Talk:2003 in music

What is the point of this page - is it meant to be forecasts, fiction, or what? Is the "owner" (sic) having a laugh? It would be nice if they could explain their approach. Otherwise I suspect much of the content should just be removed. Repeatedly.

Thank you, I've been saying the same thing since it was created. -- Zoe

The article is getting a bit messy. I would prefer to ignore release fdates and just add stuff that is actually released. I've tried checking by looking them up on cdnow, but it is tediously slow with my IPS and someone is adding stuff faster than I can check it!. I've moved a couple to 2002 that cdnow says were released last year. -- SGBailey 09:07 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

I have started adding release dates. I think that makes more sense than just removing albums. I think the person who is adding such a lot to this page needs to consider a similar strategy. And communicating with other users woudln;t be such a bad idea either. :) 194.117.133.118 08:54 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

These items really shouldn't be here until they actually occur. -- Zoe

I totally agree, so I have moved the content here for the moment: -- SGBailey 07:59 Dec 25, 2002 (UTC)

Is it right to have a "Top selling albums" of the year when we are still in January? - I know we could keep updating it, but it might be easier to leave it blank until January NEXT year. -- SGBailey 23:51 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

What does "returns" mean? -- Zoe - Nothing, as far as I can tell. Therefore: Out the window! - Tubby

I see that the above albums, plus a stack of others, have been added back as having been released. I don't believe many, if any, of them have (we're only a week into the year, and very few records get released this time of year anyway), but really can't be bothered to check. Does anybody know for sure? A possibility might be to list them as "records rumoured for release in 2003" or something - I'd rather they weren't here at all, but it looks like they'll keep being added back if they're just deleted. --Camembert

--

You keep adding future events, and I'll keep deleting them. -- Zoe

I don't really see the problem with tentative release dates and album titles as long as they are described as such. Or should we delete U.S. plan to invade Iraq as well? However, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the user of this page not replying here (I'd like to see sources for the future releases), and remaining anonymous. For the time being I think it's fair to remove his prose. --Eloquence 09:35 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Even though I dislike future events in timelines, I removed the text because I held a view similar to Eloquence's. --Mrwojo 20:42 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

64.175.251.52, is there any possibility you can either log in and use the Minor change capability, or else make all of your changes at once and not hog the entire Recent Changes page? -- Zoe

Zoe, if you use IE or Mozilla, try the "Enhanced Recent Changes" option in your user prefs. This summarizes a set of changes to a single page. --Eloquence 04:09 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Wow, that's cool! How long has that been in?

A little more than a week, IIRC. --Mrwojo

Ahh... I've been away you see. Mintguy

So what do all the little characters in Enhance Recent Changes mean? What's the blue arrow? What's an "N"?

On second thought, I don't like it. There's no Diff. -- Zoe

"Cur" does the same thing as Diff used to do; this confused me too. (Diff shows up only on the grouped blue arrow entries: It shows the changes of an entire group of recent edits.) --Mrwojo

N means what it always meant NEW. Click on the arrows and go Wow! Mintguy

BTW, if there's any bug in the new RC, please tell User:Magnus Manske about it. --Eloquence 15:54 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah the future events is starting to irritate me as well. At one point I put in the heading, "Albums Expected", in addition to the Albums Released, but it was removed by that guy. Is this a good way to arrange the page?
-Tubby

I'd rather they not be there at all. Expected release dates for consumer products are subject to wild changes. If they must be there, they need to be under an "Albums Expected" header, yes. Making the change... --nknight 20:09 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Top hits - it's January 23rd and there are 13 top hits listed. How is this possible? We must be using a rather generous definition, or something?? If this rate were to continue then by the end of the year we could have over 200 "Top Hits", which I fear would not be very useful. Can anyone comment on criteria for inclusion? Nevilley 08:41 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

The criteria is whatever the maniac that inserted them used (it was one guy who has never spoken to us and was the reason for including the "Albums Expected" section, check the over-flowing "Older Versions" page). I wouldn't worry too much. It's probably at least ballpark-accurate right now :). We can chop and replace as the year wears on. --nknight 13:04 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

"Top hits to be announced?" That is utterly ridiculous. It's going to be deleted, don't even try to put that back. -- Zoe