Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/List

Why doesn't the O Brother Where Art Thou link work? Tuf-Kat

Try O Brother, Where Art Thou? - there's a comma. -- Zoe

On the list, there is a comma. It's not a broken link -- it looks like there is an illegal character, but there's only parentheses, comma and a question mark, all of which can be used in article titles. Tuf-Kat

Later tonight, or tomorrow, I'm going to delete all the ones that already have an article because I will have updated them to the "brochure" style (such as London Calling), which I consider the equivalent of a stub in this field. Once everything on this list has such a brochure with the basics, I'll restore the complete list so it can be used for its original purpose. Tuf-Kat

Some bands and albums listed have the ampersand "&" included in their title. According to the Wikipedia style guide, the ampersand should be avoided (and presumably replaced with "and"). Iam 08:29, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Really? I've always moved all bands to include the & so it would be consistent. Nothing has ever gone wrong because of it -- I wonder if there's really any reason to deprecate the ampersand. Tuf-Kat 15:18, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

The guide says "Some special characters can not be used, or can, but give problems. For example you should not use a piping character (|), an asterisk (*), an ampersand (&), curly braces ({}), or square braces ([]) in a name." Search with Google to find out why reveals an article headed "Ampersands in links surrounded by italics cause words to drop and the end italics tag to be ignored" on the bugs page, also when uploading files "A file with an ampersand in its name cannot be deleted". The bug may or may not have been fixed but the titles seem to work. Iam 00:20, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

I rather think this must not be true. Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers works just fine, and I created and deleted User:TUF-KAT/Test & whatnot without any difficulty. Tuf-Kat 07:32, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Unfiltered

Looks like I'm doing redundant work because of poor indexing on Wikipedia. I added Now That's What I Call Music! 17, but Now 17 already exists and is more complete. -- Mikeblas 23:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you didn't read the part about the various series either; your write-up doesn't state that it belongs to the US "Now 17". That having been said, the full name is probably a better choice, but I think it would be better qualified by the series (e.g. "UK series").

I should point out that I'm not really in favour of individual "Now!" articles, as I believe that they have little potential beyond "information dumps" for the track listing (which isn't really what Wikipedia is about) and nor are they individually notable. But if they're going to be there, they may as well be done properly. Fourohfour 00:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that my contribution was about the US-specific release on the talk page for the first release I entered, Talk:Now That's What I Call Music! 19.

Hi. Yes, I'm sorry for being intolerant about this, and for presenting my suggestion/opinion in such a manner. Although it was intended to be helpful (having a mixture of series under the generic "Now!" titles would cause confusion), it was also pretty arrogant. Fourohfour 17:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The request for the articles here didn't provide specifics about differentiating the US versions from the RoW versions; had it done so, I would have been happy to comply. With no response to that, and no clear venue for my question about the format or naming, I continued boldly.

Your multiple "done properly" comments are condescending, and I'm not sure it's right for you to singly adjust the naming for the topics in the project without first reaching consensus with other contributors. Even if it is acceptable behaviour for Wikipedia, your condescending tone in response to my efforts to contribute is offensive and discouraging.

So, I'm not going to scan the covers or write up any more articles. I'll leave it to you to make the titles and format consistent on the other articles I've added, lest I fail to "do them properly". -- Mikeblas 10:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's really up to you what you want to name them; my idea was just a suggestion (albeit badly presented). I've reverted it back now, BTW. Fourohfour 17:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your re-evaluation; I do appreciate it. I added the US content to the provided names assuming that someone in the WikiProject had already determined and reviewed those names. I think it's a better idea to have the topics all-in-one; that is, include both the UK and US release information (along with whatever other releases are available) in the same topic. As you noted, the topics are likely to be short and serve only as anchors for discography or contribution references in main articles, so I think they should be merged. That lends to keeping the names supplied on the wanted list.

Maybe, someday, there will be a template or stock format for the articles that will show which version of which is available, compare them, and so on. I'm a music collector, but not such an advanced one that I own any of the RoW NTWICM! releases. The best contribution I can make at this time, then, is to provide information for the US releases.

-- Mikeblas 19:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I have to be honest and say that I'm still not in favour of these articles (see discussion at the main talk page).

But let's assume for the sake of argument that there's a concensus to keep the articles. "Now!" albums from different series which *just happen to have the same number* are generally different; the only thing tying (e.g.) the UK and US "Now! 4" together is the name. Beyond the common Now details, they have nothing in common; 1984 UK hits vs. 2000 US hits, totally different covers, different numbers of discs (2 vs. 1)... oops, the UK one is so old that it came on vinyl/cassette, not CD. See what I mean? :-)

In short, they're different albums, and if individual Now!s are distinctive enough to warrant individual articles, then there's no reason to group them together. A disambig page is a different thing, of course.

As I mentioned, where there is only one article for a given number, redirects strike me as a good solution, because it keeps the naming within series consistent (rather than having some with a country suffix, and some without; this would also imply we need to move the original article if we want to create another "Now! 4"). The redirect can become a disambig when a new "Now! 4" is created.

Fourohfour 18:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, it looks like you did the complete opposite anyway. I don't see the benefit in that, but I'm waiting to see if I can get some concensus on what should be done before engaging in any mass deletion or name-changing (if the consensus goes that way, of course). Fourohfour 19:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the now U.S and U.K & original disambiguation page makes sense now. It's much clearer. Thanks for your help Fourohfour. Timclare 14:44, 11 February 2006 (GMT)

Sorry, I didn't notice this comment before I made that set of edits today. Fourohfour 14:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Lowe - Pure Pop for Now People <-- Jesus of Cool

This page already exists as Jesus of Cool but I don't know about using yellow for the US version.