Talk:Now That's What I Call Music!

message: Sorry I think this section of the article is absolute bollocks because it can't be proven for fuck sake.  And many singles that were previously featured on a Now! compilation went on to be massive shits.  21:55, 26 January 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.193.58.33 (talk • contribs).
: I tagged this over two months ago. Nothing has been done, so I removed it. If the original contributors wish to go back and get citations, they can retrieve the text from the link given. Fourohfour 14:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Effect on singles chart?

message: At what point did the series first come out on CD? Rich Farmbrough 20:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CD

message: Should the individual NTWICM album topics be added to a category? Which one? [:Category:Compilation album series]? Or [:Category:Compilation albums]? Or just make a list in this topic? Or both? -- Mikeblas 19:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization? 

message: Thought that I'd briefly mention the nonsense surrounding the (very) minor issue of the exclamation mark in the title. EGC, AKA London UK (who had originally removed the exclamation mark from the title) reverted my explanation of where it first appeared with the words 
: There is NO exclemation (sic) mark
If someone's going to make such a blanket statement, they should at least ensure its correctness (especially since my naming of specific albums gave some indication that I had done some research). A Google search on almost any post-1991 "Now!" album would have shown the above to be wrong.
If anyone's curious, I got the information from the fan site mentioned in the article, and I doubt that they (or Amazon, or anywhere else that includes cover scans) have been doctoring them to include an exclamation mark.
More discussion here...
Fourohfour 14:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclamation mark 

message: In Tom Petty's song "Joe" from the album The Last DJ, the title character uses the phrase "Now that's what I call music!" and the song is about Petty's dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the pop music industry. Does anyone think this is relevant to this article, at all? MrCheshire 05:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, unless it somehow inspired the title. And the version of the story I know is that Richard Branson got the title from a Danish bacon advertising poster (which went on the back of the very first "Now!" compilation). I don't think the Petty quote inspired *that* (though I wouldn't bet my life on it). Fourohfour 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't thinking that Petty inspired the name for this line of CDs... I'm suggesting that he was commenting on them, since these started being in produced in the late 90s and The Last DJ came out in 2002. MrCheshire 16:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Petty? 

message: New disambiguation line templates for use in all such articles:-
*template:Now-first
as used in Now That's What I Call Music (album) (N.Z. series), Now That's What I Call Music (album) (U.K. series) and Now That's What I Call Music! (album) (U.S. series)
*template:Now-num
as used in Now! 7 (Canadian series).
If there are any problems or changes we wish to make, it can be done wholesale. The intention is to use these in all such articles, and to create a template:Now-special for "special" albums. Then any changes only have to be made to three templates.
I advise against using subst, at least for now, as the templates may not be in their final form.
Fourohfour 17:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article dab templates 

message: Boilerplate automated warning by bot removed from this page, fair use rationale addressed. Fourohfour 11:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Now17.jpg

message: to my knowledge, all the u.s. releases have featured censored/radio edit/non-explicit versions of tracks, without any indication that they are so on the actual compilations themselves (not unlike the promo only releases often do).  i feel like for those buying these that it should be a valid concern, as there is no mention of such censoring, nor is there any remedy, such as obtaining a free download of the uncensored edits.  thoughts?  Impasse 21:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio edits/non-explicit versions 

message: If Robbie Williams is no 1 with 29 appearences, and that includes his Take That songs, then shouldn't Phil Collins be third with 20 appearences. 12 by himself, 1 duet with Marylin Martin and 7 with Genesis. From Now 1 - 68.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.92.170 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Records/Achievments 

message: I think a category should be written for all records ever released on one of the CD's of this series.--Launchballer 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Launchballer|Lau]][[User talk:Launchballer|nch]][[Special:Contributions/Launchballer|bal]][[Special:EmailUser/Launchballer|ler]] 

message: I recommend that individual Now! album articles be redirected to Discography of Now That's What I Call Music!#country (depending on which country's series it is) for any that say only "this is the nth album in this country's Now! series" with a track list.  These albums are typically big sellers, which is one reason why the series has gone on for so long, but if this information is not available or cannot be sourced, just having a track list of the album is not truly encyclopedic. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect Now album articles 

message: I want to re-raise the issue of notability.  Again, the overall series seems to meet both WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG.  But it seems likely that many individual articles do not.  Some certainly do--for instance, Now That's What I Call Music! 17 (U.S. series) is itself triple platinum, clearly qualifying.  But, for example, and the article that first called my attention to this series, is Now That's What I Call the USA: The Patriotic Country Collection notable?  It seems to me that, instead, the page Now That's What I Call Music! discography should suffice as documentation unless the individual album is itself, notable.  Note that back in 2006, someone said that "it seems a bit late to complain about it now."  This is, in fact, flatly false--the whole point of Wikipedia being editable is that every article is subject to review, revision, and, in cases where the article doesn't meet guidelines, possible deletion.  I'll wait for some comments here, but my feeling is it's time to start going through these articles and AfD'ing.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability (again, 3 years later)

message: This may not be helpful to the article but the series (in the UK) have come close to including hidden tracks.
*Now 7 - Queen's "A Kind of Magic" is at the end of side 3 (record 2 side 1) on some copies of the LP and cassette. Some copies mentioned this as a hidden track.
*Now 23 - The Shamen's "Ebeneezer Goode" starts off with a boom.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.215.60 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden tracks 

message: I've readded he notability tag.  Per the music notability requirements listed here: Wikipedia:Notability (music) even an album with original music cannot be considered notable if it has 'little more than a tracklist' which many of the over 200 pages linked from this article, including it's proclaimed 'most successful' compilation, have.  I apologize for attaching it to this page, but with all the pages being near-identical I thought it would be easier to manage.  It was also a lot easier to tag, but if someone is able to efficiently tag them all individually, go for it.
===Albums===
An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the General notability guideline. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."
Padenton (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have redirected many of the Now albums based on notability concerns and lack of sources (often nothing more than a tracklist), include those from France, Hungary, Portugal, and others. I've also PRODded a few, usually "special edition" ones. Feel free to do the same (redirect or PROD), if you feel strongly about this. For many of the US ones, I've tried to add in at least its chart peak and an allmusic review to show some independent coverage. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability (Again?) 

message: An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the General notability guideline. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."
Padenton (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have redirected many of the Now albums based on notability concerns and lack of sources (often nothing more than a tracklist), include those from France, Hungary, Portugal, and others. I've also PRODded a few, usually "special edition" ones. Feel free to do the same (redirect or PROD), if you feel strongly about this. For many of the US ones, I've tried to add in at least its chart peak and an allmusic review to show some independent coverage. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Albums

message: See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Now_That%27s_What_I_Call_Music%21&diff=506265447&oldid=505212466
The changes seem to make the article harder to read - they jumped out at me when I read the article as being odd, and they aren't cited. I don't know enough about this subject, but perhaps they should be reverted?
EAi (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:Jon webster]] on the 5th August

message: The article is a bit long, and it doesn't help that the discographies are on a separate page.  How about individual pages are created for each country's series, including the discography for that nationality?  I've knocked up User:Robsinden/sandbox/Template:Now That's What I Call Music! (Australia) as an example.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also knocked up some navboxes to avoid having one massive navbox.  They should be visible from the page mentioned above.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There's really not enough sourced information to warrant articles for every country. There's no fanfare for these except perhaps in the UK. Even in the US, you just get a minimal review in AllMusic and a decent chart debut in Billboard as reliable sources. In other countries, it's just a brand with new releases every few months with no coverage on the individual albums. Most of those ones with articles should be redirected. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  Was just a thought in reaction to another editor wanting to link to 25 different sections of the same article in a navbox!!!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The individual album articles are pretty sparse and I wouldn't mind seeing the whole lot redirected. With nothing more than a track listing for most of them, a redirect would be sufficient. Perhaps split out UK and US from the main page and their discographies, which can simply summarize release dates and chart positions, since the album articles don't offer anything more substantial than that separately. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split to country specific pages? 

message: I saw your comment and that you made some edits on the section which I re-sourced. Just to clarify, I've got nothing against using the book as a source (I don't have it so I can't confirm what is in it) but what has happened is that the totals have been updated after the book and that is WP:OR, particularly where songs were added which have artists on them but don't feature them by name (e.g. Robbie in Take That and Helping Haiti). This is really dodgy because it's so difficult to know who sang or played on what (see arguments on Talk:List of artists who reached number one on the UK Singles Chart#uncredited artists). Hope that explains why I did what I did. Btljs (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: When I created the Most Featured Artists section I simply referred to the top 5 artists as listed in the 2014 edition of the referenced book and then updated the numbers of appearances and names of the artists when the 2015 edition of the book was published. The rest of the information in the section was added by other editors afterwards resulting in the loss of clarity. I'm pleased you have dealt that issue but the data now ends in 2013 and the clear and up-to-date information and reference I included have now been deleted. Sealman (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find where to roll back to achieve this then fine. Btljs (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most featured artists 

message: At the end of the first paragraph it says "including the United States in 1998, and expanding into Asia in 1995." It seems odd to me that the regions are not listed in chronological order.
67.149.118.177 (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing US before Asia? 

message: * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 52 (UK series)
* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series)
have both uselessly closed as redirects.
What's the next step? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 50 (UK series)?
Or should we do something more useful, such as a bulk deletion of all the album articles?   There is zero value to having them as redirects.   Can we do this through an AfD, or does it need an RFC?  Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just come across then when searching for Now 52 and the current situation is indeed preposterous. There are even still links from Now 51 to Now 52, which now take the user back to the Now! Music page. It makes it look like something went wrong. Also, the bare text on the Now! Music page makes it look like there is no information on these releases available, as with some of the more obscure ones. I don't see how removing a couple of pages of useful information, based on the wishes of what seems to be a handful of people, with no useful replacement is helpful to users of Wikipedia. I often use Wikipedia to look up information on album releases. Yes, there are probably more detailed specific resources for this information (e.g. Discogs & MusicBrainz which this article could link to), but Wikipedia tends to be my immediate go to for many things, so that's where I end up. Either replace the pages with links to the data available elsewhere or re-instate these two pages that weren't doing anyone any harm. I've noted that the other pages often do have interesting information about the release which would be lost if they were removed. The fact that some aren't of that quality is a reason to improve them, not wipe them. There are other compilation series pages of even less merit. Are we going to wipe those two? How about pages on various TV shows? Gnu andrew (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulk deletion of all album articles. 

message: Hey folks, what are you thoughts about these?
*User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars/Now UK
*User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars/Now US
They are just working drafts right now as I fill in the info within the tables, but the idea is to combine the UK and US series info in Now That's What I Call Music! and Now That's What I Call Music! discography and split them into their own articles (perhaps Now That's What I Call Music! (UK) and Now That's What I Call Music! (US)), while redirecting the articles written for each individual volume to the appropriate page. Even the 100th volume coming out soon in the UK can be redirected as the coverage is going to be about the series reaching this milestone and not the release itself and be more adequately noted within the main article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split / merge/ redirect 

message: A number of Now 12 cd's (original) appear to have two disc 1s. I have one cd with two disc 1s in the case and one with 1& 2 but disc 2 has disc 1 tracks on it although clearly lists disc 2 tracks on the cd printing.
I presume this was a manufacturing glitch in the 1980s but can't find any information  to help with my inquiries. 188.28.165.136 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Now 12 cd (uk) 

message: Whether "Now" is written "Now", "Now!", "NOW", or "NOW!", or even "Now", "Now!", "NOW", or "NOW!" is wildly inconsistent throughout this article and I cannot discern any apparent rule for which is used when.
David G (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent styling 

message: Worth mentioning one of the Now albums returned to the charts because it's featured on the series above.
Not sure where in the article though. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Kay's Car Share