Draft instead of mainspace

User:The_Twists_and_Turns, do we think we should put this article as a draft instead of as a mainspace article for the time being? It is currently completely unsourced and lacks any information besides "this album is coming and will release." It might be better to work on it in a draft until it is fully onto the site. Let me know what you think! 🙂 IzzySwag (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @IzzySwag. That sounds good, and I will move change it to a draft article. The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 19:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Incredible, thank you! Excited to work on this article with you 🙂 IzzySwag (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey folks. Looking at WP:ALBUMCAPS, and at MOS:TITLECAPS, I believe the title of this article should be "The World Is to Dig" -- with the word "to" not capitalized. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Mudwater. Yes, that is correct. When TMBG writes about the album, the "to" is usually not capitalized. The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 00:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Generally the titles of album articles follow the capitalization guidelines linked to above, whether or not the musical artist uses the same capitalization. But it sounds like that's a moot point in this case. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Should it be a mainspace article?

Hi @IzzySwag. Do you think the article should move from a draft to a mainspace one? I think the article is good: it has citations and more information than just that The World Is to Dig will be released. The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 19:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we should wait until we have a source for the tracklisting again. Right now, that's unsourced despite the previous confirmation of it. Once that gets confirmed again, I feel we should be good to go. IzzySwag (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 19:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Publishing Article

Hi @IzzySwag and @Mudwater. I think that this article can now be published because there is an album cover and the track listing is confirmed by the band. Trying to delete the article titled "The World Is to Dig", I accidently created another article titled "The World Is to Dig2". Could you please delete both of those redirect articles so I can move this draft to "The World Is to Dig" and publish the article? Thank you. The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 22:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I requested speedy deletion for the accidental article and moved over the draft into the mainspace article.

Just a heads up that in the future, this could have been continuined in the previous discussions 🙂 IzzySwag (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Information on album cover

Hi @IzzySwag and @Mudwater. The World Is to Dig article right now does not have a paragraph stating about the album cover (how the painting on it is a reproduction of "A View of Yosemite Valley" and who is credited for making the cover). I would like for the "Release" section to have information on that and would like to find reliable sources about it. The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 23:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this would be a good addition but should go in a dedicated Artwork section or even just the lead if it's only a sentence or two. IzzySwag (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Yes, we could make an Artwork or Album cover section and put the information on the cover there. The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 23:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we can add the section when a reliable source comes out about it. The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 16:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Just gotta wait for the source. IzzySwag (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia it's credited to Mary Park Seavey Benton, from 1855. ~2026-22487-67 (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but for this album cover, it is contested who painted it and who copied it, since it was a reproduction of another painting. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 03:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Vinyl in article

Hi @IzzySwag. Multiple citations have information on the vinyl release. Having information on the vinyl release is encyclopedic because it is one of the main formats of The World Is to Dig. Also, information on it is not unlike the other releases in the article. The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 02:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

They have a passing mention of it, that does not make it encylopedic to have. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."

We already say there is a vinyl release of the album (the LP record), there is no need to include information about additional variants. IzzySwag (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Although the color variant vinyl does not need to be fully mentioned, April 17 is still a release date of The World Is to Dig so therefore April 17 should still be one of the release dates of the album in the article. The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 02:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

No, it's just an additional release of the album, not the release. Let's use film releases as an example. Dead Man's Wire released limitedly in theaters on Jan 9th, 2026, before having a wider release the next week on the 16th. But, on the infobox, the release is only listed as Jan 9th.

This additional release of the vinyl is not as notable as a movie expanding into more theaters (which received its own individual coverage) so I believe we should just keep the release date as only April 14th. IzzySwag (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. We do not need to state the color variant vinyl release date nor it itself. The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 02:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Great, glad you came here to discuss it so I can help explain my reasoning better! 🙂

Have a good one! o7 IzzySwag (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

This and the packaging information should rightly be included in line with the many other examples you can find of album pages on Wikipedia that talk about vinyls with exclusive releases, variant covers, etc. As you rightly say, this is also established with multiple citations. Odd choice to not include it. It's not promotional to note interesting release choices, nor is it any more trivial than the sinkhole fact that is being presented as pitched as a DYK nomination. PBugaboo (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

(Pinged @IzzySwag:) @PBugaboo: Do you think we should add the color variant vinyl release and the packaging information back? –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 04:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

If a reliable source can support it, yes. If there is an issue with the quality of the source that is a separate issue. If it is basic factual information, e.g: a factual description of the physical qualities of an item, a SPS should be fine under policy. It doesn't sound at all like the same thing as a SPS saying something qualitative or subjective. I haven't checked the source in question I just saw a conversation starting in diff comments about whether the information should be included and put the conversation in the talk page. PBugaboo (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I'll add the Packaging section back. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 05:00, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah to clarify my position, that would be if it's a primary source from the band- not like a SPS from just a fan, twitter source and the like. When the album comes out, describing its physical appearance could be described citing the vinyl with a cite av media citation under WP:PRIMARY. So it may be a matter of waiting until the physical release to cite that PBugaboo (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

The citation provided in the section is that of an interview, not a social media post or from a fan. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 05:02, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Works for me. If you feel like the exclusive vinyl release information should be reincluded I would support that, noting that would be two editors in support and (presumably) one against, so light consensus. A neutral third opinion can be sought out if desired PBugaboo (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I will add the section back. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 05:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@IzzySwag. @PBugaboo. The alternate vinyl release is important information to include in the article. Almost every single citation in the article mentions it and it is a separate release of the album. The information counts as a history of releases of the album. What do you think? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 20:23, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Also I think as a rule of thumb that consistency with the level and type of detail included in other TMBG pages is itself a form of aligning to consensus. TMBG have been around for a long time as have their Wikipedia pages. Scores of editors over a long period of time have determined how TMBG pages should look PBugaboo (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@PBugaboo, that is a good point. For example, the Flood page includes a whole release history section about the album. It is an important part to that album's article and has been there for a long time. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 20:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

The difference with Flood's release history is it shows its releases across regions and reissues. An alternate color release 3 days after the typical one is not the same. Also nearly that entire section is unsourced, going to look into it now. The past decade of TMBG albums don't have a vinyl color mention and I don't understand why that changes now. IzzySwag (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

It really isn't. Alternate vinyl colors are not encylopedic. They are mentioned in every article in the sections talking about where to purchase the album and how. It is promotion for the album, not discussion of the release. Including it here off of promotional material is unencylopedic. WP:10YEARS is a good example here. Will someone reading this article in 10 years be confused as to why we mention an alternate vinyl color for this album? I think absolutely so. Nearly every album now is released on multiple color variants so it is also not abnormal for the album. IzzySwag (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@IzzySwag, the Flood article has this section. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 20:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

See above comment IzzySwag (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@IzzySwag, yes. But why should The World Is to Dig not include this section? It is a part of the release history, and it has citations. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 20:35, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

They are mentioned in every article in the sections talking about where to purchase the album and how. That is promotion for the album, not discussion of the release. Including it here off of promotional material is unencylopedic. WP:10YEARS is additionally a good example here. Will someone reading this article in 10 years be confused as to why we mention an alternate vinyl color for this album? I think absolutely so. Nearly every album now is released on multiple color variants so it is also not abnormal for the album. IzzySwag (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@IzzySwag. Not specifically talking about the alternate vinyl, what would instead be better to include in the article? I imagine there will be more alternate releases beyond just a different colored disc. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 20:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's a discussion for if that happens. It would depend on the coverage of the alternate release, whether its coverage is just promotion (or from the band themselves), and what the release even is. If there's significant coverage of a vinyl repress 5 years down the line, then yes, that should be covered. But if it's just the band posting on twitter next year "hey guys, we put out a new pink version of the world is to dig" then that wouldn't be important enough to include.

Wikipedia articles should be all important, essential, and widely known/discussed information to understanding the article's subject. An alternate vinyl color, which nearly every album that comes out now has, does not fit. IzzySwag (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@IzzySwag, okay thank you! Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 20:49, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Argument doesn't hold up since I've shown many examples of pages that include alternate colours and exclusive release details. Interesting choices in a release, especially ones supported by multiple sources are being arbitrarily excluded. PBugaboo (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:COMPARE IzzySwag (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

That's an essay not a policy PBugaboo (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes but it shows the idea and flaw in your argument. Just because other stuff exist, other examples are out there, does not mean it should be included here. Show how it is encylopedic here. Show the importance of it here. It also is not policy to add stuff because it exists elsewhere. IzzySwag (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Light consensus seems to be forming for inclusion, sorry. Multiple sources cover it as a separate physical release so exclusion would be inappropriate. Ubiquity in vinyl variants doesn't mean it shouldn't be noted either. It's not trivial to include a separate physical release with a different release date, covered by multiple sources. It's also not promotional to note its colour or that it's exclusively released in record stores, I think that was another argument I saw being presented in the article revision history. PBugaboo (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Is consensus forming for inclusion? Twists was previously against inclusion, Floating has stopped arguing against my points, only you are still arguing with no clear policy point or even essay for its inclusion, just pointing to other articles. It's not encylopedic for inclusion or necessary to understand the album. WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful." IzzySwag (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Additionally want to point to the fact this is giving WP:UNDUE weight to an inclusion. The sources only mention it in passing and do not discuss it in any meaningful way (only promotion). You're adding your own importance to it being a seperate physical release that the sources aren't. They only passingly mention it as a way to get the album while promoting the release. IzzySwag (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

A single sentence noting a separate physical release is not undue weight haha PBugaboo (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I would say it is. You're placing weight onto something hardly brought up when discussing the album, something that likely is only included in so many articles because it originates from a press release sent to news outlets from the band themselves (notice that each of these articles that mention it also have a quote from the band and feature similar wording). IzzySwag (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

As other editors have pointed out, it's mentioned in plenty of WP:RS sources. I am unconvinced about what you believe is "likely". You are painting the motivations of multiple sources to justify your position. It is equally weighted for me to then reply "I think it is as they likely included mentioning it as it is a separate physical release that's notable".

Deciding it's not worth inclusion then pointing to WP:NOTEVERYTHING WP:PROMO WP:UNDUE etcetera is not the same as first actually establishing that it is trivial, undue, promotional, etc. If it had been agreed and established that those were the case then pointing to those after that is established is valid

Looking for consistency with how other editors have determined variants should be handled in articles is helpful because conventions are how MOS develops.

We're going in circles and it's not productive. I think it warrants inclusion in the form of a single short sentence to reflect multiple sources that discuss the album, you don't think it warrants inclusion at all because you think it's trivial or promotional and don't think conventions from other pages are convincing.

We can put it to a vote if you want. I'd prefer to spend my day not getting into the weeds over a single sentence PBugaboo (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Pinging:

@The Twists and Turns:

@Floating Orb:

@IzzySwag:

Per the above discussions, would you mind weighing in with A or B to establish consensus in either direction

Should a sentence about the variant release be included in the article?

A: Yes, it's due weight per multiple WP:RS and consistency with multiple other album pages discussing variant releases

B: No, it's undue weight per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and it doesn't matter what other pages say

C: Other (please specify)

(For what it's worth, my vote is for A. Happy either way) PBugaboo (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY IzzySwag (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a straw poll akin to an RFC. Would you prefer to go down the route of formal DRN or RFC? PBugaboo (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Studio information

Hi @IzzySwag. Do you think that there should be information on the studio in which this album was recorded? If so, what citations can you find about it, what information on it is best, and should it have its own section or sentence in recording? The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 02:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I think if you do have any information on what studio it was recorded in, it should just be one sentence in the production section & be included in the infobox. IzzySwag (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

• ... that the album cover for The World Is to Dig is of Yosemite Valley?

• • Reviewed:
  • Comment: I created this article and would like this to be in the Did You Know. The source that I put is also in The World Is to Dig's article. The date I put is the date that I requested for this to be in the Did You Know.

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations. The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 02:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC).

• Thank you for creating this article. Unfortunately, it is not eligible for DYK because it was not expanded five-fold within the week prior to the nomination. According to the DYK Check tool, the article's five-fold expansion began 11 days prior to its nomination on 11 March. Within the week before the nomination (going back to 14 March), it was expanded 4.77x. While WP:DYKNEW permits wiggle room of "a day or two upon request", it does not authorize reviewers to grant a four-day grace period. The Twists and Turns, I recommend bringing this article to Good Article status and renominating it after that time (paying attention to the seven-day window of eligibility). I also recommend submitting an alternative hook at that time, as this one is not hooky and merely recites a fact that would be obvious to most people who view the cover and unlikely to be interesting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Reopening this nomination per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Should_The_World_Is_to_Dig_be_reopened?, where (I will note for promoter's and queuer's reference) consensus was to grant an exception to the lack of a full 5x expansion within the 7 days prior to nomination. Discussion there continues as to the hook itself, which I will leave for a new reviewer. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that the album cover of The World Is to Dig, which depicts Yosemite Valley, was almost of a sinkhole? (Source: "Ep538: John Flansburgh of They Might Be Giants Returns!". The Vinyl Guide podcast; Interviews for Record Collectors & Music Fans. March 16, 2026.) The Twists and Turns (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Overall: CharlesMichael2002 (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Per further discussion at DYKT, the nominator's personal solicitation of a review and the first-time reviewer's acknowledgement that I have no idea what I'm doing, I am requesting a fresh review of ALT1 against the DYK criteria from an uninvolved reviewer. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that The World Is to Dig is a mix of multiple genres, and even its lead single "Wu-Tang" is in a completely different genre and style from the hip-hop collective it's about? (Source: Stickler, Jon. "They Might Be Giants Announce New Album 'The World Is To Dig' With Lead Single Wu-Tang - Stereoboard".) –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 19:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Suggesting a new hook that is better because it is not about an un-notable album cover that was never used. Instead, it is about both the album and lead single. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 19:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• ALT3: ... that the title of The World Is to Dig, an album by They Might Be Giants, was inspired by a 1952 children's book? Gatoclass (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass: Thanks for this new hook. I suggest a slightly different version of the hook.
    ALT3a: ... that the title of The World Is to Dig, an album by They Might Be Giants, was inspired by a 1952 children's book? –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 22:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC) (Note: Reason for strikethrough-ing the hook: After changes to it, it is the same as ALT3, so it is not needed.) –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 18:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC))

Fine with me. Gatoclass (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I just changed the hook a bit. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 00:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Not an improvement. Hooks should not contain references to specific items that don't have their own articles, it's just frustrating to the reader. Apart from which, it lengthens the hook unnecessarily and weakens the curiosity factor. Gatoclass (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Gatoclass Oh okay. I'll remove that part of the hook. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 16:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I suggest another hook.
ALT3b: ... that the title of the 2026 album The World Is to Dig was inspired by a 1952 children's book? –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 19:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Regardless of the hook, the article currently has an {{independent sources}} tag that needs to be addressed before this can be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Yes, there is. The sources in the section are going to need to be fixed before the reviewer reviews the hook. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 17:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
    • The nomination will turn two months old on May 22, putting it at risk of being timed out. As such, that must be addressed before then. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is right. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 01:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
        • @Narutolovehinata5: The tag and article are all fixed now. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 02:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

References issue

@IzzySwag, I have seen the tag you added to the article about the closely related sources. Do you know of any ways we can fix the issue? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Pinging recent editors: @PBugaboo, @Mudwater Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

As the tag says, find sources that are independent of the band. See WP:IS. Nearly all sources right now contain direct quotation from the band (extremely likely taken from press releases) or are interviews with the band members themselves. IzzySwag (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

"Extremely likely" got any proof of your claims? PBugaboo (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia:Independent sources: "Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release (a practice called "churnalism")."

Out of all of the sources Consequence, Sterogum, and The Harvard Crimson seem the most reliable. The Harvard Crimson is a full unique article and Consequence and Sterogum are pretty unique, both signaling when they quote the press release (which proves no churnalism).

Many of the citations are interviews of the band, which is okay in some ways, but there are a lot of them, and they make up a large portion of the article. They still can stay in some ways because they have some good quotes and information.

Basically almost every other source such as The Music Universe, The Rockpit, Glide Magazine, and WithGuitars (WithGuitars is even worse and looks like a copy of John Flansburgh's email from the band's mailing list) appear to have very similar wording and read like they are likely taken from the press release. This shows low reliability and is from poor quality and little editorial oversight. The sources seem to be identical and churnalized and they may need to be removed very quickly. They question WP:SPONSOR and are basically press ads for the album with information only from the advertising press release. The issue is that the article quotes them like they are reviews and well-thought music critic writing about the album, though they are just basically quoting the band. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you I understood what the concern would be if it was churnalism, my question was for proof on the "extreme" likelihood that the wording was taken from a press release. For example a copy of the press release. PBugaboo (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@PBugaboo, the issue is that the articles are copying from each other, and the ones that do say they are quoting from the press release (as I listed above) have the wording that ones that don't say they are copying from the press release (I listed some above) have. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:45, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@IzzySwag, do you see the same issue? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Yea IzzySwag (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much this is my issue, thanks for the specific research. I do think it's fine to use the press releases but the tag is also just to tell us and future editors to look out for more independent sources, which more are sure to come out when the album does. IzzySwag (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Some of the information that is from the low quality sources (and ones that are similar) I have listed should be likely removed (especially from the "Style and composition" section) since they do not provide true media writing of the album and are promotional. This goes against the purpose of the section. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

If you want to remove all of the content from the press release sources, I'd support that and be okay with it. IzzySwag (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The information from this article seems more churnalized than the information from this article though they are both from Consequence (different writers). Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@IzzySwag, @PBugaboo, do you agree? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@Floating Orb, PBugaboo, and IzzySwag: Yes, a bunch of citations might need to be removed from the article, particularly in the "Style and composition" section. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 01:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. What information would we keep in the "Style and composition"? The quotes from They Might Be Giants seem fine because they made the songs. Everything else is basically a quote from the press release. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@IzzySwag, @PBugaboo, are there any specific sources we should start off with? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The "New Songs Out Today" BrooklynVegan sources do not seem very great for showing notability to the album and might not belong here. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:59, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Floating Orb, honestly, you seem more knowledgable in the sources than I do. I trust your judgement. Be bold! I trust your judgement and will let you know when/if I disagree with content removal. 🙂

I'm working on some midterms (this week is gonna kill me haha) so I don't have a lot of time to go through sources and judge their contents. IzzySwag (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@IzzySwag, thank you! Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 02:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

In support of consensus as discussed here but would caution against deletionism. Careful consideration with each removed source to see if a current or alternative existing sources can retain the information lost

I note that there is another matter currently awaiting consensus on this talk page. PBugaboo (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@PBugaboo, I agree. The information about the vinyl variant is actually sourced to the churnalized articles, which sort of tells you something about it. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 02:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd bet it is part of the press release given to those articles. They all word the two sentences mentioning its release very similarly, which is an indicator. IzzySwag (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure, though as raised earlier a cite av media of the primary source (vinyl variant release) would be sufficient for citing that a second release occurred on April 17 2026, after that occurs. PBugaboo (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@IzzySwag, @PBugaboo, thank you! I am going to start improving the citation situation. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 02:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@IzzySwag, when do you think we should remove the "Independent sources" tag? –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 18:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, right now, the Background, Recording, Style, Title, and Release section are all still heavily, if not entirely, dependent on sources taking quotes directly from the band or articles/interviews in conversation with the band. I think the tag can be removed once most, ideally all, of these sections have indepedent sources as the majority (or close to it) of the section.

I do believe this article will eventually be able to hit Good Article status, but this is what I see as the biggest step in our way. IzzySwag (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree. More independent secondary sources will come out once the album does, but what sources are out now that you think could be added to the article? –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 19:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really good at finding sources and honestly don't have much time for active research on this as I am in the last month of my college semester, so things are getting more busy. Just search for articles on it in the google search engine, and try using filters to look for more recent articles to avoid seeing ones we already have. Additionally, I recommend waiting until the end of the week before really starting a research process as more articles are going to be coming out covering the album around then. IzzySwag (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! @Floating Orb and I will be doing that. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 19:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate it as well as all the work you two do for this article. Both of you are excellent contributors. Hope you enjoy the album when it comes out! Or I hope you enjoyed it if you have already listened to it. 🙂 IzzySwag (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Floating Orb, I feel I should be clear that the interviews can and should be used! They're great sources for information about the album. The issue here is relying solely on information direct from the band. We shouldn't remove from the article, we should add to it. IzzySwag (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Deleting content should be done carefully. Deletionism is rarely constructive. PBugaboo (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Now the article has a pretty good number of third-party references. In my opinion it would be appropriate to remove the "independent sources" tag. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mudwater: I agree. @IzzySwag: do you think we should remove the tag too? –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 20:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I mean, the issue was the sections being dependent on them. Background, recording, style, title, and release are still near solely covered by dependent sources. We do now have a reception section with independent reviews, but that's only one section. The article as a whole is still overwhelmingly dependent on sources directly connected with the band. IzzySwag (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

You're right. I'm not really sure how to fix this because the only independent sources I can find are reviews or "independent sources" (which are really copying press releases). Another issue with the article is that there is not much information about any of the other songs (e.g. "They Might Be Feral") because the only sources I can find for them are reviews reviewing each of the songs. The band hasn't really talked about many of the songs yet, either. Right now there is an incomplete section and all the other sections are filled with quotes from the band. These issues will need to be fixed if this is going to be a Good Article. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 22:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. Just keep in mind, there is no deadline on Wikipedia, so we have as much time in the world to fix and update the article. It might take a bit for it to reach Good Article status, but keep working on it, and eventually, the article will get there. There are some things you just can't force. IzzySwag (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes @IzzySwag. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 22:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

AllMusic vs. Interview citation

I replaced the dependent Sterogum interview with the independent AllMusic review citation, though I noticed that there is no consensus that AllMusic is a reliable citation. Which is better? Pinging: @IzzySwag, @Mudwater, @PBugaboo. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:34, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Allmusic appears in the independent source search engine maintained by Project Music, though I have seen that some editors note that the summaries of reviews provided by Allmusic can be unreliable so I would avoid relying on those. The World is to Dig search from the search engine in question PBugaboo (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Hm, link's not quite cooperating. Put "The World is to Dig" in quotes and independent sources for the album appear. PBugaboo (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

DYK nomination and tag on article

Hi @IzzySwag. The DYK nomination for The World Is to Dig is nearing two months old which means it could time out. There is also still the tag on it. What do you think we should do about the tag and the DYK nomination? –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 01:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I am not particularly familiar with the DYK process. @PBugaboo has gotten an article nominated before and likely can help more than me. I will step out of this conversation so she can help out. IzzySwag (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 02:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty swamped off-site this week, but addressing the source tag would be prudent before the timeout. If any other sources can be found that are independent to the band then the section can be expanded with that. From memory your alts were much better than the original DYK about the album's cover. I suspect the same conflict of interest would be in place if I was a part of seconding a DYK, so either a new independent secondary source for that section needs to be found or the article needs to reduce the content that was reliant on the too-close-to-the-band sources (as long as it doesn't get the article below the 5x length requirement)

I hope this has been a value-add… PBugaboo (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you PBugaboo!

It has been pretty hard to find independent secondary sources for that section, so some of it might need to get cut so the tag could be removed and the DYK nomination could work out. Like the part that has information on the sinkhole cover: The only source that talks about it is the band, which has to do with The World Is to Dig as much as it gets. It is also about a possible album cover, so I removed that part for the time being, fixing that issue.

The next issue with the "Title and cover art" section is that it says that it the painting is credited to "After Thomas Hill" which is vital information to have in the article, but only the band and The World Is to Dig's liner notes talk about it. There is nothing except for the band and the liner notes that says the acorn illustration was drawn by Tony Millionaire, either. I might have to remove that too if there really is no other source that has that information. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 16:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I had some time to read over it again. Given the concerns are over the already fairly small "Title and cover art" section, I would suggest merging the content elsewhere, paraphrasing the long quote, and citing the liner notes for the "After Thomas Hill" credit (removing the Tony Millionaire credit if you cannot find a source).

Credits like the artist for the cover are unlikely to appear in independent secondary coverage. Liner notes are standard and permitted for straightforward descriptive facts like album personnel and art credits (see WP:PRIMARY and if you need to copy the syntax for a Cite AV Media tag, Act III: This City Made Us cites the liner notes in its plot section - where it says 'From libretto' you would change this to be 'From liner notes' or 'From internal sleeve', something like this.). If it's a straightforward descriptive fact about the album, it's certainly fine to use the primary source for credits here. Agreed that if the Tony Millionaire information has no source that should be removed.

Regarding the quote, Flansburgh would certainly be able to speak to his own reasoning/thoughts/influences and any coverage on the topic would necessarily require his involvement. Considering WP:ABOUTSELF, the claims don't involve third parties, events not directly related to the source, the wider article is not based primarily on WP:ABOUTSELF sources, and their use here is neither unduly self-serving or exceptional. The citation's probably fine to retain. - I did consider though there was this part where he says "We live in this terrible political moment". This isn't being presented in the article as a fact from an expert on world events, though - it's his perspective that influenced the album's production (but just to be safe, paraphrasing it here would probably be for the best. Either way it's a long quote in an already small section which does make it appear to be overly reliant on primary sources.)

Regarding the length of the section, a paraphrased and shortened version of the quote and the sentence about the album art credits could be safely moved to a background or production section. That removes the need for the tag, as the rest of the article isn't largely reliant on the primary sources.

In short I'd suggest to

1. Paraphrase the quote

2. Cite AV Media the liner notes for the credit

3. Find a source or remove the Tony Millionaire credit

4. Consider removing the title and cover art section and distributing the content across the rest of the article if you believe the section is too small after this

5. Remove the tag

6. Check the article length to ensure it's still 5x long and your DYK nomination would still be valid

Hope this has helped. Good luck, I hope the changes can be made in time! PBugaboo (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it has definitely helped. Thank you. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 22:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@PBugaboo: I fixed some things about the Title and cover art section and it is better now. The only issue with it now is that the sources remaining in the section are: an interview with John Flansburgh and John Linnell, an interview with John Flansburgh, and liner notes. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 00:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Should be fine. Any source discussing their influences would necessarily require their input (interview, self published source, etc) and the primary source is fine for credits. I would move the citation to before the Tony Millionaire bit if it's not in the liner notes. PBugaboo (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Both the painting credit and the Tony Millionaire credit are in the liner notes. –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 02:06, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Perfect 🙂 well, the tag's been addressed, you should be fine to progress the DYK PBugaboo (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! –The Twists and Turns talk|my edits 03:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)