Talk:2007 in music

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seasons[edit]

Why do those pages use seasons? For one thing, not everyone uses the word "Fall", but much more importantly, seasons are in the opposite order in the southern hemisphere, and therefore, their use as time descriptors is officially discouraged (even within the northern hemisphere, their definitions vary). Quotation from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers):

"Because the seasons are reversed in each hemisphere—while areas near the equator tend to have just wet and dry seasons—neutral wording should be used to describe times of the year, such as "in early 1990", "in the second quarter of 2003", "around September" or an exact date, rather than references to seasons, unless there is some particular need to do so (e.g., "the autumn harvest"). It is ambiguous to say that Apollo 11 landed on the Moon in the summer of 1969—whose summer? However, quoted references to seasons should not be changed."

Why are they used here? - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 12:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be changed. For me, Winter is December, January and February, so anything listed under "Winter" here could be due out in January, February or December 2007, which seems daft. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then all years will have to be changed (I don't know how many use them, as most passed years should have exact dates). But what should they be changed to? Quarters, yeah? - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say quarters, but a few more people should comment before any changes are made. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree use quarters. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th quarter. Thats what the record companies say anyways. 71.220.9.196 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article for "[2006 in music]]" uses quarters. Previous years just list the months, or just have a long list ordered by date without breaks for months, seasons, quarters, whatever. I agree with quarters, at least until the year is over. salamurai 03:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn´t Ben Moody on any list? His debut album is gonna release at early 2007.

International variations[edit]

I noticed on the list that for a lot of weeks, there are a few albums listed on Monday and a few listed on Tuesday. Now could all this just be to do with the source? If it's a UK source the release will be scheduled for a Monday and if it's a US source than the album will be scheduled for a Tuesday. Most probably come out on the same day in the same regions, so they should all be listed together. I'd say go by US dates for all and make note of international dates only if it's significantly before or after the US date (a week or so, different to what is standard for the country). Just something to think about. Adamravenscroft 12:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to use worldwide data shouldn't we include all of it?[edit]

Everyone knows the three biggest markets where CD's are sold: US, Japan, and UK (in that order). Also, a lot of European countries sell a good amount of CD's. But Australia is not one of them. So if we're going to include worldwide charts of countries, and worldwide charts of minor countries, shouldn't we include Japan, France, Gemany, Canada, etc? Ayumi4u 20:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albums to be announced[edit]

Per the No original research policy and Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, I have removed this section. Nothing but unverified content, just speculation, is inserted and vandalism is continually inserted. 209.214.141.22 01:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 100%. It came back. Now it's gone again. --Kurt Shaped Box 12:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007_in_music#Speculated_album_releases - does this even belong on Wikipedia?[edit]

Expanding on what the anon. user mentioned above, this entire section smacks of crystalballery and original research backed up by weasel words. "Speculated album releases" - 'speculated' by whom? The music press? Fans? The one person who added the entry to the list? "Albums in this section are believed to be released..." - again, 'believed' by whom? A large number of the albums listed don't have articles, or even titles at this stage, if they even exist at all...

I'm very tempted to be bold and delete the whole lot per above - but I'm not going to just yet, until I get some feedback on the matter, as I realize that it may be a somewhat controversial move. If anyone has references confirming the release of these albums, then please feel free to add them. This needs a heck of lot of work to bring it up to standard. In this state, it's little more than a rumour mill and vandal/hoaxer magnet. --Kurt Shaped Box 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove it you don't eventually. All the information in the speculatied album releases section can be readded as confirmed but untitled, or added by month to the other ones that are confirmed already. — The Future 01:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I'll try to take of this problem now. — The Future 01:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also taking the "confirmed (untitled) albums and breaking it down. Half of them aren't confirmed and only a couple have references, so I'll keep those. The others I am going to find sources for or keep seperately on a word document until I can find sources for. — The Future 02:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo! Looking good, sir. I don't know if I'd have personally had the patience to sift through all that... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box 11:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I got the patience to almost any task, so give me a shout if there is something boring to do :) — The Future 19:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Is Deleting Songs Off Of The Top 20 Hits From UK/US/AUS[edit]

All are rock songs. Does some one not like Bloc Party and MCR and is deleting them? I dislike the latter, but this is supposed to be comprehensive and they did get three Top 40 hits this year in Britian and i had to add back in all three. Please stop. Do not let your tastes get ahead of you and delete songs you do not like. Doc Strange 12:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Album sales (worldwide)[edit]

What source are you using to get the numbers that you are getting for the "Best Album Sales (Worldwide)" chart?

July[edit]

July's area's all messed up. Someone fix it please!

  • Yea, June's a lil screwed up too. Squadoosh 08:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tables[edit]

Just a reminder to everyone who edits this article, because I've had to clean some of the tables up on more than one occasion: in the first row for any given release date, the "rowspan" number has to equal the number of albums actually being listed under that date. In other words, if you add a new album to the list, you must add one to that date's rowspan number, and if for whatever reason you take one out, you must subtract one from the rowspan number. People not doing this correctly is one of the principal reasons that the tables are getting messed up in the first place, so please remember to change the rowspans appropriately when you edit the table. Thanks. Bearcat 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best selling albums[edit]

Are the stats from United World Chart about this year's best selling album strictly about albums released this year or are they supposed to include albums that were released in 2006 or earlier too? "Loose" is an excellent example, that has sold well over three million copies this year. (Or accumulated well over three million points at United World Chart, but I believe that the points albums are awarded are based solely on sales.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.184.125 (talk) 11:26, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul[edit]

Anybody else think the article needs a huge overhaul? It is a gigantic mess? DP08 12:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. The size is more than 100kB. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 15:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing for sure IMO, I think the albums released section should be in a separate article and probably remove the events and artists with red links since they are not notable.JForget 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. #1 songs in particular are a repeat of the #1 songs article, with trivia bits added. If there is already a list of songs that reached the top 20, why is this needed? and why are the U.S. #1s in a table when none of the other countries are? - eo 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec albums[edit]

If anyone knows about release dates of Francophone albums from Quebec artists, it would be appreciated that those be included in this article as well. If not I will do some research in the future and add those. Only albums from artists who have articles will be enough. Thanks!--JForget 01:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 01:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section split[edit]

I tagged the Albums released section to be split into a new article entitled Albums released in 2007. This is because the page is over 92 kilobytes long, and at 64 kilobytes, that section takes up 2/3 of it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone created a new article from that section. It has now been added to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albums released in 2007. -Freekee (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bands on Hiatus[edit]

How is this that different between bands disbanded? At The Drive-In to use one example are a band who are officially 'on hiatus' but are quite obviously disbanded. I say it's too vague to be an addition. Fullerov (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we split them up according to OFFICIAL STATEMENTS! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portishead[edit]

They never split up. So how can they possibly have reformed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.195.3 (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genres[edit]

Some people are always searching for the new stuff from certain genres... For example i always search for new Rock and Metal albums... But i dont wanna go through each and every album on the page to see its genre... so maybe we can put the genre in a seperate column or in the Notes column?! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Populist bias[edit]

This article is awful - every event mentioned is pop music related. If this is really 2007 in music, we need to widen the perspective of this article by 1000%. Why wasn't the the death of Karlheinz Stockhausen mentioned? Why isn't their a single reference to anyone involved in new and experimental music? There's a lot more to music than whatever's on the pop charts; are the "speculated album releases" of some nostalgia-touring rock band really that significant? By neglecting the most vital areas of music, this article is perpetuating the public's complete ignorance of everything creative in music. Sorry, but this really bothers me. I'll add whatever information I can. - --Wolf m corcoran (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add whatever you can. One of the limitations of Wikipedia is that people write what they know. Nobody sets out to make an article like this to be complete and balanced. Someone learns something new about their favorite band, and opens up Wikipedia to figure out where they can add this new knowledge. Obviously, there are more editors interested in popular music, so that's where the bias lies. But the bias is an accident of the system. -Freekee (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Happened?[edit]

To the list of Top 20 hits in the US, UK and Australia? Every other year but 2007 has this. Did some one delete this as WP:OR? It's not an easily verifiable. I can't put it back, as it's lost in revisions. Doc Strange (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top hits[edit]

Shouldn't we add a top hit lists on here because other years have it. But I have no talent of making one so its best if you guys do it If not I'll make it. The luigi kart assasions 4:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2007 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"albums released" appears twice[edit]

pretty much it, they both link to the same page it's just doubled 2406:5A00:1050:1100:48E:2D0:410:69F3 (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_in_music&oldid=1196508555"