Talk:Now That's What I Call Music! discography/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Nowthatswhaticallmusic7.jpg

Image:Nowthatswhaticallmusic7.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Unconfirmed/unsourced albums

Despite these being ongoing series and inevitable releases, future Now! albums either unconfirmed or unsourced should not be added to the list. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Breakdown of 'Specials'

Basically all releases now gathered under 'Specials' belong to one of the five following categories:

Now Dance
Christmas compilations
10th Anniversary series
Millennium series
DVDs

Only the Winter Album, the Summer Album, Decades and No. 1s are 'others'. Is there any objection against a breakdown of this unsurveyable list into six separate subcategories? The Seventh Taylor (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

DoneThe Seventh Taylor (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Volume 18 or 20?

"...he exclamation mark first appears with volume 18 (changing to its present position from volume 20 onwards)". What does that mean? Was number 20 originally called "volume 18", or was number 20 actually number 18 (two having been missed somewhere)? Clarification please! Jubilee♫clipman 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it could be worded better or expanded, but it means that the first 17 volumes were named "Now That's What I Call Music n" (with no exclamation mark), then the next two added an exclamation point after the word Now ("Now! That's What I Call Music n), and from 20 on in its present position after Music, i.e. "Now That's What I Call Music! n. (where n = the volume number).--Wolfer68 (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

NOW 39

Is now revealing the tracklist on Amazon.com. Should be interesting to note that Hot Chelle Rae's song is now not a bonus track because it peaked at 9 on the Billboard Hot 100. Arjoccolenty (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

NOW 41

NOW 41 tracklisting has now been released so can we please have that updated also? Arjoccolenty (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bonus Tracks

Now 32 - present of the NOW's are still continuation of 4 bonus tracks what's next up-coming to the NOW artists. --71.172.189.181 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Can you do merge up the track listings and the covers I really like that? --71.172.189.181 (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Now 43: That's What I Call Music

According to Barnes and Noble website Now 43 will be releasing on July 31, 2012 instead of August 7, 2012 (that's on Now 42 booklet will be releasing August 7, 2012 it'll now change on July 31, 2012). --71.172.189.181 (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Now: British booklet

According to Now: British booklet Now 43 and Now Party Anthems will be out August 7th, 2012, Now 44 will be out November 13th, 2012 and Now Today's Christmas will be out in Holiday Season, 2012. --Brian J. Piercey (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

None of this is verifiable in a reliable source. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunally, there are reliable source not in true way only the Now's in the U.S. are doing up-coming in the booklets are in the U.S. and that's my opinion. --71.172.196.12 (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you are wrong, please don't add the information again. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's my opinion though. --Brian J. Piercey (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You may not use it to present your opinions or original research. —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Pierceybrian25 has numerous socks (and just confirmed that 71.172.196.12 (talk · contribs)) is one of them. Best not to feed the trolls. Cresix (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

NOW 53 (U.S. series)

February 3 will the release date for Now That's What I Call Music! 53 in the United States. With official sources for NOW 53, a page needs to be created ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.32.26 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2016

This edit request to Now That's What I Call Music! discography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

92.9.16.173 (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2016

This edit request to Now That's What I Call Music! discography has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I need the page to be unblocked. 92.9.16.173 (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Future releases

An IP (likely a registered user who "forgot" to sign in, again) has added and restored three future releases without sources or explanation. The editor received this information from an elf who came to them in a dream.

After it was removed again as unsourced, Hadji87 came along to defend the mystical information delivered to the anonymous editor by the dream-elf. Their helpful explanation for why this unsourced, challenged information was somehow exempt from one of our core policies (WP:V)? "None of the special edition releases have references if you can see". This, while true, is not relevant for two very basic reasons: 1) Those have already been released. 2) No one is challenging them.

After I removed the unsourced material a third time, ((u|LuigiYoshiU}} restored the unsourced claims with the explanation "Leave it as is." Basically, "because I said so"? No, that is not how Wikipedia works. We have policies and guidelines. The material is unsourced. I have challenged it.

Our policy on the matter is quite clear: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I have challenged the material. By restoring the material without sources, you are in violation of policy. If you have a source -- where you got the information -- but cannot figure out how to cite a source, tell us what the source is on this talk page or in an edit summary. If you do not have or don't want to give us your source, do not restore the information.

I've marked the items with "citation needed" tags. Unless sources are added or there is some kind of policy-based reason that these particular future events don't need to be sourced, I will remove them again tomorrow.

If they are restored again without sources or a policy-based explanation, we'll start working on blocks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:01, 21 September So2017 (UTC)

As no one added sources or even tried to offer an explanation, I've removed them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The unsourced addition of future releases are continuing, now mostly from IPs. There are several ways this can go.

1) Future releases are added only when a reliable source is provided. This is obviously preferable and probably easiest -- after all, anyone adding the information has to have a source for that information and adding a cite is trivially easy.

2) The editors give up on adding the future releases and the article is limited to those that have already been released. This is only marginally worse than #1 as the series is basically a mechanized cash cow at this point, purchased by a mixture of folks who just run across a volume and buy it and a few die-hard collectors. The spur-of-the-moment buyers aren't planning to buy it and just happened to see it. The collectors are probably all looking at the same promotional materials. Neither on is looking here to see which flash in the pan will be on this time around.

3) Future releases continue to appear without sources. We continue to remove them. Eventually, we edit-protect the article and/or range block the problem editors and/or start sock cases to identify and block the editors making the changes. Not fun, but you gotta do what you gotta do. Other than a few blocked editors, we end up with the same impact as #2

There are a few variations, but that's pretty much what we have. Take your pick. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm definitely behind the idea of opening an SPI case. There's just no way there's any more than a few individuals doing this. I'd also suggest limiting the scope of this list because, for the most part, the actual notability of the subject is very limited. Lists on Wikipedia typically find purpose because most of the things listed actually have articles, and serve as gateways to additional information, but this list serves little purpose here other than to suit the fancy of series collectors. Perhaps an RfC is in order, if we're going to cut this list shorter. Bruzer Fox 16:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Now Xmas UK Year Correction

The One Listed As 2009 Is Actually 2007 The One Listed As 2011 Is Actually 2010

Proof:

2007/2009: It Was On A 2007 Woolworths (RIP) Advert 2010/2011: I Have A Copy And It Says 2010 On The Back

I Hope This Helps2A02:C7D:3E8E:7200:64EC:F602:A8BB:51ED (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Now 39

I'm clicking on the link that appears in the search function for Now 39 and it's redirecting to this article.

Does Now 39 even have an article, it does appear as a blue link?

Walloper1980 (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Walloper1980: Many of the articles have been redirected to this page. It is an ongoing process. Thanks for pointing that one out. The link has been removed. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up.

Walloper1980 (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Restoring the individual Now! albums

I was surprised to discover today that several of the main Now! albums have recently been reduced to redirects, despite there being no apparent discussion on either the talk page, or a relevant AfD (for Now 72 and 73). Where some have had AfDs, consensus has been mixed (e.g. 52 and 53 to merge/redirect, 83 and 86 to keep as articles). Many of the Now! albums reach number one in the album chart, so it seems bizarre that there is no agreement on this. I will also say that, as someone who has edited and used these pages in the past, it is frustrating when major changes are made, but no links are made in article histories to where discussions took place. If the discussions are not on the talk page, or linked there, it becomes very difficult to find out why things have happened.

I also cannot see any discussion on this page where it was agreed to "merge" in material - I say merge, but much of the material has not been merged, such as the track listings. Aiken D 13:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging involved editors, @Onel5969: and @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Chrissymad. As far as I know, the ones which show that they pass wp:nalbum are not changed into redirects. However, the ones that don't, are turned into redirects as per wp:nalbum. No discussion is necessary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn’t work like that. These are long standing articles and you can’t just redirect them because they don’t pass a guideline. If you can’t show consensus that they can be redirected, I will be restoring them. If you don’t believe they pass NALBUM take them to AfD individually. Aiken D 19:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Well a majority of them were created (content) by socks, so that's a TOS violation and not subject to consensus. I think you need to wait until a full discussion has happened until you decide to go restore long standing redirects. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Who created it isn’t massively relevant, and I have edited these article in the past and found them to be a useful resource. I will of course wait a while but don’t agree they are long standing redirects, most are less than a year old while most recent Now! articles are created at the point of release, going back to at least 2009. Aiken D 19:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely matters if a banned and blocked editor is creating them, but in any case, I fail to see how the two you're referring to are independently notable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"I find it useful" is also not a valid reason. How is this independently notable? It's the equivalent of a directory listing, which WP is not. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The ones in question were on Wikipedia since 2009, and were not created by socks. Are you seriously saying that after nine years one person can decide on their own if they are notable or not? They reached number one in the album charts and are part of a best selling series. But this is what AfDs are for, something the articles mentioned did not have. Aiken D 19:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It's literally a discography. There is nothing notable or exceptional in the article itself, even if it is #1. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I get that is your opinion. But where was the AfD for these articles, or the discussion that preceded the redirection of articles, some a decade old? Basically, it seems there was none, and now you are claiming these redirects are longstanding which is patently false. It’s the articles that were longstanding, and they’ve essentially been removed without any consensus or discussion. As I said before, that isn’t how things work here. Aiken D 19:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I’d like to hear from Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, who seems to have done a lot of the redirecting. I think they have been bold here, but the changes were not discussed properly so the principles of WP:BRD need to be followed here. Aiken D 19:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The more I’ve thought about this, the more improper the actions above seem to be. With the exception of two albums (and those AfDs are debatable), as far as I can see there has been no discussion, no consensus and no AfDs for any of the articles that were redirected. As such, I’ll be restoring the articles later on, without prejudice against them being appropriately nominated on an individual basis for AfD or redirection. It was completely inappropriate for the articles to be redirected this way, so they must return to the status quo unless consensus goes otherwise. Aiken D 10:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I have now restored the articles, except for 51 and 52 where it was agreed to redirect at AfD. It's frustrating that the cover artwork has been deleted in the meantime. This is why we discuss things on Wikipedia.

I am aware of the apparent sockpuppet and paid editing issue, but the fact is these articles have been around a very long time, and as long as they are not copyvios, they should not just been removed without consensus first. As I said before, I have no issues with anyone taking them to AfD to be discussed properly, but it's not up to just one person to decide which should be redirected. Aiken D 12:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm simply amazed at how it's apparently fine to delete years of articles just because someone decided they suddenly aren't notable anymore. Since no-one else is bothering, I'll AfD the lot myself, so at least the outcome is based on community consensus. Aiken D 13:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As I noted on my talk page based on previous AfD discussions, including those with-in the last year, delete and redirect seems to be the outcome for these articles. The bold action by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars had then been sustained by multiple editors, including me in a couple places, and again here by two others on this page. A group AfD seems like a reasonable option though an RfC had been suggested for this issue in the past. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There have been other AfDs though, going further back, where the outcome was to keep. Out of 100 UK Now! albums, why are only so many redirected, but others given a full article? I don't understand where the criteria for keeping some and not others has come from. That's why we need AfDs, on an individual basis, as although they are mostly similar, many are noteworthy enough in their own right. It seems though that because of a couple of AfDs going redirect, it means that others can automatically be as well? That isn't how things work here. Unless the AfD specifically agrees that all Now! articles should be redirected, it's not appropriate for anyone to redirect them, and if anyone disgrees that should indicate there's an issue. A bit like a prod. I'm not going to stress myself out restoring them all again but still think it's wrong that they've been removed without any discussion either here or on the individual talk pages, where it should have been done. Aiken D 13:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

They don't make number one on the main album chart, they make number one on the compilation album chart, which is a different thing. And making no. 1 on this chart is no big deal as they are the only compilation albums that anyone buys nowadays, because MP3 playlists and streaming has killed the market for compilation albums. I'm not sure what useful information you can get from the articles, as really the only thing you can say about the albums are "it reached no. 1 in the UK and Ireland, just like every other Now album". I would certainly vote at AfD to have every one of them redirected to the parent article. Richard3120 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The actual songs are something which are/were on the articles, but were not merged to the main discography article. In my opinion, the most important information. You can vote to delete if you like - my point is, we should be given the opportunity to discuss these properly. Aiken D 17:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Aiken drum is it still your intention to do an AfD? I ask because while you're right that older AfDs found mixed conclusions the ones in this series (either US or UK) that have happened since 2017 that I found through a search of AfD all came up as delete/redirect suggesting that is current consensus, as has been from the editors who've participated in this discussion so far. On a related note 100 UK series, which I don't think even has a page right now, seems to have garnered enough reviews and coverage that I would not support redirecting that particular entry. But the reason for that exception precisely because it has coverage that establishes GNG and not just through the gold status criteria of NALBUM. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I would do, but the articles would need to be restored to their pre-redirected state so they could be analysed. I’m also wondering if a multiple article AfD is suitable for nearly 100 articles. Aiken D 07:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I marked articles 66, 70, 71, 72, and 73, as "reviewed", because I am a New Page patroller. By looking at their history, they have been in wiki for a long time, so technically they are not new articles, and I thus marked them as "reviewed". If @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: comes in and redirects them, he should do so with consensus, not without. Redirecting an article is almost equivalent to deleting it (unless a merge is made), and he should do so going through an AfD, because they are long standing articles. The onus thus to bring to AfD stays with the user who first made the decision to redirect them, and that's Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Nothing prevents me, @Aiken D:, or @Barkeep49:, or anyone else to bring to AFD, but I'm just clarifying that that is the right thing to do. Copying policy straight from WP:DOM An editor who is willing to delete or merge is expressing a good faith belief that Wikipedia policies and guidelines provide a sound basis for deleting the article, but that they would also support or consent to a merge if it would produce a consensus. So it's the onus of that editor to seek consensus, and the best way to seek consensus for making an article a redirect is either throught the talk page for each article, or through individual AfDs, or through Bundle AfDs. Also, as you may see below, in that very same policy merging is a possible middle-ground solution to any deletion-inclusion battle. I am fine either way for a merge or a delete, provided that I see valid reasons for each, but there should be consensus. The best way to determine consensus is through an AfD, as you will have multiple reviewers. If you want to nominate several articles in one single AfD, please read WP:MULTIAFD, especially the sentence If you're unsure, don't bundle it.. Anyways, the marking as "unreviewed" of the article was unnecessary. I did review, and I purposefully marked "Reviewed"; per above, the redirecter has the onus to bring to WP:AFD. If Barkeep49 wants to bring to AFD he is free to do so, but the articles ought to be marked as Reviewed, as other reviewers look at them again and again and don't know what to do with them. It is a mere technicality that they show as "Unreviewed" after someone decides to make a redirect for them. Please let me know if I was not clear in any of my points above. --1l2l3k (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

1l2l3k Thank you, you’ve been very clear. I thought I was going mad, but now I know I’m not the only one who believes these were improperly redirected. My preferred course of action would be that all the articles are restored back to their full status, and should anyone think they aren’t notable they can discuss here or use AfD. It frankly seems ridiculous that I should have to nominate them when I don’t even want them deleted. Perhaps another neutral party could restore them back to the status quo? Aiken D 12:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Aiken D, thank you for your comment. I think you have already brought them to their original status, but I see that you were reverted. In this instance @Chrissymad: says that this is per AfD. Chrissymad, can you please show the AfD that you are referring to? --1l2l3k (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC Wording

I suggest rather than continuing to do piecemeal AfDs or an unwieldily large bundle we do an RFC. I've come up with two options.
Option A Generally, are individual "Now That's What I Call Music" albums notable?
Option B Generally, should individual "Now That's What I Call Music" albums be articles or a redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography?
Hidden ping to participants in this discussion to date to offer comments on wording. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: If you go with an RfC, it may be that it will all boil down to a response to go to AfD. On the other hand, both options are well formulated, but I suggest they not be options, as they are both valid, and may very well be Question A and Question B of the same RfC. Question A is much more important than Question B, by the way. But again, whether we go with Option A, or with both, I foresee that many users will just direct us to an AFD. I would say to not be afraid to have individual AfDs: they take 1 week and attract some very good users. Just my two cents. --1l2l3k (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I actually still think we should return all the articles back to how they were, then if anyone believes they are not notable they can take them to AfD on an individual basis - this is what should have happened in the first place. Despite claims, they aren't all the same, and much of the information was lost when they were redirected, including the cover artwork which would not be appropriate on a list like this due to fair use issues. Aiken D 15:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I respect the idea that an RfC is the wrong way of handling this issue. However if the right answer is AfD, a bundle is the way to go - the pages we're talking about are substantially the same issue. Otherwise it's going to spam AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm Ok, with the bundle, as long as they have each pretty much the same notability, and one is not way better than the others, but Aiken D seems to think that they are different. The AfD is, again, the onus of who wants them to be redirected, and thinks that they are not notable enough on its own, so: Aiken D, Barkeep49, if you guys want to keep them, you don't have to start an AfD. Let's await for more input from the deletionist side before doing anything. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

While I normally would agree that waiting for more opinions is best, I don't expect any of the previously participating editors to chime in (Onel is stepping back from NPP, Chrissymad has indicated to me she's not interested in more participation, and Star who did the initial mass redirecting hasn't been active here yet) I have gone ahead and bundled 68 - 73 at AfD. Aiken drum can obviously make the case there that they are not the same but so far the only reason has been that they have different track listings and covers which doesn't suggest that content wise they actually have much to distinguish one from another and thus makes them a good use of a bundle. @1l2l3k: I have been quite clear that I don't want to keep them as articles, but do respect the consensus process. Since an RfC doesn't seem to have support from the two of you still participating (fair enough) I went with AfD as a place to gauge community consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

What about all the other articles that were redirected? Aiken D 17:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Aiken drum: hopefully this gives us a sense of community consensus around this topic. Early going suggests it will as information is about these as a category of articles, not not just the 7 nominated. If this AfD ends up as keep I would encourage you to revert back to article content (and I would mark them as reviewed). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Moving forward

The AfD has now been unfortunately been closed as redirect all. When Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars decided to redirect these articles, he claimed that the material was merged. However, the most important information, the album tracks, was not merged. This discography is much too long, and there was agreement that the topic is notworthy enough. Therefore, I intend to create a new discography page for the UK series, something along the lines of Now That's What I Call Music! UK discography, where the deleted, yet important details can be in one place. Aiken D 23:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Aiken D: I think a couple people mentioned in the AfD that incorporating things like sales figures while not having details like the track listing was good. So I think your moving some basic information as its available into discography makes sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The album tracks are the least important information because they can be found on any retailer site as well as the official website. The tracks chosen give zero notability to these (they could be any collection of hit songs). The only independently source-able information (such as chart position and certification level) have been merged. Each volume on the discography page also links to the main website where one can view the actual track listings. A page full of track lists will be ridiculously long. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The album tracks are the least important information because they can be found on any retailer site as well as the official website. Everything on Wikipedia can be found somewhere else, that's the reason we use sources. The different tracks are the main feature of the albums, in fact any album. It would be ridiculous to look up information on an album and not find the tracks listed. The chart positions etc are interesting but not what makes the album what it is. As it stands, this page is too long and needs cutting down. A UK discography page would be the best solution for this. Any track listings can be in collapsable boxes. Aiken D 23:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Every non-notable Joe Blow album has a track listing, it doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. I would just merge the UK parts of Now That's What I Call Music! and Now That's What I Call Music! discography to create info on the UK series in general, and then maybe doing the same for US, etc. The series IS notable, but the track listing of each volume is not pertinent to an encyclopedia, at least not for compilations such as these unless there is something about the selection of songs that is specific to the volume discussed in independent reliable sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me just agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I think there are ways to improve the coverage of this topic on Wikipedia. I think the community spoke at the AfD that having lots of track listings is not the way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Sticking my two penn'orth in, volumes 1 through 20 (bar 19) are 'notable' in as much as there was an accompanying VHS release, with different track lists. Additionally, Now's 4, 8, 9 and 16 had different track listings on the CD version. Neither of these differences are referred to on the official Now website, so this was genuinely useful information to have. I would therefore suggest reinstating the articles for the first twenty editions.Woolpack Jack (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That is basically trivia. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I will concede that this was not discussed at the AfD which recently closed. However I do not think that this substantially changes the overall point of that AfD as it does seem to be further TRIVIA which was discussed. I will say that I did actually look at the articles before redirecting them (just did so prior to the redirect which I did in bulk at once) and did not see any content worth preserving on any individual article beyond the first one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia: “a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: … 1. The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart. 2. The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country.”

The discography shows that the albums went platinum - better than gold! There’s been a suggestion that reaching number one on the compilations chart isn’t good enough. But let’s not forget that the compilations chart was created *because* of the influence the Now’s and similar, copy-cat albums had had. And practically every Now would have been number one on an all-albums chart anyway (NOW 4 I think could be the ONLY exception to this). They're not just number one of the WEEK either - they are amongst the biggest sellers of the year. This from a BBC article: “Now 95, released last November, was the UK's biggest-selling album of 2016, outperforming even Adele's 25”. How can the biggest selling album of a year (and there are others that topped the year-end chart) NOT be notable? Woolpack Jack (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Woolpack Jack: Did you read the recent AfD? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I did. At least two of them use the "its only the compilation chart" argument, which is totally irrelevant when countered against what I said above. Additionally articles like that BBC one show that they do get news coverage. Also I'll say again, how can the biggest selling album of the year not be notable? Maybe some of them just need to be better written (I don't think the NOW 95 page mentioned that it was the years biggest seller, for example), but they can't be if they've been deleted, can they?Woolpack Jack (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is more about the influence of the series in pop music and there's stuff there that could be added to the Now That's What I Call Music! article, but it only mentions Now 95 as being a top selling album and that's it, hardly "significant coverage". They all sell well but individually they don't receive the coverage to require an article on each volume. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll readily admit to being a novice here, but so far as I can see, proper procedure wasn't applied, in any case. The Now 67 article I note had an 'article nominated for deletion' tag added, but Now 2 and many others (probably the vast majority of the others, I suspect), never had such a notice put on them. Apart from anything else, this limited the 'advertising', so to speak, that a discussion was taking place. One thing I've learnt today is about the page view statistics. I was surprised to discover, almost without exception, and dating back at least till May, that the page for Now 2 was getting more daily hits than the page for the first volume. Here's a more manageable-to-view chart from July onwards. Off the back of that, I would suggest there are far more people bothered by the redirect, than there are people bothered by the article's existence!

Perhaps if more people had known what was going on there'd have been more feedback on the proposed operation? Besides, one commenter to the Afd suggested that contemporary reviews were written about the Now's up to about Now 5 - well then shouldn't those 5 articles have all been kept with reviews added? I've also found a (not very complimentary!) review of Now 77 from The Times Newspaper. I don't read music magazines myself, but also wouldn't the likes of Classic Pop review them all? They certainly published a Top 15 Pop Compilations 1980-1999 article which covers seven of the numerical Now's.

Why don't we start again - give people a chance to improve the articles, and give them proper notice that the articles might be lost if they are kept as they are? Albums that consistently get into the top ten sellers of the year (including often the number one album of the year) surely deserve a better chance than has been afforded them thus far? What's the point of the article tags if they aren't used? Why assume that readers of the Now II article will have seen the tags on releases from Now 67 to 73? (Again the Now 2 page was far more read than articles from around the tagged era, btw) Not wanting to spam was used as an explanation, but as the albums are targeted at a different audience, and the articles similarly will attract a different readership, how can it have been fair not to give users of the older (and more widely read) album articles a chance to improve the articles, or even to contribute to the discussion?Woolpack Jack (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Woolpack Jack: you are correct that only a handful of articles in the 60s were recently nominated. I had hoped to come to a wider scale solution through an RfC but the editors participating at that time were not supportive and that's why I went for AfD. In doing the AfD I was trying to get a number of articles without spamming AfD. It is possible that some early entries are more notable than later entries. My redirecting was done as a BOLD action which means if you think I got it wrong you can revert especially if you have the sort of individual differences that would support that notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Woolpack Jack: "wouldn't the likes of Classic Pop review them all?" No, they don't – the modern Now albums are not really the magazine's target audience, as they are more concerned with artists from the 1980s and 90s, rather than the artists making the charts in 2018. Believe me, if I could think of something to say or find some information about Now II other than it reached no. 1 and went multi-platinum, I would have added it to the article. Richard3120 (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, a correction: it seems I got in a muddle and that graph actually shows Now 1 with the higher page views, with a couple of exceptions. It's still surprising to see Now 2 have more views at any time though, and on 18th August Now 2 had 416 views and Now 1 only 282 views. Sorry for that mistake. :o Yes, it was a dim hope about Classic Pop mag. I've skimmed through it a few times and knew it did album reviews, but I'm not surprised it doesn't cover modern Now's. For now, time is against me, so the rest of my reply will have to wait, but I was keen to get the correction posted promptly. Woolpack Jack (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Some points on Wikipedia policy. Nowhere on Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Recordings does it say 'these notability guidelines don't count with compilation albums'. So I don't understand why Wikipedia policy has been ignored? Secondly Barkeep49 explains here and elsewhere that s/he was "BEING BOLD", as if s/he's saying s/he's following Wikipedia advice. Yet again, nowhere at Wikipedia:Be_bold is there ANY mention about deleting or even merging pages. Being bold is all about making edits to improve pages, not to get rid of them. Why was Barkeep so determined to get rid of articles just because s/he didn't like them, that because s/he didn't get the feedback s/he wanted, s/he went for a more severe option? What was the rush, anyway? I've seen articles that have had tags that have stayed on for months, years even. Most of these articles never even got a tag! If the articles were of no value they wouldn't have been being viewed (I'll come back to that). And I maintain it is absurd that, in particular, the biggest selling album of a given year is deemed unworthy of an article.

It's all very well of Barkeep to give me permission to revert the changes, and to make the improvements myself. I haven't got the time. Over the years Wikipedia has been around I probably made around a dozen or thereabouts edits to this place. I eventually signed up in April, and made one edit. I made one further small edit in June. I had a little flurry of activity back on the 20th of this month, and since then I've been active on TWO talk pages. I am not the man to fix this problem. My point is it shouldn't have got broken in the first place, and I suggest maybe the person who took 'being bold' too far and obviously spends a lot of time at Wikipedia is the one who ought to reverse the process. Put tags on, and give people TIME (not a week) to improve them, and PROPER notice that the articles might be lost if they are not improved.

As far as contemporary reviews go, I have discovered that although Smash Hits didn't seem to review Now's 2 or 3, they did review Now 15 (not very favourably, as it happens), and perhaps many others. So that's an avenue people can explore. Classic Pop Magazine also published an interview with Now Album compiler Ashley Abram, which has much information that could be of value to some of the pages.

Lastly some interesting (YMMV) stats I discovered yesterday. People who clicked on the graphs I linked to would notice that the Now 1 and Now 2 articles both had big spikes on July 20th, which was the day that Now 100 came out, but that this spike wasn't present for Now 66. I wondered how far down the line the spike continued. The answer is that every one of the first 45 Now's, plus Now 48 had a significant spike on 20th July. Thereafter the spike was extremely negligible. Indeed, in the last batch I looked at - Now's 51 to 60 - there was a higher peak after July 20th. It was also interesting to see how many disappointed people were still opening Now article's. For those first 60 Now's, yesterday was the first day where any of them had no page views - and that was for just one of them in the 50 range. Admittedly many have been in single figures for a week or so, but with the pages no longer there that's not surprising. People expect Wikipedia to have articles on the Now's, and since they meet notability criteria, indeed they should. But as I say I'm not the man for the job of rectifying the over-eagerness that occurred, alas.Woolpack Jack (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, another user, @1l2l3k: had already advised that "if you're unsure, don't bundle it", as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. I note it also says on that page in the guidance for "bundle articles for deletion" that "On each of the remaining articles" a specific tag should be added. So again, proper procedure was not applied, and I again assert that the redirect's should be reversed because of this.Woolpack Jack (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Woolpack Jack: You wrote a lot and so apologies if I miss a point. Big picture, as it seems like you know, Wikipedia uses the standard of notability to decide what does and doesn't get an article. A shortcut for doing a complete notability examination can be subject specific guidelines of which WP:NALBUM is one. Part of what is required of basically any article is significant coverage. So even though these albums sell well they don't tend to get significant coverage. Over time a number of editors have made these pages and a different number have made redirects. I've seen this process play out and in most circumstances the final community consensus has been to redirect.

After a different editor boldly redirect a number of articles when those articles were reverted I took some number of them as a bundle to AfD - the bundle was the correct method because the pages were basically identical in format and differed only in what tracks were listed and so could easily be considered as a group. I did not want to overwhelm voters so I did not nominate every Now article just a grouping. I initially was inclined to do an RfC so all articles could be examined but was dissuaded by the other participants. That AfD came back delete as has every AfD discussion over the past two years. The topic of whether Now albums are individually notable has been discussed several times and each time the answer has been no - again whether at formal places like AfD or just through the ebb and flow of editing. Following that well participated in AfD I redirected the remaining set of Now UK articles as not notable based on policy and community consensus on the topic. I hope that provides the background and touches on the policy explanation of what happened. I am sorry to others for my own wall of text. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

71.31.177.88 (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC) As a bystander to all of this who has referenced Wikipedia for many years as I expanded my music collection, I don't understand why all the NOW UK editions have been redirected. In my eyes, the UK edition is much **much** more significant than the US version (which doens't have any redirects what so ever) yet not one item in the US version has any redirects. I read and maybe I'm not understanding it clearly but if it's being said albums are being redirected because they don't have any significance and Wikipedia is not a place for discography, then why not redirect albums for artists back to the artist's main Wikipedia page? Every album for Britney Spears has a page with track listings. Same for Taylor Swift, Christina Aguilera, so on and so forth. I don't edit pages or anything else on Wikipedia other than view a few pages here and there but I think a terrible disservice is being done to the NOW UK series by reducing albums to a simple redirect especially after others put so much work into creating the pieces in the first place.

Most albums by Taylor Swift and Britney Spears are going to receive significant coverage by multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, therefore passing the notability requirements for Wikipedia. The redirect of the NOW albums released in the UK did not happen until I updated the Now That's What I Call Music! discography page with the pertinent info from those articles. I have not done the same for the NOW albums from the US so that task just hasn't been undertaken yet (WP:NODEADLINE). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I've been waiting for this discussion to reach some sort of conclusion before moving onto US albums. If the consensus remains that the redirects were appropriate, I would need to do some further investigation of the US albums to ensure that the lack of sourcing which was endemic with the UK articles is also true for the US articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

My feeling is that consensus has been reached with the multiple AfDs to do so and the discussions on this talk page and Talk:Now That's What I Call Music!, which shows this debate has been going on since 2007 ([1]). If that still isn't enough, I would suggest an RFC.

I agree with you but also want to respect those who disagree who are participating in good faith. An RfC might be the way to go (which is why I was inclined to do so above) but at this point consensus might be strong enough that assuming the BEFORE comes up empty that an attempt to do the redirects is an appropriate first attempt at bringing this to its conclusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Converting US to table form

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars I don't have the time (and am about to be off wiki for a while) to finish filling in the table. If you wish to revert until it can be completed I will take no offense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand it's a huge task. I've had a version in draft for months and have only got to volume 6 because of an inability to dedicate the time to do it. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I assume you are going to fill in platinum status? If not I'm happy to start redirecting articles as appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I did the first six volumes of the US series because I have had the URLs for those ones for a bit. Just want to show some progress being made. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Individual Release Details.

I am bitterly disappointed at the rather high handed decision that was taken to delete the details of individual Now That's What I Call Music albums, track listings, etc. It may appear insignificant to some people, but many people use this information, I for one, for reference checking. Can the person who decided these details weren't of enough importance please reinstate these pages as I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking their removal was NOT in the best interests of Wiki users. Many thanks.

Minors2018 (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Minors2018: This decision wasn't taken unilaterally. It is instead the result of multiple Articles for Deletion discussions held over the years, the most recent being this one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Barkeep49, but in my opinion this is NOT a valid defence of the decision. Is the plan eventually to delete ALL album details by all bands? This was NOT in the best interests of music fans, and I am certain I'm not alone in my views, and I will not be swayed in my opinion. Sorry, this was a dreadful decision, and one I won't be silenced about until it is reversed. Minors2018 (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I am glad there is another voice of sense in this discussion. There should have been a proper discussion before they were redirected. Aiken D 17:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There were discussions before they were redirected, several times in fact over the years. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

And yet mysteriously whenever links to discussions are asked for, the only ones found are either relevant for the US series, whose articles still exist, or AfDs for random UK albums. Why do some UK albums still remain but others redirected? If this was really discussed it certainly wasn’t discussed properly. Aiken D 08:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't realized it was a mystery. Examples of relatively recent UK series AfD discussions: 1, 2, and of course 3 which was the most recent and you participated in. I would also suggest that UK and US series examples are functionally the same so discussion about one applies to the other - they're functionally track listings with some information about sales. Which UK series are not redirects? Other than the original album, which clearly has coverage to let it be more than a track listing, I checked and 2 - 100 are all redirects. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am very sorry, but the decision was deplorable. Someone has taken the time and effort to put these pages together, only for someone to take the selfish decision to delete them on the totally wrong premise that they are not notable enough to warrant being kept. This being the case, why are the individual US entries still active? These articles are very informative and they should be reinstated at the earliest possible opportunity. Sorry, I will not be swayed from this point of view, and will not be silenced either

Well, I am very sorry, but the decision was deplorable. Someone has taken the time and effort to put these pages together, only for someone to take the selfish decision to delete them on the totally wrong premise that they are not notable enough to warrant being kept. This being the case, why are the individual US entries still active? These articles are very informative and they should be reinstated at the earliest possible opportunity. Sorry, I will not be swayed from this point of view, and will not be silenced either.

Minors2018 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the US entries should also be deleted, and pretty much every entry of each series of compilation albums should be redirected to a container article, in my opinion. This wasn't a "selfish" or "high-handed" act carried out by one individual, this was taken after a consensus was reached following a discussion of interested editors. I'm not sure what information you were looking for in your research, but per WP:NOTDIR Wikipedia should not just be a page of track lists - these can be found on Discogs, Amazon, etc. and in order to be an encyclopedic article it should have some prose as well... but there is literally nothing you can say about these compilations apart from "they contain chart hits and they sell lots". The comparison with other album articles is invalid as these can usually be expanded with prose, critical reviews, background detail on the composition of the album, etc. Richard3120 (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

In response to your reply Richard3120, all I can say is I bet none of the "interested editors" were music fans. I'm sorry, to say that track listings do not merit inclusion is farcical, it is ALL information, and people use Wikipedia to obtain information. Regardless that this can be found elsewhere, that argument is true of a lot of things that Wikipedia has on it. I am adamant this information being removed was a wrong decision, and will fight to have these pages restored.

Minors2018 (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, the US volumes will be redirected eventually as well but, like the UK versions, the discography page needs to be updated first to include the pertinent info contained on the individual pages. WP:NODEADLINE. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NOT the solution I'm seeking at all! I don't want the US volumes redirected, deleted, got rid of at all! I want the UK entries returned to their rightful place, on Wikipedia! The decision to remove them was wrong!!!

Minors2018 (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that has been removed is the track list information. Everything else that was in the redirected articles can be found on the discography page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

And it is precisely this information that I believe should never have been deleted! Yes I acknowledge this information can be found in many places on the net, but as I've mentioned earlier, so can most of the things on Wiki. Just an awful decision to delete this material.

Minors2018 (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

More and more of us are agreeing with this. Perhaps we need an RfC. Aiken D 06:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Aiken drum: I'm sorry you didn't express support for an RfC 2 months ago when we were discussing this before. I would urge caution about an RfC - I think the support for people who believe that these should exist as articles is passionate, as seen here, but not wide (and some what transitory in terms of overall Wikipedia participation). I think the opposition position is wider but not as passionate (but also more stable editors on the whole). This is why when it's gone to a community forum, like AfD, the consensus has come out against them existing as articles. If you continue down the RfC path I have formulated what I consider to be a superior option, given our discussion since then, but urge caution as the result might not go (again) the way you'd hope. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Have read carefully what has been said so far, and I have not swayed in my opinion at all. The decision that track listing was not considered noteworthy enough was wrong, and I totally agree with Aiken drum and would respectfully request that an RfC is held over this matter. True the decision may not be the one we require, and we'll almost certainly still voice our displeasure, but at least it will give all parties a chance to air their views on the subject. Minors2018 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

As you are contesting article deletions, the appropriate forum would be Wikipedia:Deletion review. For example, Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK Series) was deleted as a result of [[2]]. If you feel that 51 UK should be kept, you will need to challenge that AfD. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Bonkers decision. Most of these albums sold over 1 million copies, and the series as a whole has had a huge cultural impact in the UK. User:AcerBen 21:02, 04 November 2018 (GMT)

The notability of the series as a whole is not disputed and the article for Now That's What I Call Music is in no danger of being deleted. However, the individual volumes, despite selling very well, do not receive significant (if any) 3rd party coverage in reliable sources. They provided little more than the track listings. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I miss the individual articles as well. This seems to have been done under the radar presumably in an attempt to bulk up the main contributor's edit count. They did no harm; having the track listings in one place was neat; it was useful having release dates. Contrary to the existing text the first CD release was volume 4, albeit in abridged form. That kind of trivia looks awful in a huge list and makes more sense on individual pages. It appears to be yet another example of US editors applying a US viewpoint to non-US topics - the debate about erasing British motorway service stations springs to mind. Also, I'm naturally suspicious of editors who (a) have zany colours in their signature (b) don't have user pages. It's never a good thing and there's never a good reason. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I encourage you to check what you are saying and about whom you are saying it. The "bulking up...edit count" claim is particularly off base and clearly an assumption of bad faith.

As you are contesting article deletions, the appropriate forum would be Wikipedia:Deletion review. For example, Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK Series) was deleted as a result of [[3]]. If you feel that 51 UK should be kept, you will need to challenge that AfD. In any case, please do not casually throw around personal attacks based on assumptions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Make all the Now Albums have an individual page

Can someone please make all the Now Albums have an individual page like last time back in 2015-2017? I really missed those days when they were like that. I do not know who is the one edit like this using redirect? When they had individual pages, the albums provide better information with it. Ken choo (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ken choo: I recommend you read this for more on this very topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Clearly it was a poor decision to redirect them all. Aiken D 06:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

No, this is really stupid. If you're going to redirect all the UK albums, then why aren't the US ones doing the same? It makes no sense at all for the UK and US to have different styles. The Now! Wikipedieans need to take a stand and get it back to the way it was before.

Agreed, and I said so back in the summer when I discovered it. But I was told off for restoring them. Aiken D 05:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Most of them saved on Wayback Machine, right click album number, copy link, paste it to Wayback Machine. It is a big joke, most users don't need useless "diary of events" on Now That's What I Call Music! discography page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.186.69.234 (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Up To Date

Since 2018, More Special Edition Albums Have Been Made

1.Now Ibizia 2.Now Halloween 3.Now Disney Bedtime 4.Now Rock N Roll 5.Now Now 6.Now Love Songs 7.Now Party 2019 8.Now 100 Hits 80s 9.Now 100 Hits Power Ballads

Proof: https://www.nowmusic.com/albums/

I Hope This Helps2A02:C7D:3E8E:7200:61D5:DD7F:156D:B787 (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I Would Add Them all but I can't seem to find the release dates for them :(. DanTheMusicMan2(talk) 12:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on May 26, 2019

Remove hyperlinks for the US versions of Now 3, 10, 13, 15, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, since they all just redirect to this page. 2600:8800:2E80:1146:4532:2E0D:E872:9010 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Split the corresponding page into different pages

Discussion 1

On the article that this talk page is intended for, one of the foremost things you may see is a 'multiple issues' header that includes an issue that may cause readers to say 'too long, didn't read in full': "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably." This is why I suggest that the corresponding article be split into the following:

--69.160.29.63 (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose It would be best to merge the UK/Ireland discography with the UK/Ireland section of Now That's What I Call Music! article, and so forth, for which there is sufficient and sourced info. Info on the other countries is so sparse, these listings would seem to fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY and can be pruned. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should leave it as it is we can use the contents template to direct us to the required section quite easily, we don't need to complicate things. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion 2

The corresponding article shall be relisted for splitting here, this time for doing so into fewer articles than suggested earlier:

--69.160.29.0 (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: You would only need the first two, as sections 3 and 4 would be entirely unsourced and therefore deleted for failing WP:RS and WP:NOTDIR. Richard3120 (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as an insufficient way to split and organize. Prune first. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion 3

This might be the final discussion for splitting, this time into the following:

According to the second discussion, all other content on the corresponding article of this talk page must be pruned first before splitting. --69.160.29.255 (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree it should be split, the cultural significance of Now That's What I Call Music! discography/British Isles in the UK cannot be stressed enough! The Emperor of Byzantium (talk) 15:40, 22 Feb 2020 (UTC)

@The Emperor of Byzantium: it may be true about the "cultural significance in the UK" (I grew up in the UK in the 1980s, so I fully understand why you say this), but (a) we would still need references to demonstrate the cultural significance, and (b) those references would more likely go in the Now That's What I Call Music! article rather than this list article. Richard3120 (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Now Comic Relief

There was a Now Comic Relief album released during 2011^[1].I guess it can't be added because itunes no longer sells this if i click to buy it [4] it's no longer avaliable it can't be classed as an avaliable album plus there was no CD release. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.allmusic.com/album/now-thats-what-i-call-comic-relief-mw0002135463

Now 64 cassette

Where is the evidence that tells us Now 64 was released on cassette? I looked through the websites like discogs and few more but there are none. Ken choo (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

True there is not much information about it or any of the last few cassettes, this is because they were not released for retail and you had to order online only for a short period, there are still listings on amazon, discogs however I have never seen the now 64 up for sale and almost everyone has said they have not seen now 64 on cassette after asking online including myself. Maybe you've got more chance to find a needle in a haystack than one of these it seems. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Only 100 copies were pressed according to here https://lostmediaarchive.fandom.com/wiki/Now_That%27s_What_I_Call_Music!_64_(Rare_UK_cassette_tape) DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.allmusic.com/album/now-thats-what-i-call-comic-relief-mw0002135463

[1]