Talk:List of 2013 albums

To be included on this stand-alone list, each entry should meet the following list criteria (see discussion):

Entry is an album, EP, or mixtape that was released in the year 2013.
Entry consists primarily of recordings which had not previously been released, i.e. excluding reissues, remasters and compilation albums, but including remix albums and re-recordings.
Entry meets music notability guideline, usually by being the subject of three or more non-trivial, published works appearing in known reliable sources.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

ARTPOP - Lady Gaga

ladygaga.com has the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.111.79 (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Format update

I've changed the formatting of the tables on the page. Albums with known release months should be added to the appropriate month's section, a new section should be created for that month if it does not exist already. If the exact date is not known, put {{TBA}} in place of the release date, instead of just listing the month. If an album's release month is not known it should be added to the "Unscheduled and TBA" section, possible and vague statements relating to release dates ("Early 2013", "Late autumn", etc.) should not be included because albums without absolute release dates tend to have their estimated release dates moved a lot. I think this is the best way to go about this as it looks very organized and easy to read on the page. Scarce2 (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the Formatting.

I went through and fixed the ridiculously jacked up formatting of this page. It was so terrible my eyes started bleeding while trying to read it. Try and keep the tables clean if you add more to it. Please? --Kygora 02:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been fighting the eye-bleed, too - Fixing the tables many times in recent weeks. I've started making specific annotation, to keep an audit trail of this task.

For me, the most annoying breakages are where an editor adds a new release and tinkers with the formatting sufficiently to have their addition look passable, but leaving neighbouring entries broken.

I'm coming to the opinion that, either:

The tabulation must be made-more-plain, to suit the limitations of novice-editors, e.g. by means of a template for table-rows, or ...
We accept the tabulation is inherently too difficult for novice-editors and protect the page from unregistered editors. :/

–DjScrawl (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose the second option. Not only it goes against the whole spirit of Wikipedia, but will also deprive this list from a large portion of entries. During the year of this list's existence, there has only been around five regular contributors, and a great bulk of information is introduced by IPs. However, I also grow tired of fighting an occasional newbie's stupidity, so I'm not against changing the format. The main problem stems from the merged cells with dates, especially from the "rowspan" attribute. Templates, I guess, could solve the issue with leaving cells blank (producers, refs); if we provide several row-templates as a parameter for a date-template, their number could be calculated automatically - but I don't know how ;) Another issue is the Visual Uneditor which (as yet) can't handle tables properly, but we are powerless here... BTW, I guess it would be easier to experiment at List of 2014 albums, which is still short. YLSS (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genres

I have noticed that not only is the genre list fairly lacking, some of the genres posted can be argued as subgenres. For example, "opera" could be under "theatrical", and "electropop" is most definitely under "electronic"

However, there seems to be no way to edit that text box. Is it automatically updated depending on the frequency and genres posted on individual artists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThirteenThirtyFive (talk • contribs) 21:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade Fire

I know not how to edit these tables, so could someone it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.233.194 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide some information on their new album (or a link to it), I will gladly do so. What I've seen yet, is that they plan to release an album in "late 2013" - but no title, no date, not even month. If there is nothing more, than it is not really worth to add it yet. YLSS (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worthy. 2.98.225.116 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Marling

I don't understand these tables so can someone do it please. Album title = Once I Was An Eagle Release date = 27th May Thanks. 2.98.225.116 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Paul

There is no evidence at all that an album is being released by Jai Paul in April or that the album will be called Rayner's Lane. Jai Paul is known to be from the area in London called Rayners Lane but that has no apostrophe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.144.15 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are EPs/LPs included

In this list? ErdoS (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, yes. Lately some artists have been releasing EPs the size of LPs and vice versa. However, if an EP includes only songs released later on a proper album, then only the latter should be included. YLSS (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Adrenaline

I'm not sure how to edit tables, but Audio Adrenaline released an album on March 12, 2013. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kings_%26_Queens_%28Audio_Adrenaline_album%29 Lucius Funk (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Sk4170 (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unscheduled and TBA

Why do people add artists such as AC/DC and Iron Maiden to the list of "Unscheduled and TBA" in a page entitled "List Of 2013 Albums"? To the best of my knowledge, there is currently absolutely no (and has never been) any concrete information or evidence that these artists will or were planning to release new records in the year 2013. Indeed, a lot of artists included in the "Unscheduled And TBA" section (such as AC/DC) have not even been backed up by a reference.

And even when a reference is given, it is often a false one. For example, the reference cited to back up the inclusion of Iron Maiden turns out to be no more than a brief, two-year old interview in which their vocalist pretty much states that Iron Maiden intends to someday record and release a new album, but without any mention of a possible release date. Singer Bruce Dickinson may as well have been talking about the year 2020 (that is, if a new Iron Maiden album will ever come out at all). In my opinion, this type of reference might (barely) be a proper one to warrant a mention on the wiki page of the artist itself, when discussing possible future releases, but has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on a wiki page about (the list of albums already released or up for release in) the specific year 2013.

Indeed, I wonder whether a section entitled "Unscheduled And TBA" even belongs in (what is apparently supposed to be) an encyclopedia at all. Should an encyclopedia not try to restrict itself to what IS and what people HAVE done, rather than what MAY appear and what people WANT to do in the future? To be honest, the remainder of the article does not appear to be very trustworthy, up-to-date, complete or well-referenced either, but the "Unscheduled And TBA" section in particular makes the entire "List Of 2013 Albums" wiki page, as it currently stands, in my modest opinion seem rather unfit to be included in a (supposed) encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.214.26.168 (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of this section was actually moved to this article from List of albums released in 2012 once 2012 finished and 2013 began, without checking, verifying or anything. So if you notice any outdated or misleading information, please, go ahead and remove it! But not all: some entries had even been assigned to a particular date before the release was postponed, while other are indeed scheduled, but to an unknown date later this year. BTW, in List of 2014 albums I intend to enforce stricter criteria, especially once 2013 is over; what's your opinion about its present state? YLSS (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

albums missing

I know Five finger death punch released two albums this year. as I dont want to mess with the formatting. i think it might be worth updating this page before the year ends. im sure there are also other album missing

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Five_Finger_Death_Punch#Discography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.14.60.252 (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unscheduled/TBA??

Why is there still a section for unscheduled/TBA albums when it's 2014?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.6.67 (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buckethead?

I just searched thru the list of 2013 releases (looking for a trigger for an unfocused memory of a recent reference) and was puzzled to find a Metal band named Buckethead releasing a record every couple of weeks throughout the year.

Are they are stellar over-achievers or self-promoting wiki abusers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstark123 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]