeing in the stores. Any info on this? 68.147.116.14 (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Amazon's listing gives the title as NFR! - should the article title be changed? 136.159.160.122 (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No, it’s just been been censored because some retailers/distributors don’t allow for F bombs being shown so prominently. Wikipedia isn’t censored though, so it should remain at its real name. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • What is the source for it being the official title? I've just returned from a trip to Portland and Seattle where I could not find a single uncensored version and those are definitely places where the uncensored version would be available. I spoke to one retailer who says the "Norman Fucking Rockwell" release, if it exists at all, would have been very limited in scope. Flat out question: does anyone reading this actually own a CD or vinyl release with the full title? Was the page image sourced from an actual scan of a sleeve or a CD inlay? Because otherwise it's not a case of us censoring anything, it's the case of us having an incorrect title and by passive-aggressively putting an embedded note saying "don't add NFR here as an alternate title" all that means is this article is inaccurate and incomplete. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't think the article should be moved, but it should be added as an alternate title because it is. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
        • There are physical copies with the full album title on the cover (in all formats: vinyl-records, cds and cassettes). For digital releases such as streaming it is random, i know that most european countries have the uncensored title on apple music, not sure about other streaming platforms and regions. Nellyiloveyou (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2019

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) ~SS49~ {talk} 23:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Norman Fucking Rockwell → Norman Fucking Rockwell! – Official title of the album ends with an exclamation point per all major retailers (Apple, Spotify, Amazon, Del Rey's website) and the exclamation is honored in a number of third party sources including Pitchfork, NME, The Guardian, and Consequence of Sound. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 22:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support same with above. Neutrale Person (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Youknowinhindsight (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. KyleJoan^talk 07:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Every time Lana herself has promoted it she has spelled it without the !. It's just like Blonde by Frank Ocean, on the album cover it's spelled and stylized differently, i.e. blond, but the official title is what it is. So I think it is best left the way it is. 👸🏻 (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Except the official title includes the exclamation point, not just the album cover. All major retailers include it in the title. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Whether the 'official' title has the ! is of little importance (see WP:OFFICIALNAME). The most relevant policy here is WP:TITLETM: Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark.. No-one has attempted to demonstrate that the spelling with the ! is more common in secondary sources. I reviewed 11 publications (arbitrarily chosen from the article's references, and some reviews listed at Metacritic). 4 consistently used the !: Consequence of Sound, Pitchfork, NME, The Guardian. 5 didn't use ! at all: Paste, Rolling Stone, Billboard, Slant, Onion AV Club. The other two, Entertainment Weekly and PopMatters, were inconsistent, but favoured no-!. EW used the ! in the headline, but dropped it in the running text. PopMatters used the ! in a sidebar with album metadata, but were !-less in the running text. So I don't see WP:TITLETM being satisfied. Colin M (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclamation points are a part of standard English text formatting, and there is precedent for including them in album titles: Help!, Up!, Greatest Hits... So Far!!!, This Is Not a Test!, Whoa, Nelly!, Riot!, among others. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Sure they're part of standard English formatting, but only at the end of a sentence. Yes, there are lots of examples of articles with exclamation points in their title - I would hope in each case it's because that's how the title is rendered in the majority of secondary sources. For some titles like Help! and Riot! the exclamation point also has the benefit of acting as a form of natural disambiguation, which isn't a concern here. Here are a couple RMs that have rejected exclamation points in titles, even though they're part of the official name: Talk:Bubblegum_Splash#Requested_move_21_October_2015, Talk:Good_to_Go_(toll_collection_system)#Requested_move_14_August_2016. Colin M (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. mike•owen ^discuss 18:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support, is what it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Colin M. Having the ! in the title doesn't do anything as there are no other works titled Norman Fucking Rockwell to differentiate from. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. De88 (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support If it's there it's here.--TheVampire (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The exclamation mark is part of the title; it isn't a stylization. Jimmio78 (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. See Beach Boys' Party! for another example. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Rezistant (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support the full title is even "NFR! Norman Fucking Rockwell" Saemikneu (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Help! and Up! are great examples of similar examples of where the exclamation mark is included. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. As long as we have enough reliable sources proving this, than yes, the exclamation mark should be part of the title. Neateditor123 (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I also want to bring up if this article is moved, The Norman Fucking Rockwell Tour should as well. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pop

Closing discussion per WP:EVADE.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Ilovetati91: Pitchfork called it a pop classic and No Ripcord called it a pop record. That could not be more explicit. They did not say popular music. Nobody would call an album a "popular music record". Billiekhalidfan (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC) @Billiekhalidfan: Rolling Stone, not Pitchfork. @Ilovetati91: you are the only user who reads pop as "popular". I suggest you to discuss in the Wikiproject in order to define the line between pop and popular, otherwise what we'll see is an arbitrary removal of a sourced genre. Blueberry72 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC) The issue is that those sources go on to define the genre and do not include pop. They are clearly referring to the album as "popular music." Pitchfork identifies the genre as "trading trap-pop and trip-hop for piano ballads and dazzling folk." No Ripcord identifies the genre in their article as "It's warmer and more expansive than 2017's Lust for Life, with her brooding noir-pop branching out into folk, 70s classic rock, and stripped-down piano ballads." Rolling Stone refers to the songs as "70s Laurel Canyon soft rock fantasies." When referring to "pop classic," they refer to LDR as a "pop classist," an allusion to her many pop culture references. So, no, "pop" is not referenced as a genre in any of these sources. Ilovetati91 (talk) @Ilovetati91: Just stop. They are not "clearly" referring to popular music. That just doesn't make sense. If they were referring to popular music, they would've said "popular". But no, they said pop, because it is a pop album by a pop artist. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC) "Just stop" is not a valid argument and I've provided direct quotes from all referenced articles disproving the argument of "pop" being sources a genre - as the articles have elsewhere identified the album genres that are not "pop." In other words, your own sources contradict your claims. You're letting your own opinions cloud your objectivity. Ilovetati91 (talk) 08:09 26 October 2019 (UTC) Just because they didn't say the album was pop a second time doesn't mean it's not pop. Stop making stuff up as you are clearly a Lana stan who wants to pretend like she is alternative when she's literally pop.Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC) You have to go by the sources and that's not what they say. It's not that they don't "state it a second time," it's that they directly contradict your claim when actually describing genre. You keep making personal attacks rather than focusing on edits, but have neglected to note that you are a fan of an opposing artist and trying to push a narrative. You've elsewhere provided a source that explicitly states why she is *not* a "pop" (genre) artist. Ilovetati91 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC) I am going by what the sources say, they called it a "pop classic" and "pop record". That could not be more explicit. The fact that they called the albums different genres later in the article does not erase the fact that they called it a pop album. And stop acting like you know what the author was referring to, there is absolutely zero proof that the author was referring to "pop culture" not "popular music". They never contradicted the claim that the album is pop (that's another false statement made-up by you). And (not that this is relevant), as far as I am concerned, Billie Eilish was heavily influenced by Lana. Also, do not remove the genre again until you reach a consensus. There has not been one person yet who agrees with you. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Well, you've discredited yourself here by not only admitting to an agenda (which was already clear in the several pages you've had locked and numerous reports against your account), but by also not understanding the source you're attempting to cite. The author is referring to pop culture - as I stated - and it is made my clear by the reference of Lana Del Rey as a "pop classicist." A "classicist" by definition is a person who studies or is an expert in classic works of art, an allusion to LDR's constant references to older songs, films, etc. Thus, saying NFR is a pop classic being a pun on this expression. Ilovetati91 (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Now you're saying the source calling this a pop album is a pun. These excuses are getting ridiculous. I'll say this for about the ten millionth time, you do not know what the author is referring to. "Pop classic" explicitly states that the album is pop. Stop making up what you think the author meant. Not to mention the other source called it a "pop record". That is so explicitly stated yet you are still trying to argue that that isn't what they meant, which is just getting ridiculous at this point. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Lol, you're very clearly attempting to gaslight here, but a pun is easily decipherable. Don't try to distract from the fact that you didn't understand the word "classicist." At the end of the day, it's a reference to LDR's pop culture references (hence the word "classicist") and negates your attempt to use it as a source for a genre. Gaslighting and histrionics are unnecessary, harmful, and irrelevant to this discussion. Take that stan war lingo to atrl. Ilovetati91 (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Okay, I actually do get the pun now. However, you still haven't addressed that No Ripcord explicitly called this a "pop record". Do you have an excuse as to why that doesn't count? Billiekhalidfan (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)  Note:Billiekhalidfan has been indefinitely blocked as a sock. 2402:1980:8242:D0F1:E707:372A:E68C:F846 (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)