Template talk:Led Zeppelin

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Led Zeppelin This template is within the scope of WikiProject Led Zeppelin, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Led Zeppelin-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the members page, to join the project.Led ZeppelinWikipedia:WikiProject Led ZeppelinTemplate:WikiProject Led ZeppelinLed Zeppelin articles Rock music This template is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock 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.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles

This template survived a TfD debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 16:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-10-01T16:13:00.000Z","author":"Splash","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Splash-2005-10-01T16:13:00.000Z-TfD_debate","replies":[]}}-->

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 NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-10-23T11:45:00.000Z","author":"Freakofnurture","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Freakofnurture-2005-10-23T11:45:00.000Z-","replies":[]}}-->

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)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-06T01:39:00.000Z","author":"MichiganCharms","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MichiganCharms-2007-07-06T01:39:00.000Z-Coda","replies":["c-Koavf-2007-07-06T02:02:00.000Z-MichiganCharms-2007-07-06T01:39:00.000Z"]}}-->

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)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-06T02:02:00.000Z","author":"Koavf","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Koavf-2007-07-06T02:02:00.000Z-MichiganCharms-2007-07-06T01:39:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Justin (koavf)"}}-->

Should The Nobs be in the 'other' section? 70.88.98.121 00:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-10-04T00:53:00.000Z","author":"70.88.98.121","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-70.88.98.121-2007-10-04T00:53:00.000Z-The_Nobs","replies":[]}}-->

MichiganCharms is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfdrums (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-12-19T17:16:00.000Z","author":"Cfdrums","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cfdrums-2007-12-19T17:16:00.000Z-The_Nobs","replies":["c-156.34.142.110-2007-12-19T17:39:00.000Z-Cfdrums-2007-12-19T17:16:00.000Z","c-Cfdrums-2007-12-19T17:43:00.000Z-Cfdrums-2007-12-19T17:16:00.000Z"]}}-->

nope. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-12-19T17:39:00.000Z","author":"156.34.142.110","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-156.34.142.110-2007-12-19T17:39:00.000Z-Cfdrums-2007-12-19T17:16:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

yup. your turn. Cfdrums —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfdrums (talk • contribs) 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-12-19T17:43:00.000Z","author":"Cfdrums","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Cfdrums-2007-12-19T17:43:00.000Z-Cfdrums-2007-12-19T17:16:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

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)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-12-13T00:43:00.000Z","author":"No-Bullet","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-No-Bullet-2007-12-13T00:43:00.000Z-Jason_Bonham","replies":["c-Bluorangefyre-2007-12-13T16:41:00.000Z-No-Bullet-2007-12-13T00:43:00.000Z"]}}-->

Then if he wasn't (past-tense) a member, he is (present-tense) now. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-12-13T16:41:00.000Z","author":"Bluorangefyre","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bluorangefyre-2007-12-13T16:41:00.000Z-No-Bullet-2007-12-13T00:43:00.000Z","replies":["c-99.247.244.120-2009-05-17T16:44:00.000Z-Bluorangefyre-2007-12-13T16:41:00.000Z"]}}-->

The band is no longer together. So, present tense doesn't apply. Also, the reunion rumors have been shot down (damn!), so he's not a future member either. 99.247.244.120 (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Me...[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-05-17T16:44:00.000Z","author":"99.247.244.120","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-99.247.244.120-2009-05-17T16:44:00.000Z-Bluorangefyre-2007-12-13T16:41:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

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)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-12-15T15:06:00.000Z","author":"KingAlanI","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-KingAlanI-2007-12-15T15:06:00.000Z-Post-1980_shows","replies":["c-Koavf-2007-12-15T16:36:00.000Z-KingAlanI-2007-12-15T15:06:00.000Z"]}}-->

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)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-12-15T16:36:00.000Z","author":"Koavf","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Koavf-2007-12-15T16:36:00.000Z-KingAlanI-2007-12-15T15:06:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Justin (koavf)"}}-->

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

• Liner notes for the Led Zeppelin Box Set, Vol. 2, which states that Led Zeppelin released nine studio albums.
• Label attached to the Complete Studio Recordings boxed set, officially released by Atlantic Records, which states that the set includes "all nine of Led Zeppelin's studio albums"
• Global Bass magazine interview with John Paul Jones
• 1993 interview with Jimmy Page in Guitar World magazine
• Article in the Telegraph newspaper
• Article in the Mirror newspaper
• Led Zeppelin expert Dave Lewis, in his publication The Complete Guide to the Music of Led Zeppelin (London: Omnibus Press, 1994 ISBN 0-7119-3528-9) lists Coda as one of the ten Led Zeppelin albums released in its own right (TSRTS being the only live album of the ten). That is, he puts the album in the same bracket as the other nine albums which preceded it. All of these albums he distinguishes from later Led Zeppelin compilation albums, such as Led Zeppelin Remasters. Edelmand Edelmand (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-27T14:59:00.000Z","author":"Edelmand","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Edelmand-2008-05-27T14:59:00.000Z-Coda_is_a_studio_album,_not_a_compilation_album","replies":["c-Koavf-2008-05-27T20:49:00.000Z-Edelmand-2008-05-27T14:59:00.000Z"]}}-->

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)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-27T20:49:00.000Z","author":"Koavf","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Koavf-2008-05-27T20:49:00.000Z-Edelmand-2008-05-27T14:59:00.000Z","replies":["c-Anger22-2008-05-28T00:42:00.000Z-Koavf-2008-05-27T20:49:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Justin (koavf)"}}-->

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)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-28T00:42:00.000Z","author":"Anger22","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Anger22-2008-05-28T00:42:00.000Z-Koavf-2008-05-27T20:49:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

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)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-28T12:29:00.000Z","author":"Edelmand","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Edelmand-2008-05-28T12:29:00.000Z-Coda_is_a_studio_album,_not_a_compilation_album","replies":["c-Koavf-2008-06-01T01:25:00.000Z-Edelmand-2008-05-28T12:29:00.000Z"]}}-->

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)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-06-01T01:25:00.000Z","author":"Koavf","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Koavf-2008-06-01T01:25:00.000Z-Edelmand-2008-05-28T12:29:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Justin (koavf)"}}-->

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)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-06-02T09:44:00.000Z","author":"Edelmand","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Edelmand-2008-06-02T09:44:00.000Z-Coda_is_a_studio_album,_not_a_compilation_album","replies":["c-Koavf-2008-06-02T17:55:00.000Z-Edelmand-2008-06-02T09:44:00.000Z"]}}-->

Sure How's All Music Guide? -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-06-02T17:55:00.000Z","author":"Koavf","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Koavf-2008-06-02T17:55:00.000Z-Edelmand-2008-06-02T09:44:00.000Z","replies":["c-Edelmand-2008-06-02T22:57:00.000Z-Koavf-2008-06-02T17:55:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Justin (koavf)"}}-->

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)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-06-02T22:57:00.000Z","author":"Edelmand","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Edelmand-2008-06-02T22:57:00.000Z-Koavf-2008-06-02T17:55:00.000Z","replies":["c-Edelmand-2009-12-13T13:26:00.000Z-Edelmand-2008-06-02T22:57:00.000Z"]}}-->

For the record, Allmusic no longer characterises Coda as a compilation album Edelmand (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-12-13T13:26:00.000Z","author":"Edelmand","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Edelmand-2009-12-13T13:26:00.000Z-Edelmand-2008-06-02T22:57:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Just letting everyone know that instead of just listing the A-sides as singles, I included the B-sides as singles and adjusted their pages to reflect that. I used this page and others (including Wikipedia's page on Zeppelin's singles) to confirm this. Hope you guys like it! --Moviemaniacx (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-06-27T19:34:00.000Z","author":"Moviemaniacx","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Moviemaniacx-2008-06-27T19:34:00.000Z-Singles","replies":[]}}-->

Since it was not released as a single, I can understand why it's not in the "singles" section, but it seems weird that it's not in the nav box template anywhere. What do other editors think? Should it be added? If so, where? 28bytes (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-09-26T18:44:00.000Z","author":"28bytes","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-28bytes-2010-09-26T18:44:00.000Z-No_Stairway_to_Heaven?","replies":[]}}-->

I thought I would take a minute to explain to you why I have introduced changes to this template. One reason for changing the templates is to improve accessibility for visually impaired users using a screen reader. Whenever a screen reader encounters a dot, it calls out the word "dot". The material presents as a lot of tiny disjointed paragraphs rather than a list. With the new mark-up, the screen reader will announce that a list is coming, and then will proceed to read out the items on the list. Application of the hlist class is about presenting the material as actual lists, which helps not just people with vision issues, but those viewing the site using phones and other non-traditional devices. Search engines also will read lists better.

The use of the dots is now deprecated, and have been since August. Each dot requires the application of a template, and templates are expensive, as they increase server load. There are limits as to how many templates can be placed on a page. Application of the latest method, using listclasses and bodyclasses to create the lists, results in a reduction in post-expand include size of 31% and a reduction in template argument size of 41% on this particular template. This is a substantial improvement that will lead to quicker load times for pages and a better experience for our viewing audience.

The transition has not been trouble free; some kinks have had to be ironed out, and there may still be a ways to go. However, we have the templates displaying adequately in the two latest versions of the problematic Internet Explorer (IE8 and IE9), and we can't hold back development of Wikipedia for older, buggy browsers. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, -- Dianna (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-11-26T00:55:00.000Z","author":"Diannaa","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Diannaa-2011-11-26T00:55:00.000Z-No_Stairway_to_Heaven?","replies":[],"displayName":"Dianna"}}-->

I noticed in the Led Zeppelin tours section that Live Aid, Atlantic 40th, and the Ahmet Ertegun Tribute Concert were counted as tours. These were one-offs, and should be placed in a new Reunions section of the template. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-11-29T06:43:00.000Z","author":"Bluorangefyre","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bluorangefyre-2012-11-29T06:43:00.000Z-Tours_section","replies":[]}}-->

I was thinking we should finish this discussion, as it seems since the 2007 reunion (Plant actually says on stage "to bring Jason in") Jason is considered a member of the band. Thoughts ? Mlpearc (powwow) 19:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-10-12T19:54:00.000Z","author":"Mlpearc","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mlpearc-2013-10-12T19:54:00.000Z-Re-visiting_adding_Jason_to_the_template","replies":[]}}-->

How would the recently released Deluxe Edition albums be added to the template? They are not live (with the exception of Led Zeppelin (Deluxe Edition), which I have already placed), not boxed sets, so would they be studio or compilation?—SPESH531Other 16:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-08-02T16:05:00.000Z","author":"Spesh531","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Spesh531-2014-08-02T16:05:00.000Z-Led_Zeppelin_Deluxe_Edition","replies":[],"displayName":"SPESH"}}-->