Talk:Headlines!

Merge

This article was recently redirected to band article, The Saturdays.[1] I'm unaware of any consensus for this merge, so I'm initiating a discussion here.--PinkBull 16:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Title

Isn't the title of the EP "Headlines!" with an exclamation point? Yvesnimmo (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed all "Headlines" to "Headlines!" only to where applicable, of course urls were not changed due to obvious reasons. Hampton (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Album

On The Saturdays official website, they are calling it a 'mini-album' not a EP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.123.165 (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It also states on The Saturdays official website that it is a eight track studio album--86.151.199.124 (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

8 songs is a full length album, but we should keep this page as an EP until we know the running time, if it's over 25 minutes, we should change it to studio album. MatthewWaller (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to studio album because the length of the album is 28 minutes. MatthewWaller (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In numerous interviews they've said that this is their mini-album, a bridge between Wordshaker and their third studio album. Therefore in technicality it is an EP - it cannot be a classified as a studio album. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Headlines (EP) → Headlines! (EP) — Despite the label referring to the release as Headlines[2] a number of other reliable sources called the album Headlines!. These include the BBC Music,[3] Digital Spy,[4] Entertainment Focus,[5] and MTV[6] . Plus the actual cover itself makes use of the exclaimation mark. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 00:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No longer required or requested. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 19:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Isn't the reception section a little bit too long and draggy? For example, half a paragraph is wasted on the teentoday review, which shouldn't even be included in the first place. One or two quotes that summarize the article's content should be enough to get a general view of the editor's opinion, otherwise it gets unnecessarily long and tiring to read.

I also found these reviews by Daily Express (http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/192847/CD-Reviews-Legally-Blonde-Iron-Maiden-and-the-Saturdays/) and Daily Mirror (http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/the-ticket/2010/08/the-saturdays-cd-of-the-week.html) that I haven't added to the reviewbox yet because the reception needs to be sorted out first. Spacealigned (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the reception section of other articles e.g. The Fame Monster, Pulse (Toni Braxton album), Flesh Tone this is adequate. As more informative and industry related reviews are added the others will be replaced. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay but if you notice, the reception section of the "Fame Monster" is a little larger than "Headlines" and it includes quotes from 13 reviews while this one here has massive quotes from only 6!! Same case with "Flesh Tone", it has 11 reviews. As for "Pulse" I think it is exemplary! Short, comprehensive quotes, great flow, very accessible and easy to read. Basically all I am saying is that there should be a balance between the amount of reviews and the size of this section and, at the moment, the balance is way off. Spacealigned (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And if you need reviews to replace teentoday and Entertainment Focus, here you go: NME (http://www.nme.com/reviews/the-saturdays/11492) | Daily Star (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/149372/Review-The-Saturdays-Headlines) | OK! (http://www.ok.co.uk/music/view/25269/Review-The-Saturdays-Headlines-/) | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/192847/CD-Reviews-Legally-Blonde-Iron-Maiden-and-the-Saturdays). I know some of them are not half as well-written as some "amateur" ones but, according to wikipedia rules, they are the ones that should be included... Spacealigned (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing to mini album

I've changed it to mini album because that's what the label calls it. And according to the Official Charts Company an EP (maxi single) contains no more than 4 original songs. Therefore this cannot be classified as an EP because an EP would NOT be able to chart on the UK album's chart. It is incorrect to call it a studio album because the label and group have confirmed that it is the bridge between the second and third studio albums. Rather than reverting discuss it here. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 17:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See the Albums Project report on album articles with infoboxes that need repair. "Mini album" is not one of the accepted categories per Wikipedia, so people keep changing it back because the Headlines article is reappearing in that report. Consistency in the infoboxes makes volunteer work easier for people in the Wikipedia Albums Project. The whole "mini album" issue can be explained in the article text but it doesn't need to mess up the infobox. As for the accepted values for the TYPE field, if you don't think it's an "EP" then it should probably be changed to "studio," and once again the mini album distinction can be explained in the article text, plus what the band says.

See also the full Albums Project rules for infoboxes. Also I think the recent Move of the article title is incorrect: see album article naming styles. This is all for consistency with the hundred thousand other album articles on Wikipedia, and people aren't changing things out of ignorance. And despite what this band's record company says, "mini album" is probably not a standard term in the industry. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I also brought this up at the Albums Project talk page here. This may turn out to be a technical discussion about guidelines and templates, but that's pretty much what Wikipedia is all about. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to explain... The infobox for albums allows you to enter other things into the field which is called "Type". Anything else entered into that field generates the 'other' album formatting for infobox with the pink labels. It is incorrect to label the album as studio "because its not a studio album" nor is it an "EP". It is labelled accurately. Writing one thing in the infobox and something else in the text/prose is misleading. Hence I provided the internal link for the article about mini albums. Also I think you'll find that WP:Albums does not specify that other names such as mini album are unacceptable. Yes it provides suggestions but there is specific refusual or unacceptance of names such as mini album. You'll find that WP:Article titles overides any individual project guidelines... and according to that "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Thus if the band are marketing the album as a mini album and the label is calling it a mini album then this move and my actions are correct. Most people when searching for this album will look for: Headlines!, Headlines or Headlines (mini album). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 22:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

ep's can definitely chart on the album chart. ie Night Train, the keane ep charted at #1 on the uk album chart in may. is the same sort of length as headlines and most definitely referred to as an ep both by the band and officially. Mister sparky (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

However per the articles on wikipedia and the rules according to Official Charts Company a release of songs where there are more than four original songs (i.e. more than four songs with no remixes) and where length exceeds 25 minutes (i think its this long) then the collection is classified as an album. If you think logically some single releases are classified as EPs because they exceed the requirements of being a single (2-3 music recordings or 1 recording and 1 video). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 14:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing to EP

Per the discussions at Talk:The Fame Monster I am changing this album to an EP as it is more like an EP than studio album and precedes the release of the group's third studio album per the sources given. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

100% Agree, but should we include a new section with Infobox and details on the re-release as a compilation album (release that included Wordshaker Tracks)? I Help, When I Can.^[12] 17:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not required because the new collection didn't chart separately. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an album, it's length make it qualify as an album, the album booklet says it is their 3rd studio album. There's no need for more proof. Stop editing this as an EP, please. 17:49, 07 February 2013 (UTC)

This is indeed an album

It's length make it qualify as an album, the album booklet says it's their 3rd studio album (read it or look for scans if you don't have it). So let's stop editing this article as an EP, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.112.244 (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Even when you read the "On Your Radar" album booklet, they mention it as their 4th album, so Headlines! is their 3rd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.112.244 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

See above in the section Talk:Headlines!#Changing_to_mini_album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

EPs are albums.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Headlines!. 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/20100819172118/http://www.ok.co.uk/music/view/25269/Review-The-Saturdays-Headlines-/ to http://www.ok.co.uk/music/view/25269/Review-The-Saturdays-Headlines-/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818005035/http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/the-saturdays/news/233126-talk-to-the-saturdays-in-the-habbo-hotel to http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/the-saturdays/news/233126-talk-to-the-saturdays-in-the-habbo-hotel
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thesaturdays.co.uk/news/higher-marks-party-time-sats/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129083651/http://thesaturdays.co.uk/news/expanded-headlines/ to http://www.thesaturdays.co.uk/news/expanded-headlines/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67ONtrszf?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/3/2010-08-28/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/3/2010-08-28/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ie.7digital.com/artists/the-saturdays/headlines/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;0;-1;-1;-1&sku=806035
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thesaturdays.co.uk/music/albums/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)