Talk:List of 2015 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 2015.
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.

Speculation of album release's is not suitable for Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) article

Wikipedia is an on-line user editable encyclopedia. As such, it is a reference source, and all data entered should be provable. Web citations work well, or newspaper, journals, books and other off-line sources. On-line sources are easier to check for quick references. For an article like List of 2015 albums, a lot of the references are popular culture references, which makes on-line media sources the most likely and easiest citation to find and quote. However, not every internet link is appropriate. The internet contains many web logs (blogs) and video logs. These are generally the users/creators opinion, or at best they are populated with information found on the web, but without sources, they are unconfirmable. Social media sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter may be posted by the artist or the publisher, but by the nature of the websites, the posted reference scrolls downs and drops out of the page, making the links poor sources for citations.

On the other hand, major and moderate media sources monitor the social media sites, and often pick up what the artist or publisher is trying to inform the public. These media sites follow rules of journalism, and are not allowed to post articles without confirming the story, or if they do, they lose their reputation and become another opinion site. Once a reputable media site has posted an article about an item of interest, such as a new album release by an artist, then the information becomes reliable enough to post on an encyclopedia site such as Wikipedia. Because of the pop culture nature of the information, the stated date may slip or change, and the suggested title may change, so regular monitoring of expected releases becomes necessary. This is where the large user-base of Wikipedia becomes helpful, because a large group will be fans of different groups, and a monitoring of album due dates becomes possible without becoming a full time job.

However, on occasion, a Wikipedia user wants to post about an album release without having definitive knowledge of whether the album will be released. It could be because the artist is teasing the public, trying to build interest. It could be because others are speculating, and the wiki-user interprets the speculation as fact. However, it happens, speculation is entered as data into the wiki-article, maybe with a citation, often times without. A reading of the citation generally shows when the reference is speculation. Other users, myself included, will try to purge speculation from the article. This is not an attack on the person, but an attempt to maintain the integrity of the article. The information the wiki-user is entering may in fact be correct, but without strong proof, that is not knowable by others.

The integrity of Wikipedia depends on maintaining the articles with provable facts, using citations so that others may verify the data as necessary. Mburrell (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New of montreal album

of Montreal announced that their album Aureate Gloom is coming out March 3rd 2015. I am not familiar with Wikipedia formatting so if someone could that it would be great. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.132.199 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the TBAs

We should delete all the TBAs, the album projects that don't have names. We should delete the listings supported only by a reference that says the artist is in the studio recording something. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can delete the ones saying they are just recording, but if the source says they have a 2015 release, then it can stay. Because it is supported that they have an album this year. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joseph Prasad. First, this wikipedia page is part of a series, from 2008 to 2015. If you look back at the previous pages and go into history, it has been standard to list unscheduled albums, as long as they are cited. When I created this page, I took the 2014 page and zeroed the data but kept the framework, the wording. If you go into the edit page for the List of 2015 albums, directly below the last section, which is listed Unscheduled and TBA (again, a historically nomenclature), there is a hidden note visible to editors which states "UNSOURCED change will be removed". This indicates other editors have settled on the format of allowing TBA albums as long as a citation can be provided. There are a variety of citations, and Wikipedia has a standard, so blogs, social networks, and YouTube videos are poor quality and questionable citations. The minimum I have allowed or used are commercial sites like iTunes or Amazon, but I prefer financially neutral sites such as on-line journals and magazines. On-line because of the ease of locating the sources, verifying sources, or checking accuracy.

This is an article designed to inform others of albums due to be released in 2015. If a citation lists that a band or singer or publisher intends to release an album this year, that satisfies the criteria for entry into the article. We provide 6 columns to gather some amount of data, but the bare minimum should be the band or singer, and the citation. As Joseph Prasad mentioned, the source for the data needs to list an intent for the album to be released, not just recorded. After that, it is in the winds of fate. Even albums with cited titles and listed dates get moved, or even dropped. The Collective Soul album has a title, but the probability of release this year is questionable. Just having a title is insufficient.Mburrell (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all genre columns

We should delete all the genre columns from this page and every other "list of albums" page by year. The first reason is that there is too much genre warring all over music articles, especially album articles. We should reduce the areas of dispute by limiting the mention of genre as much as possible across other articles. It's already difficult to monitor genres at album articles; having genres on this page allows the edit warring to spread.

A second reason specific to future releases is that future album genres cannot be stated with any certainty, per WP:CRYSTAL. Here in the first days of the month of March, none of the March releases should list a genre. For the future months of 2015, as well as the List of 2016 albums when it is created later this year, the album genres should not be speculated. It would be much easier to work with the table templates if genre was removed altogether, so that a new genre column does not have to be added laboriously at the end of each month. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be removed, but they can be. And the unreleased albums could have genres if the artist confirmed it. Like for example, this article tells of Drake Bell's 2014 Rockabilly album, Ready, Steady, Go!, released on April 22, but the article was written February 28th. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that future genre listing is speculative, and listing genre is just one more cell to fill in. However, once albums are listed, it is useful to list genres. I have never hear of genre warring, and I think we should assume good faith edits until proven otherwise, so I don't agree with the first part of the argument, but I do agree with the second part. Unfortunately, people tend to pay the most attention to the data being entered when first entering the data, so if we leave out genre, it may never get filled in. On the other hand, genre information, along with producers, are just article noise, and don't add much to the article, whose main purpose is to let people know what albums were released int 2015, or to list albums to be released in 2015. Reluctantly, my vote is to remove genre column, and if so, also consider deleting the producer column.

The only columns I want kept absolutely for the article are the date, the artist, the album title, and the citation. Mburrell (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, removing the producer column is a good idea, as it is not a concern of most readers. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't us removing the columns here have to make us remove it on previous years though? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion has ramifications on previous years, but there's no rule that all the years must be formatted the same way. Note that there is no List of 2009 albums, for instance; that year was broken up into four parts, starting with List of first quarter 2009 albums. My preference is for decisions made here to be implemented on all the album lists. Binksternet (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal of producer and label, but not of the genres. I have not seen any "genre war" and I think that the removal of a information as important as the genre only makes the article poorer. One of the objectives of this article is to show the reader the albums that will be released in the year, and I think that the genre is a important information.

I agree that most of the genres listed here are just placeholders so removing the genres of albums that are not released seems like a good idea, but there is some TBA albums that have confirmed genres. By removing it you are just doing a disservice to the readers.

The best is to leave it the way it is right now and, as the albums are released, change it. This is a WIP article so, until better information emerges, the ones that we have are the better ones.

Also applying it to the previous articles seems like a really bad idea too, since it's already released and most of the informantion is already confirmed. Piau9000 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As some one who cleans up a lot of other peoples entry formatting, one of my preferences is that all rows be exactly the same set of information, so I can hot swap them like disks in a server rack. An album entered in for February, that proves to have been released later, should have the same amount of column entries as a future entry in April or May. If we delete genre, we delete it for all of the year, not just future announced albums. Going back to other years is not necessary, as all those albums have been released now.

I agree with Piau9000 that removing the genre column would make the article poorer, but I agree with Binksternet that Wikipedia WP:CRYSTAL rule applies, which is why I reluctantly agreed to it's removal. Mburrell (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CRYSTAL 99% of the articles should be deleted anyway. But you don't see it happen because WP:CRYSTAL is not a rule but a advice of how articles should be.

Also I really think that at least January and February should maintain it's genre column. You can remove march and all the others. When march end, it can be put back on. If it's gonna be too much work, I can do it myself. It'll be much worse if we wait for the year end to do that.

Like I said this is a WIP article so the template being fucked up is normal. Things will be way better like this, in my humble opinion.

And I also think that the producer should be removed for good. Piau9000 (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a discussion with Binksternet, maybe a little bit rancorous, but still mostly civil, about when to apply these changes if we agree. I asked for two weeks, so since he made the first change on Monday, March 2, I would like to see if we can reach a majority consensus by Monday, March 16. If the majority agree to the change, then I have no objection to letting Binksternet deleting the genre column on or after that date. As of right now, I see three votes for removing the genre column, and one against. Mburrell (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my vote about genre's for future albums. When I was researching honeyhoney, I found the articles listing their new album to list genres. Therefore, all current albums have known genres, and several future albums have listed genres, with citations. For example, for honeyhoney, Music News Nashville states in their article^[1] that "III finds lead singer/banjo player/violinist Suzanne Santo and vocalist/guitarist Ben Jaffe twisting their gritty, harmony-driven brand of Southern-flavored rock & roll". Rolling Stone states in their article^[2] "Honeyhoney took matters into their own hands, rebranding themselves as roots-rock independents", and "Honeyhoney have finally made it into Americana's "cool kids" club — even as their music looks far beyond that genre's borders." To me, this means that while some genre listings may be speculative and unverifiable, other genre listings are cited. Therefore, I cannot support deleting the genre column, but can support on a case by case basis replacing the genres with a TBA field. However, to do this, the editor should research each citation rather than universally replacing all future genres, or deleting the columns. With me switching position, this makes it two votes for removing the genre column, and two against. Mburrell (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Harr, Dave (March 27, 2015). "HoneyHoney Reveal First Single from New Album". Music News Nashville. Retrieved April 15, 2015.
^ Leahey, Andrew (January 9, 2015). "2015 Country Music Preview: 20 Reasons to Love This Year: Honeyhoney's Follow-Up to 'Billy Jack' (TBD)". Rolling Stone. Retrieved April 15, 2015.

Dance Gavin Dance new album

Dance Gavin Dance is releasing an new album titled Instant Gratification on April 14, 2015. I am not experienced with formatting, so may someone add that? Source http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Instant_Gratification https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/instant-gratification/id966763028

Genre is Post- Hardcore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.160.159 (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posted a note in the user's talk page encouraging the person to do it themselves, which will help them learn how to edit in Wikipedia. I mentioned how people are willing to correct a badly done entry, but I have never seen someone else take a suggestion from the talk page and enter it into the main article. Mburrell (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kanye West Album

ClueBot NG, it was no vandalism that Cecisneros changed the name of the new Kanye West album to SWISH. Kanye twittert he will change the name af the album, and many sources reportet about this. Look here: http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/3/8540137/kanye-west-swish-album-name-change. A joke or a real name changing? We will see... 188.104.81.170 (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay citation at this point don't amount to proper documentation

I have reverted Coldplay's movement to December 4 three times in three days. In order to avoid accusations of an edit war, I will not revert again for a couple days. However, there are no news sources that definitively state that Coldplay is releasing on December 4. All the articles are speculative, which is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

Stereogum's article title from November 2 (yesterday) states "Is Coldplay’s ‘A Head Full Of Dreams’ Dropping In December?" - http://www.idolator.com/7613565/coldplay-a-head-full-of-dreams-release-date-cover-art

Exclaim.ca's article title from October 30 (4 days ago) states "Coldplay to Release 'A Head Full of Dreams' on December 4?" - http://exclaim.ca/music/article/coldplay_to_release_head_full_of_dreams_on_december_4

Stereogum's blog entry sounds more definitive on October 29, but states in the article "So, it looks like we can expect the new Coldplay album to arrive 12/4!" - http://www.stereogum.com/1840863/london-coldplay-stans-suss-out-124-release-date-for-a-head-full-of-dreams/news/

So the problem is that the web articles are speculative, but some contributors keep moving the entry for Coldplay to December 4 as if it was fact. It probably is true, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and requires verifiable, accurate sources per Verifiability.

Mburrell (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Unscheduled and TBA"

Should the entries in this section be moved to List of 2016 albums? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless you have new citations for each artist listing 2016 as the release dates for the albums. If we get to the end of December, and the TBA albums are not released, just delete the section. Someone can spend time researching each artist and seeing if an album has a new release date, but if no one does the work (and it will be a lot of work), then erase the list. Do not place artists into a list for a year such as 2016 without a valid citation. Mburrell (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Dreams Are Made Of

what dreams are made of, a rock city album, is actually missing. please add it to the list.Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote on Ssjhowarthisawesome's talk page suggesting that as the person most interested in listing the album, that they should go ahead and add the album to the list. Mburrell (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. I dadded it to the list today. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of 2015 albums. 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) 23:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of 2015 albums. 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) 15:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on List of 2015 albums. 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) 05:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Harr, Dave (March 27, 2015). "HoneyHoney Reveal First Single from New Album". Music News Nashville. Retrieved April 15, 2015.

[2] Leahey, Andrew (January 9, 2015). "2015 Country Music Preview: 20 Reasons to Love This Year: Honeyhoney's Follow-Up to 'Billy Jack' (TBD)". Rolling Stone. Retrieved April 15, 2015.

[1]

[2]