Talk:2008 in music

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2008 in music 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

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[South by Southwest#SXSW 2008|2008 South by Southwest]] The anchor (#SXSW 2008) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Chinese Democracy

There is absolutely no proof or reason to think Chinese Democracy is coming out this year. Therefore I removed it. Whoever put "The You Know What" for its title, it wasn't that funny. Blackzeppelin27 (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4th slipknot studio album

there is no evidence in the reference to suggest the album will be released on august 11th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathonDavisthe3rd (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet to be named albums

There needs to be some kind of equilibrium reached with the albums that dont have names... Some are formatted Untitiled by Artist, some as Artists #th Studio Album by Artist, and all sorts of permutations with italics etc. Perhaps a particular title should be chosen and all future and current titles changed to adhere to it, just to maintain some constancy. Joshy116 (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joshy116. There should be an uniform standard. My personal opinion is that any album which does not have an "official" title, which can be sourced, should be listed as "TBA" (to be announced). Also, I believe no album without an official title should be Wikified. If we don't have at least the bare minimum of a title for a forthcoming album, it's too soon to have an article of any sort IMO.GBrady (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination

This article was nominated for deletion and was speedy kept under WP:SNOW. Thanks to the users who sourced the article. Capitalistroadster 03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

Guys, if you add an entry to a certain date in the tables, pretty please add "1" to the rowspan at the begining of that date!! Also, if you added an album to a table please in the description mention which album... Thanks! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expected events...

People, an album expected to be released is NOT an event, there's something called Albums To Be Released especially for... THE ALBUMS TO BE RELEASED!!!!! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MagedMahfouz is right. I will delete any forthcoming albums in the section as redundant. GBrady (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bands reformed

Who removed hot water music from this category? They are a band that reformed in 2008 + deserve recognition JonathonDavisthe3rd (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100 or whatever

What on Earth is this section?! it doesnt make any sense, no references and random numbers that anyone edits and no one can know whether they are true or just the fantasy of some dude... i'm gonna remove unless someone has another opinion... if you can prove those numbers and status undo it... but dont undo me if you cant provide some offical record of those stuff!! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top hits on record in the world

This section has become a battlefield. To make things clear: the last global weekly chart to be included in the UWC's top songs of 2007 calculation was the one dated "January 5, 2008" (posted on December 27, 2007). Therefor, the first chart to be included in 2008 summary is the January 12 one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meandmygang (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

it doesn't seem to be terribly consistent when it comes to the ordering. after month and day, is it alphabetically by artist name or by album name? once i think i understand which one it is, i find enough examples to prove myself wrong... Fezmar9 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Chemical Romance album

It says on the article that My Chemical Romance is making an album TBA 2008. But source is a Blog Post that says My Chemical Romance is taking a break from recording. Plus it's from September 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.34.236 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO a blog is not sufficient to be a reliable source unless it is the band's own official Blog. Even in that case, the stale date of said information should mean a more up-to-date reference is needed. GBrady (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article too long

This article has been tagged as being too long and recommended discussion here, so let's open it up. Whether it's too long or not is debatable - if, what is essentially an almanack, consists of relevant, notable information that fulfills Wikipedia guidelines, then it is self-defining in terms of its length, until individual sections reach a point where they would work better as separate articles.

I think the real problem with this, and previous 'Years in music' articles, is that it's unwieldy and divided up in such a way that navigating through it is difficult. So here's a proposal: for me, one of the real navigational swamps is the 'Albums released' section. Being formatted as a table seems unnecessary considering the type and amount of data making it up. Tables work best when they can be used at-a-glance; that's not the case here. So-o-o... How about abandoning the table format and moving each months 'Albums released' information into subsections of the relevant months of the main 'Events' section, something like this:

January

14 January - Event blah blah blah.
22 January - Another event blah blah blah.

Albums released in January

3 January - Look At Me by Egocentric (compilation)
17 January - Down With The Kids by Kidsdown (German release only)

This would make more logical sense (to me, at least), would work better with the 'Table of contents' and, hopefully, address the persistent problem of album releases being inadvertently listed in the main 'Events' section, and the persistent problem of correctly marking-up the table format. It would be a bit of a task to make the change, but I think it would be worth it. Anyone else? Alchemagenta (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose that a release of a single by ANY artist (see September:"*29 September - Oasis will release a new single, "The Shock of the Lightning", to promote their latest album.") should *NOT* qualify as an "expected event". We already have a section for forthcoming albums and I believe that should suffice. Otherwise, every fan of a band will make sure they list every expected single release as an event.

For that matter, I honestly believe the "expected events" should be deleted. Wikipedia should not function as a crystal ball for things which have not yet occurred. (i.e. any of these festivals to be held 3 months from "now" could easily be cancelled for a variety of reasons) The article is long enough merely documenting important events AFTER they've occurred. It simply adds unnecessary length. GBrady (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the 'Expected events' section veers too close to turning the article into a promotional tool for the artists and their record companies, and too close to making it resemble a place for excited proclamations by fans. Unless there's good reason expressed here to retain the section, I think it should be deleted, speedily. Alchemagenta (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not debatable as to whether this article is too long. Wikipedia recommends that pages not exceed 100k in size and this page is already at 114k barely half way through the year! There are many basic measures that could reduce this page to a more appropriate size. For one thing there is no need to mention acts appearing at each festival as they should be listed on the page for that festival. The name of the festival and its location is sufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, I agree. Do you have any thoughts on mine and GBrady's suggestions above? - We could actually get smewhere with this... Alchemagenta (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the main problem this page is too unwieldy is the album releases section. They should be on a separate page and the only ones listed here should be those that have achieved Gold status or win or are nominated for a major Award (Grammy, MTV etc), if that's possible without going Gold!. Of course that won't happen overnight (at least not often!) so it should be easy to keep track of. After all this page, as with Wiki in general, is supposed to be for things with some sort of notability not just anything. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the 'Expected events' section following the above discussion. Coincidentally, this took the article down to 99k. Alchemagenta (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There still needs to be some sort of criteria for what qualifies as notable for this article. At the moment it seems that much on this page is not. Albums/singles should be qualified either by either sales and/or awards. There is nothing notable about annual concerts/festivals (why include them every year?) unless they are the first/last or break some (world) record. Tours/formed/reformed etc should be limited to bands of sufficient notability which can often only be appreciated with the passage of time so adding entries now should in most cases be discouraged. Anyone interested in helping bring this page within Wiki guidelines shoud look at WP: YRS. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent about the notability criteria. I can go along with DerbyCountyinNZ's points above to some extent but establishing objective criteria for notability in music is up against highly subjective views in this area (music). On balance, I would argue against sales and awards achieved as being criteria by which to assess qualification for inclusion for albums. Some album releases can have a significance and an influence but never achieve industry standard levels of high achieving sales or receive an award. Also, some time ago I tagged this article with the 'globalise' tag. If the article manages to redress the imbalance in favour of western popular music, I would have no idea what the significance of a particular album released by, say, a Sri Lankan artist might be. Having said all that maybe we should take up DerbyCountyinNZ's earlier suggestion of creating a separate page for album releases.

I would be against excluding festivals and so on, on the same grounds. Large scale music events are significant, whether they are regular annual events or not - they involve a lot of people and artists. This article also serves a purpose as an almanack and, in that context, I think it would be strange if, for example, it didn't include Glastonbury Festival as an event, despite its (generally) annual organisation. Alchemagenta (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albums to be released section

Following the logic in the above discussion which resulted in the deletion of the 'Expected events' section, I propose that the 'Albums to be released' section should also be deleted. As well as the Wikipedia-is-not-a-crystal-ball reasoning, this would significantly reduce the article to a more manageable size, both in terms of the extent of sections of lists and the size of the 'References' section. Any thoughts, anyone? Alchemagenta (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! In fact I'd like to see the whole Albums released section deleted as it defies logic to expect that every album listed is in any way notable. At least removing the "to be released" section would be a start. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think simply deleting the 'Albums released' section is a bit too radical. I've just refreshed my memory on the WP:Notability guidelines and I see no contradiction between the criteria for notability and the vast majority of albums listed. As a comparison, Wikipedia is littered with one line stubs on obscure insect species, biomolecular structures and French villages (do a few clicks on the 'Random article' link - it's surprising how often these come up). To me, if no-one can be bothered to even put together 100 words on these subjects, then their notability is also questionable but only from my point of view as someone far more interested in music. I'm sure the Wikipedia microbiology community would be up in arms if went on a campaign of tagging such articles as IRAK-4 for deletion. I think the problem is not so much one of notability but one of distorting the focus of the article with a disproportionately large list so until someone bites the bullet and moves it to its own page I think we have to live with it. In the meantime I'm leaving a little time for people to respond to my proposal above before deleting the 'Albums to be released section (unless somebody beats me to it...). Alchemagenta (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think as WP:Music states, the album is not notable until there is at least a title ("Once the artist or their record label has publicly confirmed the title, track listing and release date, an article about the album is not a WP:CRYSTAL violation."). So what i'm thinking is the same should apply here - all untitled albums and albums without a confirmed release date should be removed. kiac (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go along with that - no album title or release date, no entry in the section. Alchemagenta (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, anything with title 'TBA" or "untitled" (unless the release will literally be called that) gets pulled until such time as artist or label announces album title & release date in reliable source. 69.211.140.120 (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omit lead-in?

"The year 2008 in music is half full of events, albums released by major artists and bands, and hit singles."

This is such a bland and meaningless statement as to be bettered by omission. I would submit we are better off NOT having any sort of introduction until 2009 starts since it's hard to identify trends until AFTER you've seen them over the course of a year. Simply putting something at the top to fill space weakens the article IMO. Comments? GBrady (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good introductory statement to the article but I do think it should have something. How about 'This is a list of notable events in music that took place in the year 2008.'? Alchemagenta (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Sounds good to me. Will do. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United World Chart

Wasn't the UWC recently deemed an unreliable source, as far as WP's standards are concenred? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been, I can't find anything on Wikipedia that says so. I edited the reference (bringing it up to full citation standards) and nothing happened. Usually, if a site has been officially banned a bot intervenes at this point and prevents the page being saved with the banned site's URL. Alchemagenta (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The United World Chart article was recently deleted at AfD with questions raised about its reliability/verifiability. I have noticed that several people have since been going round removing links and information sourced from the UWC from various articles. Just something to consider. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read the AfD and whilst the arguments for deleting the UWC article seem sound, the secondary debate around it's relevance as an external source seem inconclusive. Perhaps the UWC sections in this article should be removed and replaced with a link in an 'External links' section. Alchemagenta (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Vines and Mudhoney

Mudhoney's The Lucky Ones came out on May 20th.

The Vines' Melodia came out on July 12th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolongeredible (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Doubt

Should they be listed under bands reformed? because they never disbanded.. it was just a hiatus. Odysseus1138 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verb tenses

It seems odd to me that the events in the 'Events' section are written in the present tense. These are past events so, surely, they should be written in the past tense. I'm going to work my way through and correct this unless anyone wants to give a reason why not. Alchemagenta (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who deleted the release dates?

STOP BEING DICKS AND PUT IT BACK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.148.144 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. You might find it useful to acquaint yourself with the guidelines to this talk page in the box at the top of it, particularly the links that lead to WP:CIVILITY and WP:GOODFAITH. Having done that, I'd then recommend reading the lengthy discussion on this page under the title [Article too long]. This should give you some background to the steps that have been taken in the transference of the 'Albums released' and 'Albums to be released' sections to the new article List of albums released in 2008. The history of when, who by and the reasons given for these changes can be found [here]. I suspect your request for these sections to be returned won't be supported for the reasons already discussed on this page. Alchemagenta (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top hits

When this year ends I think we should add it to this years music all the other years have it so why should we not have it. The luigi kart assasions 4:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Being bold in 2009

Well since no one said anything im going to BE BOLD and make the top hits by the beggining of 2009. The luigi kart assasions 5:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.156.78 (talk)

How is this an 'article'?

There is absolutely no prose, it is just massive, long trivia section. There can be no barometer for notability, how can you include some album release dates but not others? It's largely 2008 in American music and the page has so many citation needed tags it is rediculous. What is the page's purpose...? Kiac (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to place this same comment on Talk:2007 in music, Talk:2006 in music, Talk:2005 in music, Talk:2004 in music, … , Talk:1946 in music, etc., etc.? It would be perfectly apropos in every case—there are hundreds upon hundreds of these lists—trivia farms all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know, I just happened to get fed up with it whilst here. They all need a serious revamp, which I believe was attempted for 2009 in music (is 1000 references some kind of record? lol), but they still have a serious direction problem, listing a bunch of 'notable' albums is no basis for an article. Deletion would probably be the easy way out though, I guess, a proper reconstruction might work. Kiac (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from the italian version of Wikipedia, we think we are going to delete voices like this, like you'd want to do.--NuM3tal95 (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is the key. Even if you added citation, this is just an arbitrary list with no proper criteria for inclusion and exclusion. This page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.120.100 (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://dogsdieinhotcarsalbum2.blogspot.com/2008/04/about-project-2.html
- In Dogs Die in Hot Cars on 2011-03-17 13:01:53, 404 Not Found
- In 2008 in music on 2011-06-16 21:29:22, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on 2008 in music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2008 in music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.isleofwightfestival.com/isle-of-wight-festival-2008.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090103201253/http://finance.yahoo.com:80/news/Madonnas-Sticky-amp-Sweet-prnews-13890523.html to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Madonnas-Sticky-amp-Sweet-prnews-13890523.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2008 in music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 in music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090103201253/http://finance.yahoo.com:80/news/Madonnas-Sticky-amp-Sweet-prnews-13890523.html to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Madonnas-Sticky-amp-Sweet-prnews-13890523.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on 2008 in music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]