Template talk:Led Zeppelin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] TfD debate

This template survived a TfD debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 16:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Don't remove the actual title of Led Zeppelin IV in favor of less correct titles. The word "zoso" is not the title. The four symbols (of which the first one looks like "zoso") are the title. Led Zeppelin IV (the most commonly used name) is where the article can be found. A reader wanting to know more about this will click on the roman numerals "IV" in the template. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coda

Should Coda not be included as a studio album? It was mostly studio material that was recorded in previous sessions but didn't fit on those albums. Jhiner


Coda is not a compilation... just because it wasn't recorded just for that release doesn't make it one. It was all original material, singles were released, etc. If nobody objects I'm going to change it. - MichiganCharms 01:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Compilation See compilation album. This is a comp, as these songs were not recorded at the same time (or even decade) for the same album; they are outtakes and alternates. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Nobs

Should The Nobs be in the 'other' section? 70.88.98.121 00:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

MichiganCharms is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfdrums (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

nope. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
yup. your turn. Cfdrums —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfdrums (talk • contribs) 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Bonham

Jason wasn't a member of Led Zeppelin, I'm moving his name to the Related Articles section. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Then if he wasn't (past-tense) a member, he is (present-tense) now. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-1980 shows

I know that post-1980 Zeppelin history is mentioned on the main Led Zeppelin page, but should they also get mentioned in this template? KingAlanI (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but no There isn't an article for them. If you split Led Zeppelin reunions from Led Zeppelin, then it would make sense. I'm not sure if you can justify an article for four performances, but if you had some setlists and pictures that might do the trick. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coda is a studio album, not a compilation album

Coda should be categorised as a studio album rather than a compilation album, as indicated by the following sources:

Studio versus live The album is included with the studio recordings box set simply because it is not a live album (i.e. The Song Remains the Same was not included in the box.) It is clearly a compilation because it compiles songs from several recording sessions over nine years which were never intended to appear together as an album called Coda. This is a compilation of previously unreleased material. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've personally always thought of it as a "compilation of unreleased material". But this is Wikipedia and personal opinions mean nothing. I have seen other bands include their "cleaning of the vaults" albums as regular releases right along with the other studio albums in their catalogs. And there are others who don't (I spot a couple of Rolling Stones' 'vault cleaning' discs that have been lumped as compilations) But Edelmand has put forward the better argument for Coda being included with LZ's other studio releases. And for that reason I think it should not be tagged as a comp. The daily back n forth on this thing isn't productive in any way. If 2 = consensus then just let one version stick. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have cited seven reliable sources which indicate that Coda is a studio album. Two of these sources derive from Led Zeppelin's official album label, Atlantic Records. The only assertion to the contrary that Coda should be categorised as a compilation album is the argument that the album contains songs from several recording sessions over nine years which were never intended to appear together as an album. However, no reliable sources have been cited to substantiate this assertion. Until this is done (i.e. until it is demonstrated that Atlantic Records is incorrect to categorise the album as a studio album), the album should remain categorised as a studio album. Edelmand (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Compilation versus live Those sources are contrasting studio recordings - which clearly compose Coda - with their live album, not with compilations. No one is arguing that Coda was recorded in-studio, rather, it was never recorded as a single album and is made up of bits and pieces from studio recordings over their entire career. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources listed above explicitly contrast the studio recordings with live albums. The only source which even mentions a live album is Dave Lewis, and as mentioned, he specifically excludes Coda from his list of Led Zeppelin compilation albums. The fact is that all the sources suggest that Coda is a studio album. None of them say it is a compilation album. Unless you can provide reliable sources which say the album is a compilation album, it should remain categorised as a studio album. Edelmand (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure How's All Music Guide? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That's one reference to seven. And either of the two sources deriving from from Atlantic Records should be taken over AMG. Any others? Edelmand (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)