Talk:Daughtry (album)

Album background - cleanup tag
This section is obviously not about the album background. There is nothing there about the process of writing, recording or producing the album. It says nothing of the band members, who contributed to what, how the album was marketed or received by music critics. Instead, it is nothing but a week-by-week description of where the album lies on the U.S. album chart. Every week someone else adds another update on the chart position. Is this going to happen each week until it falls off the chart? This really isn't encyclopedic or informative. - eo 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It only really needs to be in the article if it's in the top ten or so&mdash;that's all we're likely to have a good source for anyway, so notability and verifiability can neatly correspond. Everyking 20:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that this, but it is getting excessive. Its debut week, the first week it hit #1 and and its current standing are really all that is needed.  A week-by-week-by-week analysis of every chart move it makes is complete overkill. - eo 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not paper, and this is actually taking up very little space in the article anyway. It is undoubtedly useful to many readers to have this information available to them. Deletion on the other hand serves no purpose; if a reader doesn't care they don't have to read. A summarized account of the chart movements can go in the intro to suit those who aren't interested in the details. Everyking 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Some chart information is useful, but excessive chart data is not. Because this "is not paper" doesn't mean music articles can be crammed with useless stuff.  What if this thing stays in the top 10 for a year?  Can you imagine what it would end up looking like, if it continues as it has been?  Right now this reads like "Daughtry is an album by Daughtry.  First it debuted at number two.  Then it dropped to number three.  Then it was number five.  Then it was number ten.  Then it was number four.  Then it was number two.', etc., etc.  I thought an album article was supposed to be about the album? - eo 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is about the album, and it's not at all useless. Even if you don't think the chart positions are important (although obviously many people do), the info you deleted also included week by week sales, which are even more important, in my opinion. I don't think your argument about the length it stays in the top ten holds water, because it's natural there will be more to write about some topics than others. We don't aim to have the articles on an obscure album and a top-selling album be the same length, because there will almost certainly be far more information available for the top-selling album, and it wouldn't make sense to be more selective in including the stuff about the more important subject.


 * I feel it's very important to include that information, but I'm trying to think of a compromise so we don't get into a revert war. How do you feel about including it in a table format? This has been done in a fair number of articles, and it would address your complaint about the repetitiveness of the prose. Everyking 04:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If youre talking about a trajectory table then I am against it, and they have been removed anyway per WP:CHARTS. You're not exactly getting my point, tho.  This is supposed to be an article describing the album (see my first comment).  Having the entire thing cluttered up with a week by week chart commentary is, at the very least, going against WP:NOT.  I'm not suggesting removing everything, just a lot of the clutter, which is what I did to begin with.  A "cumulative sales so far" figure within the text is fine.  An explanation of what it sold every single week is ridiculous. - eo 04:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article absolutely doesn't need removal of "clutter" (this isn't clutter); it needs expansion. I simply don't agree with you that sales and chart positions don't pertain to the album; I feel they are very closely associated with it. The last thing I can do is reiterate that a summarization of the chart information is welcome, but not at the expense of referenced details; we can have both. Could you suggest a way we could reach consensus about this, if you're unhappy with my suggestions? Everyking 04:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with expanding the article. I just think the wrong section is being expanded, that's all.  There are several interesting, informative facts in the chart success section - the comparison of sales between Daughtry and other Idols, its initial sales, its total sales, its return to number one.  All I am trying to do is remove some redundancy.  I don't know what else to say - I feel that I left the important points in the article when I edited.  Perhaps someone besides you and I can express an opinion on this? - eo 13:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will try some edits soon to see if they are acceptable to you. Personally, if I was going to remove information, I'd remove unreferenced pieces of information, which would be more acceptable in policy terms. You, on the other hand, have removed referenced information while leaving a bunch of unreferenced stuff in the article. Everyking 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Much of the information (notably sales figures) on this page is not cited -- and I noted seemingly random changes to them in the history, again without citation; I tacked on a couple of citation needed's but wasn't completely thorough:  I see there is a bit of an edit conflict going on; I would suggest going with firm sources, and not changing figures until another firm source can be cited.  Incidentally the ip address of the person making random changes of which I referred seems to be responsible for frequent vandalism; if this continues I suggest someone report it. Jhaagsma (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Crashed
By the way, the Toa Mahri movie on Bioniclestory.com (hit 'skip', go to the 'Command Center', click on the panel, then play the movie that appears) has the song 'Crashed' in it. Is this notable? --66.203.32.62 13:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Critical response was "positive"
I'm sick of these shit albums claiming positive critical response when no real critic would lower themselves to review this.

22:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a legitmate reason to tag and article. If you have found negative reviews that have citations from reputable and notable sources, feel free to add them.  In the meantime, the tag will be removed.  Besides, the critical response that is currently there is not all positive.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Daughtry (album). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090610091718/http://www.daughtryofficial.com:80/news/daughtry-soars-1-spot-billboard-top-200 to http://www.daughtryofficial.com/news/daughtry-soars-1-spot-billboard-top-200

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Daughtry (album). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.daughtryofficial.com/news/daughtry-soars-1-spot-billboard-top-200
 * Added tag to http://www.bobandtheshowgram.com/cc-common/feeds/view.php?feed_id=392&feed=%2Ffeed-local.html&instance=1&article_id=68594
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527114047/http://music.ign.com/articles/763/763970p1.html to http://music.ign.com/articles/763/763970p1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070909051225/http://blogs.usatoday.com/listenup/2006/11/this_weeks_revi_2.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/listenup/2006/11/this_weeks_revi_2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313151236/http://sev.prnewswire.com/entertainment/20070307/NYW12907032007-1.html to http://sev.prnewswire.com/entertainment/20070307/NYW12907032007-1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.usatoday.com/idolchatter/2008/09/daughtry-deluxe.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004211113/http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=8543310&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID to http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=8543310&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20071111194753/http://www.soundfires.com/reviews/141 to http://www.soundfires.com/reviews/141

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)