Talk:The Complete Studio Albums (1983–2008)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Complete Studio Albums (1983–2008) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The Complete Studio Albums (1983–2008) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 11, 2014	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 17, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

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 articles

Madonna Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Madonna, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Madonna on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MadonnaWikipedia:WikiProject MadonnaTemplate:WikiProject MadonnaMadonna articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Charts[edit]

This box set has charted in several countries such as Japan (no.9), Italy (no.19), Croatia (no.25), Netherlands (no.48), France (no.26) and Spain (no.44). Can anyone help with finding reliable references for these? Many thanks!!! jwad.... ^{blah | blah | blah} 20:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clash[edit]

There is no indication that the reviewer has heard the box set in question in this article. It's more or less a news blurb saying it's going to be released. No indication that they have reviewed said package, it's just gushing about Madonna. I don't think it should be included. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do reviewers need to wait till release date to actually review a product? All of the reviewers are sent samples of the product beforehand for review purposes. And he (Robin Murray) is talking about the album's packaging, the tracklist selection etc. A review does not have to be solely about music to be valid you know. That's just banal and orthodox mentality from a review perspective. And especially when review of the product is scarce. And just to let you know, do you know which portion is gushing about Madonna? "One of pop's true icons, Madonna's output has continually shifted with the singer re-inventing herself on an almost daily basis. With new album 'M.D.N.A.' - see what she did there? - almost ready for release, the singer is preparing for a catch-all style look back at her career." Do you see that being included? No, because I do not care for such useless trivia. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to actually wait. But there is no indictation it's an actual review of the content. There's no actual review of the content, the only thing they do is praise Madonna. There's no actual review of the content. if it's useless for the reviewer who wants specific information about how this box set was received, the Clash article is relatively useless, because it's not a review. It just says it's contents without any critical reception. Just because there aren't many reviews, doesn't mean you have to get desperate for content. Just do more research or leave it how it is. BTW, don't remove tags until a conclusion is made. That's not good etiquette.Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrz, I removed that tag before I saw that you had raised the discussion, was not my fault but whatever, apologies anyway. Now coming to the review, he is reviewing the content. He's talking bout the tracklist, the packaging etc. Again, articles do not need to be titled "Album review: The complete studio albums" like this or just talk about the music to be considered critical review. Do I agree that it is an extremely high order of review? No, I do not. It just says it's contents without any critical reception – this view is more dangerous since it is WP:POV from you, as I said before, it does not matter what we believe, we report what the writer is saying in a neutral tone. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really beiliving anything, but interpreting it as a review, where there's no indication of it is also POV. We just quote a gushing thing part about Madonna, but it's not actually useful for people who'd want to buy this box opposed to any other release. You might as well include this review in every Madonna album release because it's not specific to the release in question outside packaging which isn't really specific either. Sure it's lavish, but why? how? Oh wait, there's no proof he's seeing anything more than a jpeg that we see above. I can't read this as anything but a press release. Unless we get actual reviews from people who you know, give you useful information, that article comes off as fluff. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the "gushing thing" not being included is not clear to you? Where do you see that being included? And who said that one cannot talk about the packaging of a release as its review? "it's not actually useful for people who'd want to buy this box opposed to any other release" --> So that's why Wikipedia includes reviews is it? Oh wait, there's no proof that he hasn't seen anything more than a jpeg. Who are we again? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andrzejbanas. The Clash source does not really review the material chosen for the compilation. In many ways it is a simple announcement that Madonna is releasing a box set containing eleven albums. The only possible review is that of the packaging, which is called "fairly lavish." That too is not really consequential and does not warrant the source's inclusion in the Critical reception section and especially the ratings box. If it really needs to be included, it can be mentioned in the section at the end or somewhere, although I would strongly suggest removing it from the ratings box. A simple praise of the packaging does not mean it can be considered a "positive" review (it isn't a review to start with). --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderboy, I can agree with your assessment that it can be removed from the ratings box, but I disagree with the packaging part. I believe it can stay in the critical reception section, but without the assessment part being removed. What do you say? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: Yes I think it can stay in the critical reception section, while the rating can be removed. Keeping this is in mind, I would suggest changing "Robin Murray from Clash gave another positive review, saying that the release lived up to its expectations of collating all of Madonna's studio albums until that point. He admitted that although there was no "bonus material", "the packaging is fairly lavish"" to "Robin Murray from Clash complimented the packaging as "fairly lavish," but noted the absence of bonus material in the box set." I don't really see where the "release lived up to its expectations of collating all of Madonna's studio albums until that point" part came up from. The "Tracing the evolution of a pop phenomenon" can be included though --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, both BBC and Allmusic were kind of negative on the quality of the box set itself, while the Clash one just calls it lavish, the other ones go into detail. If you really feel it should be there, be my guest but I still think it's kind of weak. Funny how it took one other person for you to change your mind on whether the article should be included or not.Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes Wonderboy, that's waht I was saying, removing the positive part (don't know how that not word came there too many edit conflicts going on). Andrz, no hard feelings to you, but your continuous removal from all articles without raising discussions, does not let me weigh on your opinions much. Its just recently from the "Bye Bye Bye" article that you have started doing so. Previously you simply used to edit war. Anyways, thanks to Wonderboy we could come to a conclusion. Can you please check the changes I am doing? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks better. Although maybe you can revise the sentence a bit; the grammar is a bit awkward, but overall it looks concise and includes only the possible review present in the Clash article. Glad to be of help --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it around a bit so we can put paragraphs discussing the actual music and the box set itself separate. I think it's better to separate two kind of different topics in this case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it looks much better now. Adding some sort of distinction between the reviews is a good idea. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um...[edit]

Why isn't MDNA included in the box set?--71.235.92.16 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because that was released by a different record company from the ones in the box set. They may have also thought they could generate more profit by selling them separately. Also, they probably anticipated that many people would buy the new album and then feel enthusiastic enough to want to buy a box set, but wouldn't really want a second copy of the new album they had just bought to be in the set (especially if that caused the price of the set to be higher). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 May 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Studio Albums (1983 – 2008) → The Complete Studio Albums (1983–2008) – Per WP:DATERANGE. --Nevé –selbert 17:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~Support DATERANGE cannot be used here when the actual album artwork utilizes those one byte gaps between the brackets and the en-dash in the box set title. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note the recent discussion and rationale of @BarrelProof: at Talk:One to Get Ready, Four to Go.--Nevé –selbert 14:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that, just finished looking through the sources and both the stylings are used in the media. Hence we should go with MOS:TM and TITLEM. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: We don't try to replicate logos and cover art styling; Wikipedia has a house style (MOS:TM / WP:TITLETM). —BarrelProof (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support to be consistent with the MoS. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reasons above and I believe this move should be an early close. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:C49:9E5B:672C:A0C9 (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.