Talk:Battlefield (album)

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

TRACKLISTING[edit]

I dont kno why one of you keeps changing the tracklisting...HELLO A MAJOR PART OF THE TRACKLISTING IS THE SONG LENGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY DO YOU KEEP DELETING IT?!?!?!? ALL IT HAS NOW IS THE SONG TITLE, IT LOOKS SO AMATUERISH AND UNKNOWLEDGEABLE. IF YOU GO TO EVERY OTHER ARTICLE ABOUT A TRACKLISTING, THERE IS A TEMPLATE OR A CHART. THIS ONE JUST HAS A FUCKING LIST OF THE SONGS WITHOUT SONG LENGTHS!!!!! STOP FUCKING CHANGING IT JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDNT CREATE IT! >:O


Please don't use profane language, and if you choose to continue to use the talk page, use it correctly. My Love - The Dream & Mariah Carey (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


songs should be listed in a numeric list for track lists according to WP:albums. Jordin's first album has this too. Note that tables are permissable for hip-hop albums where there are many featured guests, and samples etc. (see Fantasy Ride by ciara for an example). There is no need to add excess characters by using the template, a numeric list is fine. many big albums e.g. Whitney Houston's I Look to You, or Beyonce's I Am Sasha Fierce / Dangerously in Love are set out like this. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

with the addition of a fourth parameter, Producer(s), making the tracklisting more complex...a Chart is now found to be appropriately used.
Iknow23 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singles[edit]

Singles does not belong under 'Reception'. Here is the definition on reception: the manner in which something is greeted. Meaning, how others felt about Battlefield. The singles from Battlefield does not beleing in this category what so ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.49.52 (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%, singles are it's own section, not part of the "reception" of the album! Obsessed Battlefield (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well if you look now singles are no longer part of reception, althought i do disagree because how successful singles are is an indication of how well an album was recieved!!! (Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That's ridiculous, look at Flo Rida as an example. His singles are tremendously successful, yet his albums sales are very low. Singles whould have its own category, youre outnumbered, stop changing it

excuse me but i am not outnumbered, the number of users who visit the page and don't have a problem with it is much greater than the few who do. singles shouldnt have their own section because according to WP:albums they shouldn't even be listed on the page at all except for in the infobox. successful articles such as Fantasy Ride by ciara work extremely well in this format. you cannot compare Jordin Sparks (pop/r&B) to Flo Rida (hip-hop). Therefore because the article should not even have a section of its own on singles its been incorporate into another section as a SUMMARY! the actual info is contained on the single's own page. repeated changes will not be appreciated. please discuss and do not revert until a concensus is reached otherwise users will be referred to admin for edit warring. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Changes from July 18[edit]

before making huge reversions or changes to my recent edits to the article please see the list of changes made below along with the reasons why:

  1. All Music is strongly credited as an excellent source for album genres/tracklists/credits and therefore i have replaced the genres according to All Music. Do not change.
  2. I have removed a list of rumoured producers from the infobox and replaced with actual producers from the track listing (which was also confirmed by All Music).
  3. I have changed the date released to the earliest date possible which was Australia/Ireland despite Sparks being an American artist according to wikipedia rules: WP:albums#infobox
  4. removed TBA from the singles in the infobox according to WP:crystal
  5. altered intro to match new info from All Music and also because Sparks did not work with Stargate on this album according to info given.
  6. The whole article gives background about the album, therefore changed first heading to "Conception" as this is a better description of the information contained. (albums such as Beyonce's Dangerously in Love which are award winning use this format).
  7. According to general wikipedia concensus and WP:albums singles should have their own page and therefore there should be no need to included them. However for ease of navigation and finding information it is becomming more acceptable to include a summary section about singles and it is for these reasons that "singles" doesnt get its own section.
  8. The track listing from spark's first album Jordin Sparks is listed in a numeric list. Furthermore WP:albums clearly states that numeric lists should be used except for where the track-listing is complexe e.g. many features guests, many samples, many producers etc. This track-listing is not and is therefore perfectly fine and correct as a numeric list.

If you have any queries or suggestions for further improvements please discuss. Do not make outright edits. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Reviews[edit]

1. there should only be 10 reviews 2. in alphabetical order 3. try 2 add positive as well as negative reviews 4. tabloid magazines (people , us mag) should be avoided! list ONLY MUSIC RELATED magazines and/or newspapers! (MariAna Mimi 06:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

I would like you opinion as to how Newsday, a not that well known tabloid newspaper that is not only music related, is better than nationally known magazines. Aspects (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

Countless Wikipedia pages for albums such as I Am… Sasha Fierce, Confessions (Usher album) and Circus (Britney Spears album) list 'commercial performance' and 'critical response' under the headline RECEPTION, not as their own hedlines, please stop changing it. --JordinSparksRocks (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have just done a classic case of WP:original research, you have researched several articles that make your point just to justify your edits. justification is given above for why the album has the format it does. you have failed to say why your edits add to the standards and quality of the article. as i have pointed out numerous times under WP:Albums (the rules for pages about albums) there is no mention of have a section about singles, however many articles break this rule and so informally it is acceptable to have a small section about singles but this does not justify singles having their own major section. to compromise i had created the commericial success section to prevent further edit warring. the format works well on articles such as Fantasy Ride by Ciara and if your intent on using beyonce as an example take a look at her first album Dangerously in Love's page which was featured and noted for its high standards in quality - it does not have own singles sectioN!!!!!!!!!!! (Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

All that is great however you completely missed the point here. If you look at the headline,I wrote RECEPTION, not singles. Even though 90% of album articles have its own headline for singles, if YOU AND ONLY YOU insist that singles does not have its own section than it'll remain that way. However Wikipedia is for everyone and not just Lil-unique1 (You literally undo the majority of edits other users make when its not needed). I suggest we come to a common ground. Would you be okay with singles going under 'Promotion and releases' and commercial performance and critical response gogin under 'Reception'? --JordinSparksRocks (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with what i insist. The reason i dont think singles should have their own section is because i spent the time rearching this article and i created the page. although this doesn't give me the right to state any more authority of the article than anyone else it does mean that i should have a say in how the article looks. it does seem silly to have a small section titled singles, maybe when there is more singles released (i.e. 3 or 4) we can discuss having a seperate section but right now i feel that it is unprofessional to have such a section for just one single (there is not much to right for single number 2). When i designed the article's layout i used Dangerously in Love (beyonce album) and Fantasy Ride (ciara album) as examples as they have been noted by other users and administrators for their high standards and ease of navigation. i do agree with your last statement about finding common ground. i would be happier and willing to compromise with your suggestion. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
and with response to my reversions of other users' edits this is because usually they do not satisfy wikipedia rules or are unrequired e.g. beaurocratic. and you'll find that articles about albums come in many shapes and forms, the statistic won't be as high as you've quoted. my editing style on wikipedia is all about finding common ground and high quality for ease of reading. if you spend ages writing and improving an article you won't let others edit it in a way that undoes your own edits. before i changed the layout of this article it was unlegibale. i agree wikipedia is for everyone but that doesn't mean that anyone can write/do anything without repercussions. there are standards to meet. believe me when i say i have learnt a lot in the last 6 months since i've joined wikipedia and become an editor. it is not an easy thing but at the end of the day i edited this article to be an example of how great album pages can look when they are properly sourced and maintained. this article is 100% factual and that cannot be doubted. im sure even Jordin Sparks herself would approve. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Is SALES an appropriate column in the Chart?[edit]

Is SALES an appropriate column in the Chart?

It will be CONSTANTLY increasing requiring CONSTANT updating.
It seems to always be a matter of contention with sometimes FANTASTIC unverified numbers claimed.

Maybe it should just show "Certifications" or (sales thresholds) as in when it is "certified" Gold, Platinum, etc.
EXAMPLE:

Charts and Sales Certifications[edit]

Chart positions Certifications
(sales thresholds)
CAN[1] US[2] US Heat[3]
15 72 5

Iknow23 (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ Ref 1
  2. ^ Ref 2
  3. ^ Ref 3
  4. ^ Ref 4
  5. ^ Ref 5

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battlefield (album). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battlefield (album). 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) 07:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battlefield_(album)&oldid=1206189590"