This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
The King and I (1992 studio cast album) is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre
Including the party of the album released.
I don’t understand the reversion or the harsh comment ("So what?") from editor @Ssilvers: regarding my addition of information about the album’s release event, which featured several project participants. The event was open to the press, allowing them to experience the album for the first time. I see no reason not to include this. Featured articles often include such details about an album’s promotion and release, in addition to information on its production and performance. This article was neglected for years, and no one seemed concerned about adding references to it. I fail to see why my edit was reverted. Markus WikiEditor (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not harsh at all. I am trying to understand why you think the release party has any encyclopedic importance. Is there an article by a WP:RS stating that this was a particularly noteworthy release event? The ref you give merely says that it happened, not that it was unusual or important in any way. Of course a record company would invite the press to a release party, so that does not make the event noteworthy. What Featured articles are you referring to? Compare the references given there to the references you are giving. Also note WP:BALASP -- a very detailed FA can include some details that would not be appropriate in a much shorter article. Are you also arguing that because the article has been inadequately referenced, you should now introduce inadequate references? That would be a very poor argument. I'm glad that you have expanded the article, which was indeed neglected, but that does not mean that we should add unencyclopedic trivia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
