Wikipedia

Talk:2003 in music

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

What is the point of this page - is it meant to be forecasts, fiction, or what? Is the "owner" (sic) having a laugh? It would be nice if they could explain their approach. Otherwise I suspect much of the content should just be removed. Repeatedly.

Thank you, I've been saying the same thing since it was created. -- Zoe
The article is getting a bit messy. I would prefer to ignore release fdates and just add stuff that is actually released. I've tried checking by looking them up on cdnow, but it is tediously slow with my IPS and someone is adding stuff faster than I can check it!. I've moved a couple to 2002 that cdnow says were released last year. -- SGBailey 09:07 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

I have started adding release dates. I think that makes more sense than just removing albums. I think the person who is adding such a lot to this page needs to consider a similar strategy. And communicating with other users woudln;t be such a bad idea either. :) 194.117.133.118 08:54 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

These items really shouldn't be here until they actually occur. -- Zoe

I totally agree, so I have moved the content here for the moment: -- SGBailey 07:59 Dec 25, 2002 (UTC)

Is it right to have a "Top selling albums" of the year when we are still in January? - I know we could keep updating it, but it might be easier to leave it blank until January NEXT year. -- SGBailey 23:51 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

What does "returns" mean? -- Zoe - Nothing, as far as I can tell. Therefore: Out the window! - Tubby

I see that the above albums, plus a stack of others, have been added back as having been released. I don't believe many, if any, of them have (we're only a week into the year, and very few records get released this time of year anyway), but really can't be bothered to check. Does anybody know for sure? A possibility might be to list them as "records rumoured for release in 2003" or something - I'd rather they weren't here at all, but it looks like they'll keep being added back if they're just deleted. --Camembert

-- You keep adding future events, and I'll keep deleting them. -- Zoe

I don't really see the problem with tentative release dates and album titles as long as they are described as such. Or should we delete U.S. plan to invade Iraq as well? However, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the user of this page not replying here (I'd like to see sources for the future releases), and remaining anonymous. For the time being I think it's fair to remove his prose. --Eloquence 09:35 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Even though I dislike future events in timelines, I removed the text because I held a view similar to Eloquence's. --Mrwojo 20:42 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

64.175.251.52, is there any possibility you can either log in and use the Minor change capability, or else make all of your changes at once and not hog the entire Recent Changes page? -- Zoe

Zoe, if you use IE or Mozilla, try the "Enhanced Recent Changes" option in your user prefs. This summarizes a set of changes to a single page. --Eloquence 04:09 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)
Wow, that's cool! How long has that been in?
A little more than a week, IIRC. --Mrwojo
Ahh... I've been away you see. Mintguy
So what do all the little characters in Enhance Recent Changes mean? What's the blue arrow? What's an "N"?
On second thought, I don't like it. There's no Diff. -- Zoe
"Cur" does the same thing as Diff used to do; this confused me too. (Diff shows up only on the grouped blue arrow entries: It shows the changes of an entire group of recent edits.) --Mrwojo
N means what it always meant NEW. Click on the arrows and go Wow! Mintguy

BTW, if there's any bug in the new RC, please tell User:Magnus Manske about it. --Eloquence 15:54 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah the future events is starting to irritate me as well. At one point I put in the heading, "Albums Expected", in addition to the Albums Released, but it was removed by that guy. Is this a good way to arrange the page?
-Tubby

I'd rather they not be there at all. Expected release dates for consumer products are subject to wild changes. If they must be there, they need to be under an "Albums Expected" header, yes. Making the change... --nknight 20:09 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Top hits - it's January 23rd and there are 13 top hits listed. How is this possible? We must be using a rather generous definition, or something?? If this rate were to continue then by the end of the year we could have over 200 "Top Hits", which I fear would not be very useful. Can anyone comment on criteria for inclusion? Nevilley 08:41 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

The criteria is whatever the maniac that inserted them used (it was one guy who has never spoken to us and was the reason for including the "Albums Expected" section, check the over-flowing "Older Versions" page). I wouldn't worry too much. It's probably at least ballpark-accurate right now :). We can chop and replace as the year wears on. --nknight 13:04 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

"Top hits to be announced?" That is utterly ridiculous. It's going to be deleted, don't even try to put that back. -- Zoe

Yep - ridiculous. --mav
I think that's basically how the industry works :( Carson Daly lets us all know what we're going to like, thereby ridding the system of inefficient choices and taste and silliness like that. Tuf-Kat
Mmmmm, Bacsktreet Boys. Thanks, MTV! You've broadened my cultural horizons. Koyaanis Qatsi

What does this mean: L.Francis Is Named The Official Fifth Member Of Revolution? What's Revolution? Does L.Francis have a first name? Do we have an article about them? -- Zoe

Just to clarify, why the users are releasing my information that I edited. Can someone please stop this. It happened when I was moving the May 6 albums to the Albums Released. -- Michael

I always thought an LP was a long playing gramophone record, but on this page it seems to mean original studio album. -- Karl

I've since created the Original studio album page and linked LP to it, in order to clarify things. I've also linked Live album and Greatest hits album. -- Karl Oct 10, 2003.

Just as I said, here is my criteria for a "hit:" Radio Airplay. Chart position. These two get the most weight.
Liscencing can make a song a hit, so that is also considered.
That is about it. I have not considered MV circulation because how popular a video is only has a small influence on how popular the song is. Please tell me if you have objections.
Kathy T 22:14, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

1. I've changed the format on the "Awards" section slightly, so it doesn't flood the TOC as much. It appear to be a little harder to read though. Take a look and feel free to revert if you don't like it. 2. What do people think of a section for charts? -- Chuq 03:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added a few albums randomly 311 - Evolver, Oleander - Joyride, Ill Niño - Confession, and (Hed) P.E. - Blackout

There are of course tons more, but that's all I did for now since I have never done any editing on Wikipedia before. Dramacomic Feb 3, 2006


hellooooo i have no idea wat this page is for or about coz it really dosent make sence lol!!! well neways I LOVE FALL OUT BOY!! lol luv jaz xo

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2003 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, 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: 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) 22:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2003 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) 09:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2003_in_music&oldid=1196383898"