Talk:List of 2009 albums

Adding albums

If you are adding albums, please be sure to add to the rowspan number for the month, and the date if it already exists (this doesn't apply if you are adding a new date). This just keeps the numbers from ending up in the month column, and keeps the rest of the info in its correct column. Mtndrums (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ciara - Fantasy Ride

Ciara's Album Fantasy Ride is not on this list. Refer Fantasy_Ride. I would do it but it really should be done by someone with more editing skills. - Nick 203.26.30.234 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson

The High End of Low —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.214.96 (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Table is Broken

There are a few lines where the table is somewhat amusingly broken. I'd fix it but I don't really have the time at the moment. Just wanted to point it out though. — Ilyanep (Talk) 14:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix this. Anyone? Free (talk) ^(HRWiki) 21:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire table is a formatting nightmare. I'll take a look into it, but it's not an overnight fixer. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

When I made the page using the 2008 as a guide it didn't work out for some reason. Even though it was a character for character copy, I still could not get it to be right. Editors also have no idea what they are doing when they add albums; the code needs to be updated each time! Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a simple fix: getting the rowspan numbers for the month and date to match up with how many albums fall under each. I added a note at the top that hopefully would-be editors will heed so the list doesn't get back to being as disorganized as it was.

Since some of us aren't coding whizzes, and the 'Adding Albums' section doesn't explain clearly, is there a way someone could post an easier to understand instruction that shows those of us having trouble how to edit it properly? I'm not an idiot, but every method I've tried doesn't work. Nothing ends up in the right column and it's quite frustrating. Any clear instruction would help.~*aquadonia*~ (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The day and month columns both have rowspan attributes which are equal to the number of entries that correspond to that date. So you need to increase them both by one if you're adding a new entry. To add a new entry, add

|-
| ''[[Title]]''
| [[Artist]]
|

wherever appropriate (if you're adding to the end of the table, make sure it's before the last |}). You then need to extend the appropriate month and day columns by one row each. So scroll up and find the day row that corresponds to the album you just added. The day row should look something like this (but with a different date and/or color).

| rowspan="1" align="center" style="background:#A8BBEF;
  textcolor:#000;" |[[September 20|20]]

Now increase the rowspan by one:

| rowspan="2" align="center" style="background:#A8BBEF;
  textcolor:#000;" |[[September 20|20]]

Then scroll up and find the month row that corresponds to the date (see the letters, in between the <br />s, S E P T E M B E R):

| rowspan="32" align="center" align="center" style="background:#4F4FCF;
  textcolor:#000;" | <font-size=300> '''S<br />E<br />P<br />T<br />E<br />
  M<br />B<br />E<br />R<br/>'''

And increase that rowspan by one:

| rowspan="33" align="center" align="center" style="background:#4F4FCF;
  textcolor:#000;" | <font-size=300> '''S<br />E<br />P<br />T<br />E<br />
  M<br />B<br />E<br />R<br/>'''

Now it should work. If you're adding a new date, make sure you reset the rowspan to "1". —Gendralman (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Style of tables/proposal of merging pages

They still seem broken, the tables do and I'd suggest we should do what was done for pages such as 2004 in music (among other years) and make the tables look like that. But also, in 2009, I don't think we need two separate pages for albums. I know we're going a different route in 2010 now but in 2009 we should merge the two pages and put the albums released back on there since it's the last year where we created one global page for the music biz in a year. All the albums from the 2009 in music page (and references) were deleted and there were TONS more albums on that page than there are on this page, and I'd hate for anyone (especially myself) to have to fish through the whole web in search of those albums again. What is there to be done? 96.250.1.76 (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should change the style of tables. That way we can also have subsection headers for the months. However, I feel that we definitely should have two different pages. 2009 in music is still way too (unreadably, detrimentally) long, even with the list of albums removed (I'm still working on condensing it). That page should be for an overarching summary of the year in music, somewhere in between the set index form of 2010 in music and the comprehensiveness that we have had in the past. As for the missing content on this page, I didn't realize that the content wasn't completely identical between the pages. I'll work on getting what we missed back over here. —Akrabbim^talk 13:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man. Looks like this page:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=2009_in_music&diff=340007888&oldid=339754332

is the latest one with all the albums, so now we know where to get that info.

Those tables you're making are exactly the ones I was hoping would be used! Should we use those tables for the "List of albums released in 2010" page too, or wait until 2010 is over?

Oh, and I almost forgot, should we sort everything by artist now, just like in previous years? I don't want to make you do too much but I was just wondering.

Again, thanks for the response.96.250.1.76 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What tables people use for the 2010 list should be determined at that specific talk page, since there isn't any project-wide consensus at this point. And what do you mean "sort everything by artist"? —Akrabbim^talk 21:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sort by artist, that means arrange the list of albums by the name of the artist in alphabetical order. That's how other pages have done it. Or someone else could do it (like me, eventually). 96.250.1.76 (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example? All the ones I know of are sorted chronologically. —Akrabbim^talk 01:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The way they are sorted right now, they are in alphabetical order by album name (January 20th of 2009 has Alligator Purse, Blood Bank, The Crawling Distance, The Crying Light, etc.). The artist names are not in alphabetical order. That is what I am referring to. If you look at 2004 in music, check out May 18th for a good example (Asobi Seksu, Delays, Dokken, Dynamite Boy, etc.). Those are in order by artist name. I hope that explains it. 96.250.1.76 (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess if you wanted to change it yourself, it doesn't really make a difference either way, as long as it is consistent throughout the article. As far as I know, all the other Lists of albums released in... sort it by album title. —Akrabbim^talk 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The ones from most years do sort it by artist but I guess I'll just wait until this page is finished and then do it myself. I don't want to make a big deal of it; just pointing it out. Sorry for the trouble. 96.250.1.76 (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

References?

One other thing I didn't bring up - are we scrapping references now? I see most albums on the list don't have refs anymore. If it's a lot of work, I understand and I'll give it that. But if we're getting rid of them, then would any album be fair game at this point? I apologize if it's a dumb question. 96.250.1.76 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There were no references before. Editors are in the process of slowly adding them now. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right, the references were all being kept at 2009 in music, before the section was removed to have it exclusively at this page. Those references as well as a number of additional albums that were included there but not here still need to be moved over. —Akrabbim^talk 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Page length

I have only gone up to August, and the list is already almost 200 kB long (including the impressive 570 refs). This is unacceptable, but I'm not sure what course of action should be taken. I don't think that we should be selective in the data, as I can't think of any encyclopedic metric to determine what stays and what goes. The best idea I can think of is to break it up by quarters: List of albums released in first quarter 2009, second quarter, third, fourth. That however leaves the question of what we do with this list (redirect, disambiguate, delete?). Other possible fracturings are by month (too short?) or genre (too subjective, possible overlap?). What do other people think? —Akrabbim^talk 02:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Going by month seems very unnecessary creating more than 10 new articles containing just a semi-short list of albums. Although I really can't think of a major downside to the idea of doing it by genre at the moment, the idea you have suggested (By quarterly) seems like the best option. As for the current page of albums be turned into a disambiguation page containing all four articles by quarter.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 02:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should redirect it to 2009 in music#Albums? That section should be eventually expanded to summarize the particularly notable and best-selling albums of 2009. —Akrabbim^talk 03:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't do it by genre. Usually genres are not sourced and what would we do if an album fit into several genres? I think the quarters idea would work the best. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and was bold (with your encouragement). Do you think I did the right thing with the talk pages? —Akrabbim^talk 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a little unorthodox, but I suppose it could work. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)