Talk:List of 2016 albums

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

Releases To Be Updated or Changed[edit]

There are a few albums on the list that need to be updated, since I am unsure how to code, I was hoping somebody could help me out and put these on the list.

Scheduled releases not stated in the list:

Modern Baseball - Holy Ghost. To be released on May 13, 2016. and Hellyeah - Unden!able. Release date is June 3, 2016.


Releases not stated in the list- Hotel Books - Run Wild, Stay Alive. June 3, 2016 and Sleeping With Sirens - Live & Unplugged. April 8, 2016

Paigedelrey (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius: Ibifornia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibifornia) 83.150.96.149 (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits albums and EPs[edit]

I wasn't sure about greatest hits compilations and extended plays but I spotted Jason Derulo's Platinum Hits album in here and Kylie Minogue's Kylie + Garibay EP in List of 2015 albums so I assume these types of albums are also allowed? I added Placebo's A Place for Us to Dream and Life's What You Make It (EP) to this list but if it's wrong, at least I've tried :)--DELACORADO (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Greatest hits, extended plays, and soundtracks as well as albums are allowed in this list. The only rules are they are to be released or have been released in 2016, the information is verifiable, and the albums are notable. Verifiable by reputable sources, such as on-line magazines or newspapers (or in print, but hard for others to look over), but not blogs, social media accounts (including from band members), YouTube, crowd-funding sources, or artist web-pages. Proving notability is harder to define, but a good rule of thumb is that if an artist or band has a Wikipedia page, then they have been judged to be notable by some group of reviewers, and there is a strong chance that their newest album is notable. If a major periodical like Alternative Press, Billboard, Blabbermouth.net, Consequence of Sound, Loudwire, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, SPIN or an equivalent periodical, or a large national or regional paper has done an article on the album, then the album is notable. There are a few artists on the page that don't have Wikipedia pages, but the albums or soundtracks have Wikipedia articles, again proving an approved seal of notability. Mix-tapes can be included, but again proving notability for a mix-tape is a challenge. Mburrell (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

"List of links"

External links modified 1[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of 2016 albums. 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) 23:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified 2[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of 2016 albums. 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) 09:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified 3[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of 2016 albums. 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) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be split? Is it too large?[edit]

User jd22292 tagged the List of 2016 albums as Too Long. It is a very long list, showing up in Wikipedia database Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages and in Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles by size where it is listed as the 48th largest article in Wikipedia. However, this is an annual list, and splitting it up would seem to make it more difficult to be accessible. Per the "Too Long" database, the absolute technical limit for an article size is 2,098,175 bytes, and per the information page for this article it is 503,528 bytes large, so it is not even a quarter of the technical size limit. I disagree with the "Too Long" tag, and wish to remove it, but I would like other users to weigh in on the issue. Should the article be split? Should a category such as producers or label be removed? Would it offend users if we removed the "Too Long" tag? I looked at the "Too Long" article, and there is no mechanism for removing the tag, so I am choosing to create one by putting it to the vote of the lists users. What do other people want to do with the article or with the tag? Mburrell (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User jd22292 removed the tag for Too Long due to the conversation on the talk page of List of 2017 albums, and due to the edit summary of Ss112, when he said the issue was already being addressed. I suggest that we can still discuss whether the article is too long, or carries too much information, but we no longer need to vote on removing the "Too Long" tag.
As I stated above, I do oppose splitting the article, but I would not be unhappy if we removed the producer column. Which would probably shrink the article by about 15%. However, the limit that we hit on the List of 2017 albums, and may hit on future annual lists, is the amount of citations that can be applied to the article, at approximately 1284 citations. That means there is a limit to how many albums we can list, unless the administrators increase the amount of templates that can be used in an article. One way to keep the list smaller is to be stricter on only listing notable albums. If the press from the record industry is telling the truth, albums may be on the way out as they become unprofitable to create, and artists will start releasing singles on the streaming services. This may keep the list of albums from growing as well. Mburrell (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is too long; and yes, it should be split. The page's markup is currently 504,010 bytes; the file download is 561.9 KB That's ridiculous. No cogent argument of a need to keep the sub-sections on a single page has been made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but no cogent argument has been made to split up the article either. The majority of the discussion is taking place Talk:List of 2017 albums but so far it seems to come down to that there is no administrative reason to break up the list, but a couple of editors want to do so anyway because that list is the 3rd largest in Wikipedia, and this list is the 20th largest. Some article has to be the largest, so that is not the argument, and there is no Wikipedia rule requiring it broken up, so it is just the desire of some editors who like smaller articles vs. other editors who like these lists divided no further than by individual year. Mburrell (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That simply isn't the case. Not only has justification (which applies equally here) been given in that discussion; but you have also been provided with links to the relevant guidelines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. I assumed you used the word cogent to mean clear, logical and convincing. What had been discussed at Talk:List of 2017 albums has been a hypothesis based on one reading of the article size guidelines and then another hypothesis based on a different reading. This is why I have gone to Wikipedia talk:Article size and started a conversation to determine whether Wikipedia:Article size applies to lists instead of prose articles. Mburrell (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mburrell: First of all, good work on decreasing the size of the 2017 list. It's now come that the 2016 list is more urgent, being the third largest article and more than 100,000 bytes larger than the 2017 article which is currently 264th. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_2016_albums&oldid=1208196977"