Talk:Brat (album)

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)[reply]

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 BizarreTalk modern to me 00:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

: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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is similar to Rihanna's:
dxneo (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not until we know whether Brat and it's diff actually gets further separate coverage. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fully agree with both of you, thanks for the responses. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 [4][5][6][7]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Brat album cover was updated

I think a few days ago or this week, Charli XCX’s Brat album cover was changed similar to the billboard art in Coachella. If you didn’t see it, the billboard art was your usual Brat cover art but scribbled in a way that feels like strikethrough. No sources have covered this so I believe it’s a recent activity. I hope we can do something about it. Yertl (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this as well (at least on Spotify), but I'm not an experienced editor, so I wouldn't know how to update this accurately. If someone else could update the article, that would be great! 32.220.243.20 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brat_(album)