Talk:List of rock albums

message: I think 'Loaded' should be included along with the other 3 studio albums, particularly as it features 'Rock 'n' Roll', one of the greatest songs they released and an ode to rock and roll music. 220.253.91.211 (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: the velvet underground

message: Why are individuals listed alphabetically by first name?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJFiorello (talk • contribs) 12:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because some Wikipedia editors and other computer geeks are too young to have lived in a time when alphabetizing by first name, done currently as that is how cellphone and other software-generated collation systems do it, never happened. It never happened pre-1995 because it is always wrong to do so. This has been corrected. PJtP (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: alphabetizing

message: *Digital Dreamdoor, maybe qualifies, maybe not, and also most underrated list
I removed the following because it is no longer true.  Someone should update it.
:The three most cited albums on this list are Are You Experienced? by the Jimi Hendrix Experience, What's Going On by Marvin Gaye and Exile on Main Street by the Rolling Stones, which appear on seven out of the eight lists included.
I've removed the addition of Joe S. Harrington's Top 100 Albums, as it doesn't seem a particularly notable list to me. sjorford →•← 13:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some possible new lists

message: Is there any reason why the Rolling Stone top 500 list is not included?  I realize we already have an article for it on Wikipedia, but I don't think it's fair to exclude it from the sources just because of a little redundancy, especially since probably 80% of the albums from that list are already on this page.  I realize 500 is a "large" number, but given Rolling Stone's repute, I think being cited as the the 500th greatest album in rock and roll history is a sufficient criterion for "massively influential" status.  The major labels put together probably release about 500 "rock and roll" (per this page's definition) albums a week nowadays.  What does everyone think?
:It doesn't meet the criteria, since it isn't self-described as the greatest albums of rock.  Tuf-Kat 05:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
::Fair enough.  I'm not sure how fair the "self-description" criterion is since the RS list is exclusively rock & roll, as the term has been applied on this page (e.g. including hip-hop, reggae, etc.)  And some of these lists are quite sketchy...I mean we're going by what was posted on an ezboard thread?  This is really "published by professional sources"?
:::Well, I attempted to selectively use lists, but sometimes the only copy of a notable list available is on a page that is less than perfect.  I think the self-description of being about rock is important because otherwise we can't even begin to compare lists -- if one source has a list of all the greatest albums ever, and another has a list of just the greatest rock albums, we can't put them both together and pretend they are two different lists of the same thing.  Of course, this is somewhat futile, since the different lists are pretty clearly using different definitions of rock.  Tuf-Kat 21:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
::::Actually, mixing genres is not an issue in the case of the Rolling Stone list's inclusion. Although mostly "rock and roll", the list is named "500 Greatest Albums of All Time", with no specification as to genre. John Coltrane, Bob Marley, N.W.A and Frank Sinatra are but a few departures in the list which would make it compatible to your compilation. It's a great list- and pretty "scientifical" too, done through a compilation of lists itself, submitted by hundreds of recording artists and industry hot-shots. So, its validity doesn't rest directly in the repute of anybody at Rolling Stone at all, but for their infinite wisdom to ask all these people. 70.161.16.184 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rolling Stone 500 Albums

message: I propose that we alter the criteria for inclusion on this list: every album cited has to appear on at least TWO of the source lists.  That would remove some of the aberrant entries and would lend far more credence to the claim that all of these albums are "particularly notable or influential".  Yes, we'll all probably lose some of our personal favorites (for me it's Radio City) but I think it will bring this list to a much higher standard of quality.  What's everyone think?
:That would make it exceedingly difficult to update.  What if I add a list that includes Radio City and I can't remember if any other list used it too?  I'd have to go through all the lists to try and find it. We could maybe move all the once-cited albums to a separate section of this page, but it would still be a hassle to find the one you're looking for and move it to the appropriate new section.  Tuf-Kat 21:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
:: We could just add the other entries to the talk page, couldn't we?  The article as it is is WAY too long and contains too many "aberrant entries", as the user above put it.  We'd keep the list of albums that only appear once alphabetized, for easy cross-referencing whenever you're adding a new list, which should by no means be an everyday occurence (i.e. I think we have enough lists for now).  I volunteer to remove the once-appearing entries myself.  Again we'll all be losing favorites, but it has to be done in the name of keeping the page at a high standard of quality and getting it down to a more manageable size. StarryEyes 21:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Perhaps the most amusing fact about the list, and the most illustrative of why we need to make the change: one list has three Procol Harum albums.  The other sixteen lists have a combined zero.  The "two list" criterion goes a long way to neutralizing (extreme) personal preferences of the compilers of these lists.  StarryEyes 22:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion: Remove all entries that don't appear at least TWICE

message: Is it just me or is the 1st reference link broken? I tried following it and got a 404. Denis Kasak 03:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I found another copy and fixed it. Tuf-Kat 04:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There are some more broken (I count 4). Plus: I think #6 and #16 refer to the same list?! –(de)jello ¿? 21:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken reference link 

message: There is a big difference in the Rock 'n Roll style and the heavy metal/thrash metal style. Why should Metallica and bands like it be in Rock 'n Roll? I mean, we're trying to equate Rolling Stones with bands like Metallica, and putting them under the same category!
--Shashank Shekhar 15:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock 'n Roll too general 

message: for future reference, i'm pasting them here. Calliopejen1 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removed all entries that don't appear twice

message: This is a silly undertaking, with a core of relevance to it. There is another article entitled called Albums considered the greatest ever; the two should probably be merged.  Perhaps the entire idea of having such articles should be revisited altogether. For instance, certain game-changers like Public Enemy and Thriller are missing. A future list combining combining this and the other article should center not simply on popularity in critic's polls, although those polls should be given weight, but also impact on culture and society at large. That would actually narrow the list considerably, which it probably needs - another editor above six years ago already did a considerable amount of weeding to this article. Plenty of albums have been very popular for a while, and plenty have been considered influential on certain styles of music in certain time periods, but few have had lasting impact on culture as a whole. Or this article and the greatest ever article should just be deleted and the hard drive space given over to something more useful.
That said, I have removed any entry on this list not referenced to one of the critic's polls referenced at the bottom of the page - if it doesn't have a number, it's off. All those extra Buddy Holly and Elton John albums are gone, and two Metallica records are quite enough. Certain albums taken off had merit - Violent Femmes, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, and George Harrison's Concert for Bangla Desh, but many others did not. No matter how much their legion of fans might adore these albums, no critical consensus has ever considered Shake Your Money Maker, Brain Salad Surgery, Little Creatures, anything by The Good Rats or a 2007 compilation of Ringo Starr hit singles to have achieved immortality. PJtP (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of rock 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050414045259/http://www.turkku.com/music/inter_lp.html to http://turkku.com/music/inter_lp.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110309184426/http://music.ign.com/articles/706/706219p4.html to http://music.ign.com/articles/706/706219p4.html
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) 03:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Reference no. 16 was simply an unexplained link to the homepage of AcclaimedMusic.net (an unreliable, self-published source per WP:NOTRSMUSIC). The link has been removed. Perhaps someone can establish just what this source was meant to communicate, and perhaps find alternate, reliable sourcing. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference no. 16?