Talk:Nurture (album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nurture (album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Nurture (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 16, 2023	Peer review	Reviewed
December 22, 2023	Good article nominee	Listed
May 16, 2024	Peer review	Reviewed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 1, 2024. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Porter Robinson chose the title Nurture for his second album due to its evocation of the word nature and as a reference to the nature versus nurture debate?
Current status: Good article

This article was nominated for merging with Unfold (song) on July 25, 2023. The result of the discussion was Not merged — withdrawn.

Albums

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 articles

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference ideas for Nurture (album)

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

About the shoegaze situation

@36.90.158.136 and Binksternet: It seems we have a disagreement over whether or not the shoegaze genre should be mentioned in the infobox. The citation which actually is supposed to verify it is this The Fader article ("He flips through sounds and styles — delirious shoegaze..."). Binksternet also noted that it's mentioned in the Pitchfork review ("...blissed-out digital shoegaze (the Totally Enormous Extinct Dinosaurs collaboration 'Unfold')...". So while 'Unfold' is, of course, the best example of a shoegaze-like style on the album, it's not the only one. I interpret the language of both of these sources as making more general comments on the stylistic aspects of the album; both of them acknowledge that the work incorporates stylistic influences from several genres, including shoegaze. I'd love to hear what you two think about this, and hopefully we can come to a consensus on this before making any more reverts. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The album infobox should state the overall genres of the album rather than serve as a grab bag of song genres. Pitchfork says that various songs on the album are informed by various genres, making the album a wide-ranging experience. The Fader says the same thing, that the album shows various influences such as "delirious shoegaze, piano balladry, intricate electronic experimentation" which harken back to the earlier description of the song "Musician" which also includes pop, house, and rave. Other reviews don't mention shoegaze at all. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree with you when you say the infobox shouldn't be "a grab bag of song genres", but I want to note that several other genres are mentioned in reliable sources with only about the same strength as shoegaze, the ambient and electropop ones in particular. You can see the citations that verify them in this revision. I don't mean to distract from the topic of this discussion, but if you have an issue with how the genres are mentioned in the sources, we have to apply that standard to all of them. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Ping.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the infobox genres should be trimmed so that they accurately summarize the sources talking about the album's overall genre. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the question, of course, is "How?". If we cut out all of the genres that haven't been explicitly called out in the sources to apply to the album as a whole, the list probably dwindles to just one or two items. Again, this isn't something I'm necessarily against, but I'd like to establish some consensus for a change like that. Preferably, I'd want to hear from the anonymous editor as well, since they're also involved in this content dispute, but it seems they're not interested in discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can empty the infobox genres if nothing specific is said by multiple sources to be the overall album genre. Of course, we would tell the reader all about the various genres contained in the album's songs, using prose descriptions in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 21:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Porter Robinson overcame writer's block and depression to produce his album Nurture? Source: Jolley, Ben (April 22, 2021). "Porter Robinson: 'I felt convinced that I wouldn't be able to ever make music again'". NME.
- ALT1: ... that Porter Robinson learned to "[find] the beauty in everyday and reality as it is" when writing his album Nurture? Source: Jolley, Ben (April 22, 2021). "Porter Robinson: 'I felt convinced that I wouldn't be able to ever make music again'". NME.
- ALT2: ... that Porter Robinson chose the title Nurture for his second album due to its similarity to the word nature and as a reference to the nature versus nurture debate? Source: Shirahama, Alan (April 25, 2021). "Porter Robinson Talks to Alan Shirahama About His New Album Nurture". block.fm.
- Reviewed:
- Comment: No QPQ (yet) as this is my fourth DYK nomination.

Improved to Good Article status by TechnoSquirrel69 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Nurture (album); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General eligibility:
New enough: - no
Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Thank you for your submission! According to the article's history, it's been promoted to GA status eight days before this nomination, which would make him uneligible by just a single day (DYK noms need to be submitted at last one week since being created/expanded/promoted). I don't know if we can make any exceptions to the rule, but I would definitely be disappointed to discard your entry, because it looks promising... Anyway, if we're still able to accept the entry, I would suggest you to write one or two more hooks about other aspects that could be even more interesting: for example, I would look at the fact that the album title is a nod to the nature versus nurture debate. First, though, let's wait for the green or red light. Oltrepier (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: Thanks for your review! Sorry about the late submission, that appears to have been an oversight of timezones on my part — it was still the evening of December 29 in Pacific time. I hope that doesn't mean this DYK is now invalid, but I understand if procedure has to be adhered to. DYK admins, any advice on this? As for your suggestion for additional hooks, I've added an ALT2 based on an idea Twotwice and I were discussing, and I might add another one later today. Let me know what you think! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier and TechnoSquirrel69: I think that's fine myself, particularly given it was just by a single day, and the timezone explanation seems plausible. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it, Amakuru; I'll make sure not to make that mistake again! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Just as a disclaimer, I should add that I'm a member of the "DYK admins" group, but that doesn't mean I'm an admin of DYK per se, merely that I'm a Wikipedia admin who takes an interest in the DYK project. I certainly recommend this be accepted, but I don't have any special authority to rubberstamp it and I might always be overruled later! — Amakuru (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:DYKNEW says The seven-day limit can be extended for a day or two upon request and even if it didn't say that, I'd be inclined to WP:IAR on this. And thank you to Oltrepier both for being careful enough to verify the age and for being reasonable enough to seek verification. RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had an edit conflict with RoySmith while writing this but I'll ~~second~~ third(?) the recommendation for an exception here given that it's close enough to the cutoff, has a reasonable explanation, and is from an editor who is still QPQ exempt with this nom. - Aoidh (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69, Amakuru, RoySmith, and Aoidh: I didn't even remember that note existed! Phew... Thank you everyone for your swift replies and clarifications. Anyway, ALT2 looks nice, so I think we're good to go now! Oltrepier (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: This nomination has been pending promotion for over two weeks since approval. Is there anything else that's required before we're ready to move forward with it? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are approximately 50 other nominations older than this one at Template talk:Did you know/Approved, so it could take another week or so until something happens. —Kusma (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information — I was unaware there was a backlog! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dates/years for the recorded parameter

@TechnoSquirrel69, the recorded dates that have been inserted by HeligoBoy twice are sourced from here. I do not think I am best judge of whether or not inclusion in the article is warranted, so I'll just leave this message here. Two twice^talk 04:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tracking that down, Twotwice! I did think I had seen the recording dates before but couldn't for the life of me remember where. The best way to go about this would be to work the dates into the prose at § Composition and style, which would then justify their placement in the infobox. I can take care of that tomorrow unless someone else would like to jump on it — feel free to do so! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added with a citation in the infobox for now. I'll incorporate the recording information into the prose eventually, but I'll get to that along with the other changes I'm planning as I bring this up to FAC readiness. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]