Talk:List of 2010 albums

Length?

I'm concerned that this page too might enter the problem of length. After I made the changes to 2010 in music, I am reluctant to consider splitting the other music related articles down any further; It will make navigation too complicated. I will leave that whole can of worms to future editors who are so willing and bold. Perhaps, these articles can not be broken down, and we will just have to live with them being long, but I'm content with the changes I've made so far. I will no longer be making any major edits to the music pages. Much of my time now will be towards policing and updating information. (Tigerghost (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

Release date dilemma

Most albums are released on different dates in different parts of the world. Which date should be the one we define; The date in which an album is released in the artists' home nation, or the date that an album is released first? For example, let's say the fictional American pop group "BandStar" releases an album in Europe on 22 February, but releases the same album in the US on 25 February, and releases the same album in Japan on 9 July? Which date should we use? The homeland release date, or the first release? (Tigerghost (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC))

WikiProject Albums likes to list only the earliest known release date for an album. Perhaps the same should hold true here. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of Origin

I have left the origin part of the Corinne Bailey Rae album blank because although being a UK artist, the album was first released in Japan. The "origin" part of the tables, does it refer to the ethnicity of the artist(s) or where the album was first released?--猛禽22 ^•• 01:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The origin column is for the artist's nationality and hometown. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Singles?

Is listing the album's singles too much? It seems like unnecessary extra clutter to me... Fezmar9 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem nessecary to me either. Quite a few of these albums do not have singles, but albums that do have singles would require some extra and rather fruitless research to confirm these singles. The goal of this article is to list albums released in 2010, and as long as we satisfy those circumstances, I could careless about the other columns.--猛禽22 ^•• 05:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Japanese albums

The Japanese albums need to be listed here, as none are currently. There's probably too many as it'd dwarf the main list, but most of them are high charting. Here are the ones that made the top 10:

• AAA - Heartful
• Mao Abe - Pop
• Abingdon Boys School - Abingdon Road
• Aska - 12
• The Birthday - Star Blows
• BoA - Identity
• Boom Boom Satellites - 19972007
• Minori Chihara - Sing All Love
• Fact - In the Blink of an Eye
• Final Fantasy XIII Soundtrack
• Funky Monkey Babys - Funky Monkey Babys Best
• Garnet Crow - The Best History of Garnet Crow at the Crest...
• Girl Next Door - Next Future
• Hilchryme - Recital
• HY - Whistle
• Kaela Kimura - 5years
• Kumi Koda - Best: Third Universe/Universe
• Lands - Olympos
• Love Psychedelico - Abbot Kinney
• May J. - For You
• Noriyuki Makihara - Best Life
• Noriyuki Makihara - Best Love
• Rhymester - Manifest
• Sophia - 15
• Tōhōshinki - Best Selection 2010
• The Yellow Monkey - Complete Sicks

--Prosperosity (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute to the list. It is supposed to be a global list. (Tigerghost (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

Cask Tompson

I removed removed Cask Thompson, I don't think it qualifies as an album release. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cask_Thomson (debaser_1979 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

Tables

We should do like we did with the 'List of albums released in 2009' and make those tables readable again, and soon! Otherwise it'll be a hassle if we wait until the beginning of next year. 96.250.1.76 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mar 2nd

• DJ Khaled - Victory
• Jason DeRulo - Jason DeRulo
• Various Artists - SOS Haiti (not completely sure bout the title but its somethin lik dat)

These were released on 03/02/2010. Also, there are quite a lot of haiti compilations lik

• download to donate for haiti
• healing 4 haiti
• hope for haiti now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.65.47 (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

They all appear non-notable.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 13:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Updating the List

I can't always be here to do this. I've only done this the last few days because I've found the time to do so. Even though it is spring break, I have a lot of things to do, and I'll be working all this week starting Wednesday. I'm just asking for somebody to update the list when I'm not around.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 01:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. The time consuming part of this list is to get the data in table format. Currently it is half/half. I vote to remove the info from its table format and make it ALL into a simple list. It should be easier to update then. -- Nick 220.244.245.23 (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Nick. Angel (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I found 2010 album that is not on the list. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Movie_Songbook Please include it, as I am not into all this wiki thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.83.60.156 (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 in heavy metal music

so i have here a large library of metal music. would it be alright if i threw them in here on this wiki page? Ant smusher (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This should've gone in the respected Talk:2010 in heavy metal music talk page, but I'll answer anyways. Yes, but as long as: (a). the artist to the album you're adding has an article, (b). you source the release date for the album.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 02:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Vote to move data out of table format

Is anyone against the idea of taking the album information out of its table format? Putting the table in a simple list allows for easy updates by others. I will leave this for a few days before I move to make the edit myself. -- Nick 220.244.245.23 (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about changing the list to tables. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The tables definitely need to be updated. March and April have just passed. Alex (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if there's an actual reason why the page essentially hasn't been updated since March... Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

220, we have to balance usability with appearance here. While the tables are certainly a bit more complicated (and easily messed up) than we might like, the "simple" lists are also ugly — it would be more appropriate to find a "third way", so to speak, than to simply convert the table back to plain list format. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The table system of 2010 in heavy metal music is significantly less complex than what is here. It also does not require updating since there is no distinction made between already released albums and albums and albums to be released. This article has not been updated since March because, even for an editor familiar with how to update this complex table, it's a lot of time consuming and tedious editing. Plus there was only one editor willing to do it and he understandably gave up. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree, those tables look far simpler and more easily maintainable. I just moved the seven or eight albums from March that were still in the "pending releases" section up into the "released" table, and I lost count of how many times I had to click "preview" and try to figure out where I had to change yet another rowspan number to get everything lined up properly — so I fully agree that the existing table format isn't worth using if it's going to cause this page to stay backlogged because so few editors have the patience to deal with it regularly. I'd support switching to that system instead. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to still keep the "genre," "origin," and "ref" columns? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ref" is probably necessary, as including a valid reference has traditionally been a bottom-line requirement for even listing an album here in the first place, but I'm not particularly wedded to genre or origin as those are usually details one can find out by clicking on the album's title anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well on 2010 in heavy metal music the citation is simply added next to the album title – there is no separate column for the ref. Also, we might want to include User:Tigerghost in this conversation. The division of 2010 in music was entirely his idea. I believe he wanted to include genre and origin to avoid having too many specific additional articles created (ie, 2010 in Canadian punk, 2010 in British hip hop, etc). Fezmar9 (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider it Done! :-P

Bignick6 (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I have undone your edits. This discussion is still on going, and thus far, the consensus is to keep the information in a table format. Just a different and more simple format. We still need to reach consensus on keeping additional columns. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Boo! But OK, fair enough. I was just being proactive. What is a fair and adequate amount of time for a decision to be made and the necessary edits to be done? I don't care either way as long as the information is kept up to date. If you decide to keep the data in table format then I believe the onus should be on you (Fezmar9) to put the rest of it into the one format. -- Nick Bignick6 (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd support anything that would make it simplier to edit by all. The format the article is in presently is nice, but in order to add anything to it, you'd have to be highly skilled. I did model this article after 2010 in film to maintain some form of standard to the "in whatever year" pages, however, this article is worldwide, vast, diverse, and complex. Since there has not been much activity to the table format or demand to edit it, I would vote to remove the table format for simplicity reasons. It is nice to have everything boxed out with song, artist, genre, and such, but if no one can place their input, or have a chance to contribute their knowledge into the article, then why is there a Wikipedia in the first place. I admit that I did lose interest in maintaining the article shortly after creating it; so many other things came up and it was time consuming to police and update. The problem is: How do we create a new set-up that does not remove any valueable information present? This conflict was highly similar for when I split the entire original 2010 in music page into separate articles relating to genre, country of origin, ect... As for me, I have no ideas to solve this problem, so I will sit back and see if some other bright minds can collaborate to find something that works. Thanks for including me in the debate Fezmar9, even though I might not have brought much to the table (Tigerghost (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for your input Tigerghost! I started to update the article a little, but I am unsure if everyone still wants to keep the other columns. I don't edit this article too much, so I don't know if they make editing difficult for IPs. It would be good to know before I continue editing.... Fezmar9 (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

missin albums

• More Malice - Snoop Dogg
• AC/DC: Iron Man 2 - AC/DC
• To The Sea - Jack Johnson
• Crunk Rock - Lil Jon
• Thank Me Later - Drake
• Teflon Don - Rick Ross
• Versus - Usher
• You Get What You Give - Zac Brown Band
• 6: Commitment - Seal
• I Am Not A Human Being - Lil Wayne
• Epic - R. Kelly
• Clapton - Eric Clapton

The following are listed as yet to be released but have already been:

• Hands All Over - Maroon 5
• Wake Up! - John Legend
• A Year Without Rain - Selena Gomez & The Scene
• A Thousand Suns - Linkin Park

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.75.47 (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have for these? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source???? Billboard. iTunes. Wikipedia. Metacritic. the Wikipedia sites for these albums have reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.72.153 (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of this list?

In 2009, approximately 98,000 albums were released (http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i4ad94ea6265fac02d4c813c0b6a93ca2). This comes down to about 1,900 albums/week. This list captures approximately 5 albums/week. I know that the math here is very inexact, but it suggests that the list is not just incomplete, it is 99.7% incomplete. At a certain point, quantity becomes quality, which is to say: this list is not what it claims to be, except in a very narrow sense. It is not a list of albums released in 2010, it is a list of albums released in 2010 that meet some unstated criteria for being list-worthy. Since the criteria for inclusion are undisclosed, I really question the value of the list. It may be well-sourced, but it definitely isn't encyclopedic and I doubt it could even be considered almanac-like (almaniacal?) as it is so incomplete. I suspect these questions have been raised before, but....140.163.0.5 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Kat Deluna

Where is Kat Deluna's Inside Out?--Stryn^(t) 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Album Miss

I don't find Scorpions' album Sting in the Tail, released in 19 April 2010, you should add it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.92.100.210 (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

WHITE DWARF / Silent Treatment 2010

Band name: WHITE DWARF Album title: Silent Treatment Length: 46 min. Label: Anvll Candle Records Genre: Hardstyle Vendor: FYE stores — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.225.138 (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)