Talk:Diary of a Madman (album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Diary of a Madman (album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Merge discussion, April 2013

The page for the album track Over the Mountain is a stub with little potential for expansion. There is zero content about the song in the article that isn't already expressed here. It seems very clear to me that it should be merged with the album article per guidelines. I attempted to do so on the grounds that the song does not meet notability guidelines per Wikipedia:NSONGS#Songs but another editor reverted my attempt.

Merge as nominator. ChakaKong^talk 11:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be kept separate since it passes two different parts of WP:NSONGS, it has been ranked on a national music chart and has been released by four different notable groups. Aspects (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. This is clearly not the case. An article unlikely to ever grow beyond a stub should be merged to the article about the artist or album, which is what we are attempting to do here in accordance with the very same guidelines you are quoting. ChakaKong^talk 21:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think sufficient time has passed and no reasonable argument has been made opposing the merge. I'll wait a couple of more days for input, and then if nothing changes I'll proceed with the merge as proposed. ChakaKong^talk 14:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should let more time pass as we are the only two editors have added opinions about the merge, this is not an action that has to happen quickly and a consensus has not been reached. I offered a reasonable argument against the merge and just because you are in favor of it does not make my argument unreasonable. You have provided no evidence in that the article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub and in fact two editors have added material with references since the merge template was added and Jo4n removed the no sources template since it now has sources. Aspects (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the single charted, it's been covered by multiple acts and the page has been expanded and better sourced since this discussion began. J04n(talk page) 20:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put out a call for some unbiased third party opinions. Hopefully we'll get it settled. ChakaKong^talk 21:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The song appears to be notable in its own right, considering its hart positions; also, the article does have several reputable sources attached (even though last.fm fails the WP:RS guidelines). Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be kept, it is notable in it's own right and has adequate sources at the moment to justify most of the information in the article. Borgarde (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well it does appear that there is sufficient consensus to scrap the merge. Thanks to everyone for contributing to the discussion. ChakaKong^talk 15:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Release date controversy

Ray1983a's constant reverting the edits to this page regarding the release of this album has led me to investigate the actual release date of this album.

Ozzy's website states 7 November 1981: https://www.ozzy.com/music/list

Many other websites state 7 November 1981: https://www.discogs.com/master/41160-Ozzy-Osbourne-Diary-Of-A-Madman

The back cover of the 2002 re-issue states November 1981: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51mheyCe5aL._UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg

The external link at the bottom of the page leads to the same discogs page that states 7 November 1981 as a release date.

Without a reliable source explicitly stating otherwise, there is no reason 7 November 1981 should not be the release date listed in the article Cdeichman (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there seems to be confusion on how LP and single releases work.

As can be seen at the official UK charts website, "Diary of a Madman" debut on the album charts was Saturday 7 November 1981.

This is not the release date, as any chart entry reflects the sales up til and including the previous Saturday. In our case here, looking at the calender of 1981, that means the LP by necessity was released on 30 October 1981, or earlier. Whatever the exact date is, it had to be October, which is what Martin Strong's book indeed states.

So why does Ozzy.com still says it was released on 7 November? Well, that's the problem with circular reporting. A website can use Wikipedia as its source, while someone else then might us that website as a source added on Wikipedia. Which means the incorrect date keeps going back and forth. Ray1983a (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]