Talk:Led Zeppelin discography

Inflated/incorrect certification claims in this article

Is there a reason for that the RIAA certifications get inflated in this article? For Physical Graffiti this article claims 22x Platinum, but when I check it out on the RIAA website it says 16x Platinum. Likewise for Led Zeppelin IV this article claims 27xPlatinum, while on RIAA's website it says 23x Platinum. I think it's the same with II and III - inflated numbers compared to what is actually stated on RIAA's website. 94.21.101.1 (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What could be done.

The table backgrounds should be darker and the singles section should be more complete with chart positions and cover art. A great example of this is the Queen discography.--172.148.22.251 06:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

should the tracklists for each album link to the individual songs? Alcuin 02:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The chart section

The charting positions section is inconsistent with other information. The article claims "Led Zeppelin only released one single in the United Kingdom, that was Whole Lotta Love; but it only reached #21" yet in the chart it claims Whole Lotta Love reached #1 and that Black Dog, Misty Mountain Hop and Rock and Roll all made the UK singles chart. Also the chart section claims that Fool in the Rain, Hot Dog, South Bound Suarez and All My Love charted on the Mainstream Rock Chart in 1980 but when reading the Mainstream Rock article it says that the chart first began in 1981. Stairway to Heaven is placed in the chart section when it was not released as a single - there are other songs like this. We are told what the singles were that Led Zeppelin released in the US yet there are other songs in the chart list which are not mentioned in the list of singles but somehow managed to chart! eg. Kashmir is not in the list of released singles yet charts at #16. The chart really needs to worked on - or the other information is wrong.

---==---
I agree, the chart table is a mess. I actually came to the wikipedia entry as I couldn't remember if Led Zeppelin ever released a UK single or not. I thought I had my answer in the text which says Whole Lotta Love was released as a single but reached #21. I find the comment about needing to reach the top 20 in the charts to be considered a hit a little misleading as I always thought it was the top 40 (and i think it became the top 75)

Anyway, from what I can gather (in the form of my 1988 copy of British Hit Singles), all the info in the table for the UK chart is wrong since they didn't release any singles in the UK in the 60's, 70's or 80's Looking at the Whole Lotta Love Single page it suggests it was released in the UK charts in 1997 where I suspect it reached #21 if the info in the article is correct So, all the numbers in the UK Chart column should be removed, and an extra row at the bottom needs to be added saying "Whole Lotta Love (1997)" with the UK chart position in it.
Hope that helps
Stonysleep 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LedZeppelinMothership.jpg

Image:LedZeppelinMothership.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 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 08:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Coda is a studio album

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 (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Official and studio While most (not all) of Coda was recorded in-studio, it was not recorded together as an album; it wasn't even all recorded in the same decade. Allmusic lists it as a compilation, as do other sources and plain reason - this is a perfect example of a compilation album i.e. "an album... featuring tracks from one or multiple recording artists, often culled from a variety of sources (such as studio albums, live albums, singles, demos and outtakes.)" Many of these sources don't even explicitly mention Coda, nor is there any controversy addressed as to whether or not it is "official"; clearly, by any definition, it is "officially" a Led Zeppelin album, it's just a compilation of various tracks released after their career was over. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it’s not up to a source like AllMusic to say whether or not Coda is definitively this or that. I don’t understand what significance the point has, seeing that rateyourmusic puts it in “Albums” among other studio albums. It is actively not put in the Compilation Albums section, but that doesn’t really mean anything. Coda being a studio album or compilation album is not a throwaway discussion. People aimlessly say it’s a compilation without doing the proper research. Just like the AllMusic and rateyourmusic point, the people is an even better example. We don’t get to decide, based on no evidence, that Coda is a compilation album. The fact is, it isn’t. The only thing that makes it even remotely compilation-like is the fact that the songs are compiled over a long period of time.

People have let rules ruin art. Just because something does what Coda does, doesn’t mean it’s any less of an important piece of work than the others. Because it has the qualities of a compilation, that doesn’t mean it is. There is more proof for it being a studio album than it being a compilation.

Here it is:

On the OFFICIAL WEBSITE of Led Zeppelin, it is listed at the top among the other eight studio albums. There is no compilation or live album up there, it is just the studio albums. It would be awfully strange if it happened to just be there and mean nothing. But ok ok, not good enough? Atlantic Records (and this is mentioned on Wikipedia too) accepted it into the studio discography, LEGALLY. Led Zeppelin owed one and Atlantic Records constituted it as such. Think that they did that out of kindness because of what happened to the band? Ok, here’s this one: “The Complete Studio Recordings” Box Set is split into … NINE sections. All of them, being studio albums. Coda is the last one on it.

Not that this one is full on proof, but when you click the link of Coda on the official website for Led Zeppelin, you’re taken to Amazon. Here, as a direct link from Led Zeppelin, you are given a description about the album. Not states it’s the final studio album.

As someone who does a good amount of research before doing a discography listen, this Coda debate has really frustrated me. All evidence points to it being a studio album. It is not up to us. We aren’t deities that make judgment calls on artists work and what is this or that. It is the artists decisions as well as those legally involved that have a part in the decision. And this decision is almost 100% clearly one that calls it a studio album. There is evidence for it.

I’d also like to point out the inconsistency on this page. For the longest time there were “eight studio albums,” Coda was a “compilation album,” but then you’d have a section talking about the box se, saying that there’s nine studio albums. It is inconsistent and frustrating, especially to those trying to get an idea for Led Zeppelins discography.

So please, accept it for what it is. Occasional Tinnitus (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As has already been explained on Template talk:Led Zeppelin, the seven reliable sources listed above indicate that Coda is a studio album. Two of these sources derive from Led Zeppelin's official album label, Atlantic Records. The fact that some of the sources do not explicitly mention Coda is irrelevant: they don't explicitly mention any of the other albums either. What the sources do state is that Led Zeppelin released nine studio albums. Unless you want to argue that band's live recording The Song Remains The Same is a studio album, then the only possible conclusion is that all the sources support the proposition that Coda is a studio album. So we have seven reliable sources (including two sources from the band's own album label), against one (All Music Guide). I don't think this single alternative source displaces the official categorisation of the album by Atlantic Records, or the combined weight of the other sources Edelmand (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a citation to the article's infobox verifying that Led Zeppelin released nine studio albums. Please do not revert/remove this citation. Edelmand (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic no longer characterises Coda as a compilation album Edelmand (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin IV chart

On this page it gives the U.S. peak as 2 and on the actual albums page it gives the peak as 1, which one is it?--Hammard (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mini LP Replica Collection

Amazon has this listed: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001FSDP08/ref=s9int_c2_at2-rfc_p-3215_g1-3102_p-3293_p?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0CXFXC05WXJRG8YHN0M9&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=370145201&pf_rd_i=507846

Anyone know anything about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.1.174 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has been released, and should now be included in the discography. It comes in a little black box, about the same size as the previous complete set, with the four silvery runes on the side. It has all nine of the studio albums and "The Song Remains the Same" (I don't know which version), and bonus covers (original for the first album, with turquoise ink instead of orange, and all of the covers for "In Through the Out Door"). I do not know anything beyond that. Ninjaryu (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Before I start: Not a member. The info. above is correct. The version of "The Song Remains The Same" included in the set is the remastered/expanded edition of 2007, although the box-art is that of the 1976 vinyl release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.11.185 (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done MegX (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall update the number of compilations to match; it should be 9.Ninjaryu (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

led ze´ppelin 1.

the sells are 8 platinum and in usa, and not 10 which is the 1990 box of the same name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.72.19.228 (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Promo CDs

hello,

I have added {{Remove-section|December 2010}}, because I think this section should be removed and isn't notable in discographies. Please make suggestions. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Singles section

Somewhere in the scores of recent edits to "improve" this article, the U.S. chart positions have been completely and hopelessly mixed up and they are all inaccurate. I haven't checked the others but they are likely wrong too. Piriczki (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean the official billboard charts. The site was updated, so a few of the singles might not be added to date. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Billboard's website is notorious for being inaccurate and difficult to use. I suggest using only Allmusic ([1], [2]) for the Billboard chart positions, instead of the Billboard website.—indopug (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that Communication Breakdown is a "non album song". Ben MacDui 19:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the 1994 re-release of "Communication Breakdown", which is a non-album song. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Video albums and concert films section

A search on amazon.com reveals way more than 2 videos. What is the criteria for being included here? BollyJeff || talk 22:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

see [3]. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 09:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Album names

Who has decided the names are "Led Zeppelin II", "Led Zeppelin III" and "Led Zeppelin IV"? The IV has a note lower there that it is actually an untitled album, but where has it originated to have the band's name included in the title? Using the same logic, for example The Beatles' first album could as well be "The Beatles Please Please Me". But apparently it is not about logic, as can be seen in III and IV. 85.217.41.81 (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Because these are offical titles? Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me} 08:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Led Zeppelin discography

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Led Zeppelin discography's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SWE":

• From Robert Plant discography: "swedishcharts.com – Swedish charts portal". swedishchart.com. Retrieved 7 February 2010.
• From Jimmy Page discography: "Swedish Chart". Hung Medien. Retrieved 2 January 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

US singles

@ Piriczki: my last edit was made to correct some obvious errors  :

1. According to a reliable referenced source which I have in my hands, only 6 singles were released in USA for 1969-1980, not 9.
2. Billboard 200 is the album chart, not one for singles.
3. The 2nd chart position for ‘’Whole Lotta Love’’ does not exist in Billboard Top 100.

Would u please explain where u got your wrong chart positions and how could I have misinterpreted my source. Thanks in advance. --Bibliorock (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

1. The book you are looking at, The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits, is not a discography. It contains chart information for singles which reached positions 1 to 40 on the Billboard Hot 100. It does not reference any singles that did not chart or any singles that charted but didn't reach #40 or higher. Led Zeppelin released 10 singles in the US from 1969 to 1980.

2. "Billboard 200" was probably a simple copy and paste error when the table was created and has been corrected.

3. The "2nd chart position" is for the B-side "Living Loving Maid".

If you click on the source cited for the US chart positions, it will link to an online source verifying that information. Piriczki (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleting releases from the discography

There is a discussion on this subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies#Deleting releases from discography articles. Piriczki (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Early Days and Latter Days

The 2CD set Early Days and Latter Days, released in 2002, peaked at #11 in the UK and was certified platinum by BPI. The album also peaked at #114 in the US and was certified platinum by the RIAA, however, I can't find any of this information in this article. Why is that? Perhaps the featured list designation should removed since this is an incomplete list. Piriczki (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Because it doesn't make sense to have the same albums listed it would make sense to include a note saying it was re-released as a 2CD set and that it charted see Thin Lizzy discography to see what I mean. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Diamond

Shouldn't the albums which sold 10x platinum be listed as diamond even if there is no award? AmericanLeMans (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You can list it as a Diamond award as long as the certification level remains, otherwise you are providing less information to the reader. The RIAA has no "2x Diamond" award so it is inaccurate to suggest to the reader that an album has received such an award. If you merely want to point out that 20 is twice 10, I think most readers can work that out in their head easily enough. Piriczki (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Led Zeppelin discography. 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/20131103025136/http://infodisc.fr/Album_L.php to http://infodisc.fr/Album_L.php
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/61DmdedGq?url=http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008002332/http://ifpi.nl/nvpi/pagina.asp?pagkey=60461 to http://ifpi.nl/nvpi/pagina.asp?pagkey=60461
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5aWxoHiRP?url=http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621054859/http://www.infodisc.fr/Certif_Album.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Certif_Album.php
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nDfynkk6?url=http://www.ifpi.at/?section=goldplatin to http://www.ifpi.at/?section=goldplatin
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211234149/http://www.ifpi.se/?page_id=67 to http://www.ifpi.se/?page_id=67
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724180126/http://www.ifpi.no/sok/lst_trofeer_sok.asp?type=artist to http://www.ifpi.no/sok/lst_trofeer_sok.asp?type=artist

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Led Zeppelin discography. 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/20130816001255/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=tblTop100&action= to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=tblTop100&action=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418215356/http://www.zpav.pl/rankingi/wyroznienia/diamentowe/index.php to http://zpav.pl/rankingi/wyroznienia/diamentowe/index.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Led Zeppelin discography. 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/20120323092610/http://www.musiccanada.com/GPSearchResult.aspx?st=&ica=False&sa=Led Zeppelin&sl=&smt=0&sat=-1&ssb=Artist to http://www.musiccanada.com/GPSearchResult.aspx?st=&ica=False&sa=Led Zeppelin&sl=&smt=0&sat=-1&ssb=Artist
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.musiccanada.com/GPSearchResult.aspx?st=Celebration Day&ica=False&sa=Led Zeppelin&sl=&smt=0&sat=-1&ssb=Artist

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Led Zeppelin discography. 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/20121021055720/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=t9cckr6i2p2uuqrhg8msu6sj72&q1=Led Zeppelin&q2=Top Albums/CDs&interval=50 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=t9cckr6i2p2uuqrhg8msu6sj72&q1=Led Zeppelin&q2=Top Albums/CDs&interval=50
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021074110/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=u03smm1hr0slsfkfc2boqut580&q1=Led Zeppelin&q2=Top Singles&interval=50 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=u03smm1hr0slsfkfc2boqut580&q1=Led Zeppelin&q2=Top Singles&interval=50

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

UK singles

Led Zeppelin are unusual, if not unique, in achieving such a level of success in the UK despite not having released any singles there during the time that the band was active. (As a result, they never appeared on Top of the Pops although ironically various versions of their "Whole Lotta Love" were used as the show's theme tune for many years.) Perhaps a note should be added to explain why no singles entered the UK singles charts while the band was together? JezGrove (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should Coda be categorized as a compilation album in this discography?

There is a clear consensus that Coda should be categorized as a compilation album in this discography.

Cunard (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The 1982 album Coda is [was] listed in this discography as a studio album. I am proposing it be listed in compilations, per my points below in #Discussion. Please relegate points/arguments to the discussion section, rather than bloating the votes section. Please respond to points/arguments thoughtfully and respectfully, rather than simply voting. Relisted by isento (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC), originally opened by Dan56 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I am relisting this RfC so that an official determination of consensus can be received, in light of recent content disputes involving the above question. isento (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - Dan56 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - see below Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Seems both sensible (I have made this edit for years) and supported by sources. It's entirely appropriate to discuss how it is considered either a compilation or a studio album but if we do so in the running text, point out the majority view. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. I thought this was cleared up years ago and there was no confusion on the matter. I guess not. Regardless, the sources supporting it being a compilation are indisputable to me. Ss112 07:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Main points for compilation album:

• It compiles recordings that were from different recording sources and that were not intended to represent a singular work, which is how a compilation album is defined. Dan56 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• The consensus among numerous expert third-party sources appears to be that it is a compilation rather than a studio album (Stereo Review), AllMusic, Magnet, Billboard, Forbes, Rolling Stone, The Guardian, among others. Dan56 (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• I will focus on one in particular: Martin Popoff who notes in Led Zeppelin: All the Albums, All the Songs, Expanded Edition (2018) that Atlantic were contractually owed a studio album resulting in the release of Coda ([4]). Dan56 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• The article currently cites--to support it is a studio album--the liner notes for the Led Zeppelin Boxed Set 2 and the label attached to The Complete Studio Recordings, which are Atlantic products. Which makes them questionable, if not unreliable for citing this particular information; there would appear an obvious conflict of interest for Atlantic categorizing it as a studio album; if they marketed it as anything otherwise the band would still owe them a studio album.
  Dan56 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Dave Lewis' Led Zeppelin - A Celebration says, "The intention was to profile their 12-year career with a collection of quality left-over tracks." Sounds like a compilation to me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A quick search right now found me even more reliable and reputable sources supporting the claim that In Through the Out Door, and not Coda, is the band's final studio album, including Jon Dolan of Rolling Stone ([5]), Andrew Unterberger of Spin ([6]), Frank Guan of Vulture.com ([7]), and Geoff Barton of Classic Rock magazine ([8]). isento (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More Coda compilation vs studio

Two different RfCs have reached opposite conclusions; see Talk:Led Zeppelin#More Coda compilation vs studio. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned, lol. Here's my general gist of it (note, I did not participate in either discussions, but I have had many similar encounters on Wikipedia with other articles). Yes, it's a compilation, and rightfully so; however, on the main article, it's still listed among the full-length studio albums. This is because, from what I understand, Coda is considered "a major release." It's not a pure compilation because of its content; however, since it's all new tracks, and was marketed on an equal level as the other proper full-lengths, it is included in the list.

Even though I do not like to cite other artists as a reference (because in my belief, every artist should be treated on a case-by-case basis, as they all have a wide variety of releases), The Beatles is a great example. Their release Magical Mystery Tour was originally an EP in the UK. Then, when released in the US, they added some outtakes/singles, and it became a compilation; however, this EP/compilation is listed among their major releases on the main page. Xanarki (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in numbers of releases.

I’m a one-off editor, as in I only edit when I see a small problem needing of a fix and care enough to change it. I saw that that on this page there were some inconsistencies in the number of releases listed as a certain category (i.e. video album) and the number listed in the infobox and the top of the article. I edited this based on what I believe to be the correct way to count these types of releases, but I would like to see if I did what was right or if I was misunderstanding how counting the releases work. Thanks! 72.85.37.9 (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)