Wikipedia talk:Notability (albums)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Some General Discussion 2 Concern 3 Too exclusionary 4 Finally! 5 Nontrivial, independent, reliable sources

[edit] Some General Discussion

I've made some minor textual and major formatting changes. I hope they are considered useful.

I think a key point is to make clear that if the criteria set out here are met, then an individual article is acceptable, but if they are not met that does not necessarily mean an individual article is acceptable, provided the guideline itself can be met.

Someone has added a proposed merge with notability (music). That may well be appropriate, but develop this guideline first. As long as it is consistent with notability (music) it can be easily merged once it is agreed, jguk 14:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Very useful, thanks. Addhoc 14:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Intresting, couple of questions. What you mean "musical standard"? "documented history of more than fifty years"? How do you define a "large or medium sized country"? Thanks. I would agree with the merge above, along with Notability (songs) if that passes. That way we can keep things organized. - Tutmosis 15:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments. All of the definitions are used elsewhere and I'm not exactly certain...

• "Musical standard" - I guess this means considered a musical standard by experts or professional journalists.
• "Documented history of more than fifty years" - any verifiable documentation that indicates an ongoing history of more than 50 years.

• "Large or medium sized country" I gather that Luxembourg qualifies, but microstates don't.

Addhoc 15:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I disagree in certain circumstances, sometimes albums fall flat generally but gain some sort of weird frenzy in some small micronation of island somewhere, if this was the case it'd certainly be interesting. •Elomis• 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still a little confused of how an album can be considered a "Musical standard". Then how is an album documented for 50 years? for 50+ years an album is constantly reviewed and written about? The country size is a little broad that can cause disputes, why aren't microstates allowed, doesnt that encourage systemic bias? Not sure about that last point but just throwing out potential problems here to get this guideline as clear and problem-free as possible. - Tutmosis 16:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

By and large, I find the direction that this is pushing to be a very positive one. --Improv 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks! Addhoc 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with this at all - but how does any modern music album get written about for 50 years? Are you saying you don't think anything post 1956 is worthy of inclusion? Secretlondon 05:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Secretlondon, of course not, the guideline indicates that albums that have an ongoing history of greater than 50 years are notable, but there's a whole list of criteria. Addhoc 10:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess the suggestion is that anything that has remained available for 50 years (e.g. Miles Davis's "Miles Ahead") is a guarantee of worthiness or historical importance due to popularity; problem is that CD back catalogues were cheaper for record companies to make available (due partly to lower manufacturing/distribution costs and partly to less favourable royalties payable to the artists for CD re-issues) so a huge amount of stuff became available again from the 1990s onwards that was never deemed 'significant' enough to keep in print in harder economic times. That's probably even more the case with online distribution. Go even further back and there's a whole slew of material that is so old it is out of copyright and can be re-issued by anyone with the funds to do so. Anyway... the inclusion points are still good criteria for deciding on how to flesh out existing stubby articles – or indeed whether it's worth spending time on an article altogether. I do think that in most cases any compilation albums of pre-existing recordings should be merged into a single article for the particular musician or band, if they are needed at all. Ditto song stubs. Ricadus 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concern

My concern with this essay is that articles on individual albums have been of enormous help to me in the past. I think that as long as the artist passes WP:MUSIC, there is no problem with each album (and EP) having its own page. My reasoning is this: for someone researching the artist, there are very few websites that will have every album listed complete with track listings, album artwork, composers, release date, etc. My top three sites for this info have been Wikipedia, All Music Guide, and, when applicable, Mark Prindle's website. However, I usually rely on Wikipedia the most for completeness and accuracy, especially in the latter, where it consistently beats out AMG. Merging all that info into the artist's article would be much to unwieldy. The White Stripes article is a good example of what I'm talking about.

However, I totally agree with the content section. --Joelmills 18:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joelmills: if an artist passes WP:MUSIC then the albums they made are implicitly notable enough for their own pages. I'm not sure anything else needs to be added (assuming that if an album's considered notable, the artist is) - it would seem slightly bizarre to me to judge several albums by the same band individually for their notability. Trebor 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that as long as the artist passes WP:MUSIC, there is no problem with each album (and EP) having its own page(Joelmills) I also agree with Joelmills statement, there is no reason why a music group who is notable enough to have an article, shouldn't be able to list articles on released material. Ideally, released content is what a music group's notability is derived from, so why would a band be listed without information on their releases?--Gronkmeister 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we are really discussing whether there should be a longer overall article or several stubs listing the songs on each album. I don't think anyone is saying that albums can't be mentioned. Addhoc 22:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But would that mean that only some albums by a certain band would qualify for their own pages - each album would have to be judged on its own merit? Because that seems odd to me, and I think most people (not aware of this guideline) would see it as pretty inconsistent. Trebor 01:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic". Addhoc 12:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You keep quoting this but I don't see that it is relevant. We can get reliable, third party sources for lots of articles which wouldn't meet the general WP:MUSIC criteria, never mind your more stringent set. The debate is on your criteria which would cut the number of album articles. I personally think that if an artist meets WP:MUSIC then we should cover their albums according to our current practice as set out in WikiProject Albums. Secretlondon 18:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but as you said, a lot of these articles only contain track listings and release date, which can be easily referenced (can't they?). My opinion is that an article like that is worth keeping - Wikipedia is not paper and I think these pages can be useful. Putting all the track listings on the band's article would make a lot of them quite cluttered, but not to include them at all seems to be getting rid of potentially useful information. Trebor 19:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, putting the track listings in a band's article would be horrible; see Ms. John Soda for a case in point. W guice 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is way too strict. I find individual album articles to be really useful. Some of our end users such as the program Amarok display our album articles if they exist. I think this guideline will lead to the loss of lots of useful information. Secretlondon 05:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Secretlondon, WP:V says "if an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic" and this proposed guideline is obviously in accord with current policy. Implementing this guideline wouldn't require that articles with verifiable information based on third party sources would have to be merged. However articles that are merely a list of songs would probably have to be. Even so, I don't see why any useful information would be lost. Addhoc 11:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually a list of songs is the information most easily verifiable by a vast number of third party sources. Secretlondon 18:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've told Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums about this discussion as I don't think it has been flagged up there. Secretlondon 16:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would articles that are merely list of songs have to be? Aren't there sources confirming track listings? If there aren't, then track listing information shouldn't be put in the main article either (and useful information would be lost). If there are, they are worthy of their own article (and that would avoid clutter on the band page). Trebor 16:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a big supporter of all articles having references, but in the case of albums, we are usually using primary source material (the album itself) to get track listings and other information. I don't know if the album needs to be listed as a reference or if the source is obvious. If AMG or another site has a correct track listing, they can be used as a reference, but I have seen incorrect info from them too often to suggest that a secondary source is always going to be better to use than the album itself. --Joelmills 18:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are some albums that can be deleted because the artist is not notable enough. But I am appauled at how strict this policy is. Like Joelmills, I use Wikipedia often as a reference for albums. Its such a great complation of all the information on other sites, its all in one place, and thats what makes Wikipedia great for anything eh? By implementing such strict measures, you screw over and lose the audience of audiophiles around the globe who want to find track listings and details about their artist of the day. -- Reaper X 19:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with what Reaper X says here. My ideal would be that Wiki would be regarded as the best possible place to get data on an album. It has plenty of zealous and perfectionist editors, genuine fans of groups, who tend to be more anxious that their favourite music has correct information; and the "many eyes" set-up of Wiki allows greater scrutiny of articles so we can get round the problems of sites like AMG which sometimes does make some absolutely baffling mistakes. And being by a notable band is enough for an album to be notable, for me. W guice 19:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have grave concerns over this "notability" view. Wiki's album project should be as inclusive and exhaustive as possible. It is invaluable to chart the sequence of an artist's albums -- some may be hits, some may not. The very fact that some albums bomb, or that they indicate an artist's fading fortunes, add to their notability. Grimhim 03:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is such things that make us a good reference in this area. Secretlondon 18:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

By and large, is this getting accomplished? Some people copy discography entries wholesale from other sides and then stop right there. Discouraging that, I think, is a worthwhile goal.

There is a whole lot of concrete information out there that's not getting into Wikipedia. A more stringent policy could tip people off that more is expected of them than just track listings. –Unint 05:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmyes, but those copied discography entries are supported by the third-party verifiable sources and whatnot, meaning the policy would be accepting them. Surely discouraging lazy copy/paste should go the other way and encourage people to add more rather than not to do it? After all, the copy/paste method might be less than satisfactory but it does get good information included which can be added to later by people who do know or care more about that article. W guice 11:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate your efforts here, I too agree with Joelmills. Current policy for albums by notable-enough artists for a Wikipedia article makes their works notable enough for separate articles. I do agree, however, that they should be expanded. Also, many album articles link to contributing artist pages and that is very useful as well. There is too much useful information in album articles to be excluded or merged. If the artist/band meets WP:Music, then their works are notable. Cricket02 14:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Just another voice from the "individual works by an included artist may be included separately" group. I think it should be clear by now that this is a bad idea in general. Unfocused 13:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't go that far. I would agree there isn't consensus this should be a guideline just yet... Addhoc 14:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would go as far as saying there is consensus against it, but it can be left for a bit longer. Trebor 21:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just another voice from the "notable artists' albums still need other details to justify their notability" group. I think it should be clear by now that this is a bad idea in general. W guice 18:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too exclusionary

This is way too exclusionary. We would never limit the movies that a notable filmmaker created, for example, and the album information, even in a stub, would seriously throw off the formatting and usefulness of the main article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the status quo on albums currently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The final arbiter of notability is of course the user of the encyclopedia, not the contributors to the articles, however there should be some expansion on a mere list of titles, recording dates and catalogue information – all that kind of stuff can be got from amazon.com and similar places. I was looking through some Frank Zappa articles earlier (trying to identify the more jazz-instrumental orientated ones) and was annoyed that many didn't attempt to describe the contents, when what I was looking for was an overview of what the material sounded like like, how it was structured/recorded. Nothing too detailed, just a concise description.Ricadus 20:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and I agree. but because that information doesn't exist in the article now is no reason to not have an article on it. Stubs aren't bad things, and I find album articles to be useful even as stubs, it keeps me from having to leave this site when I'm looking up info on bands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff, this proposal is certainly not exclusionary. It lists criteria which, if met, mean an album is notable enough for an article. However, the flip side is not true - an album not meeting the criteria in the proposal may, however, still be notable enough for an article. jguk 15:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

But in practice, it can only ever be used in an exclusionary way. The status quo is that any album of a band that qualifies for an article, deserves to have its own article (which is as inclusionary as possible - I doubt there are any cases of a notable album by a non-notable band). So this page can only be used to exclude currently included matter. I think the status quo is simpler and makes sure useful information is included. Can you give me an example of an album that currently has a page, but you feel should not? Trebor 17:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable enough about current WP practice to know what goes on. I was just pointing out what the wording of the proposal is. I'd accept that, as a matter of practice, the current wording of the proposal would mean that it is a rebuttable presumption that an album not meeting the criteria should not have a separate article. We pretty much have the same approach over at WikiProject Cricket, and it generally works well, and we do have quite a few articles not meeting the inclusion criteria we have set. I'll leave it to others to decide whether would be good or bad here. jguk 17:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly plenty of bands who barely meet WP:BAND as it is, where the band is (under the current guidelines) notable enough for inclusion but barely so. In this case, their albums are generally not individually notable. These criteria are not going to go excluding albums by Nirvana or Led Zeppelin, but they certainly may require that some of albums of the more "borderline" artists be kept to their page. (This is a good thing.) We shouldn't do "notability by association"-the album in and of itself should be notable enough for its own article, or merged to the parent artist article. Seraphimblade 13:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How is that a good thing, though? The information available on those articles, at worst, burdens the main article with a lot of otherwise unimportant information for the article subject, and, at best, ruins the formatting of the main article. Not to mention the inconsistency in discographies, where we have a great system in place with the album infoboxes that would be completely thrown off. Too many issues with this, and, again, we would never do this with a notable film director. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A musician's albums are "unimportant" to the musician? I would most certainly disagree, in most cases they define the musician's career! Now, in many cases, the album itself is notable, but in other cases it is really not. I agree that films by a notable director are almost by definition notable-but I think that's a poor analogy. Anything Steven Spielberg makes is going to get a ton of press coverage, even if it's mediocre. On the other hand, if we're talking about a barely-notable indie filmmaker, they may have only made one or two (or zero!) films notable enough for a separate article, and any others made by them would be best included in "X produced Y, a film about Z, which was released on mm/dd." Also, there are a lot more albums then films released in a year, and as such, a far more sizable fraction of films receive press coverage. As to concerns with formatting-I'm currently working on the article of a musician with non-notable albums (mix tapes) at Fabolous, and it's being managed just fine so far-they just go in the table without a link instead of as a link. Not a big deal. Seraphimblade 09:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to add track listings for the mix tapes? That's one of the major issues for me - for almost every album you can add the basics of track listing, date of release and image of album cover. This is all useful information, which can be added to later if someone takes an interest. If you get rid of the some of the articles, you either lose this useful information, or you clutter the main artist page with lots of lists. Add to this the time (I would consider) wasted, in debating which albums are or aren't notable, and I don't think it will work. Trebor 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The album cover pictures will be added, yes, in keeping with the table formatting. The song list will not-and why should it be? None of those songs charted, none garnered significant praise, criticism, or controversy, that would just be listcruft. If all that can be said about an album is what the cover looks like and what songs were on it-well, it's not technically on this list, but WP:NOT www.amazon.com. Seraphimblade 13:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Which I suppose is where the heart of the disagreement lies. I (and others) think that a cover image and track listing are useful pieces of information; you (and others) do not. I don't think it's listcruft - an album is made up of tracks, artwork and not much else. They're the key pieces of information, but would clutter up a main band page so they go in separate articles. Not including such information seems to decrease the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia as a whole. Trebor 16:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jguk, does the criteria limit what albums by a notable artist get articles? If the answer is yes, it's too exclusionary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I'm not arguing for any particular notability criteria here. What I have done, however, is to recast them so that they are not exclusionary. I rephrased them so that they are a one-way street.

An album meeting the criteria is eligible for an article. However, the converse is not true - the page does not state, and I believe it should not state, that an album not meeting the criteria is ineligible.

As noted above, notability criteria cast in this way have worked quite well on the cricket WikiProject. We have many articles on subjects that don't meet the written down notability criteria, and we largely avoid AfDs on cricketers that are of borderline notability, but who meet the criteria set out for inclusion. jguk 11:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finally!

Thanks so much for putting it together, it certainly has my endorsement. Unfortunaltey I think you will be drowned out in a sea of music enthusiasts who don't understand that Wikipedia is not a completely arbitrary collection of the thinnest information about every single album to ever exist by every garage band that played together for twenty minutes. Regardless of whether or not this is adopted into policy, it can be examined from the flip side. If you don't agree that Wikipedia should be an accademic and research tool, a collaborative effort of knowledge editors and instead think it should be edited heavily by self-styled music 'experts' in lieu of them getting journalist jobs at www.allmusic.com, let's at least have some enyclopedic content injected into these articles. Encyclopedia articles about albums and songs should at least attempt to follow the same standard that every other article is subjected to on this encyclopedia, if anything wins awards, has long documented history, has been indexed as among the most exceptional examples of it's type, defines the person or people the created it as frequently cited by experts in the subject matters field or has otherwise ASSERTED IT'S NOTABILITY then this information must be included in it's article. Obviously my aim would be to have very, very few individual albums or songs on Wikipedia but if they must be here is it too much for us musiccruft exclusionists to ask for to have a change in the attitude of those that edit them to include things which create at least the façade of encyclopedia articles by inserting this information?

Album infoboxes at the moment shamelessly have as key points of the article, information which is completely irrelevant encyclopedically and only relevant musically. They detail things like the cover art (only of any use if it was a key feature of why the album is notable, designed by a famous artist perhaps), the label (again, only relevant under restricted circumstances, was the label essentially launched by this album perhaps?), the released and recorded dates (again, tertiary importance behind much, much more relevant encyclopedic detail)... the list goes on.

How about an infobox which details things like the first tour concert in which the notable band that released it played tracks from it live? What concert tours were done to promote this album? What about sales figures? Did it sell one million copies? how about ten thousand? How about some brilliant prose about how even though the sales figures don't indicate it ran out of production six times, it was bought and owned by an unprecedented number of Greek Americans as an example of their cultural roots and how this was reported in Rolling Stone magazine? Even miscellaneous information would be great, I wish I could remember which it was but I remember reading in a newspaper once that a particular album was shoplifted in numbers that clearly distinguished it from any other album that was in stores at the time.

Whether or not this brilliant essay gets made into policy and gains wide acceptance, I'd love people to consider themselves here in the capacity of encyclopedia editors... not as the only believers in the own prowess as musical journalists. •Elomis• 03:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by "irrelevant encyclopaedically" or "encyclopaedic detail"? A track listing or an album cover or a record label for an album is verifiable, NPOV and doesn't conflict with WP:NOT - the three major policies. What would be the point of deleting all these articles with useful information, simply because you believe such information isn't encyclopaedic (a definition I completely disagree with). But nice job of assuming good faith with the editors who add useful verifiable information to thousands of album articles - they clearly are all believers in their own prowess as music journalists. Trebor 14:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias, including this one, aim to catalogue and comment on information that is relevant to a particular subject or topic in a widely accepted format. This information should be of interest and relevence to people who have zero knowledge of the subject matter in question. It should comment primarily on notability, importance and impact. Track listings are only the thinnest conceivable slice of this encyclopedic information and can't possibly stand alone as encyclopedic. It is entirely the equivalent of having an article about the Model T Ford which solely lists it's engine capacity and number of gears. Relevant? sure. Verifiable? of course. Notable? probably, the focal point of an article on the first ever production car? Not at all; the encyclopedic information about this car is about how it was the first affordable car, that it was designed by two hungarian immigrants, that it could run of gasoline or ethanol but prohibition later made ethanol a non-viable fuel, that it has been trivially mentioned in popular culture... the fact that it had a planetary gearbox is automotivley relevant. Wikipedia is full of album articles which have musical detail, and no encyclopedic information. I am sorry that you believe I am not assuming good faith, I am sure that there is a swarm of editors who want to add encyclopedic articles about musical albums. Unfortunatley there is an overwhelming wave of solid fact that not every person who edits articles in this category are rowing in the same direction, the policy is assume good faith, not dogmatically believe in it in the face of plate steel evidence to the contrary. •Elomis• 22:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Then I think this goes back to the same disagreement as above. I think that an article only containing basic details about release date and label, the track listing and the album artwork is useful. It's verifiable, relevant and (I believe) of interest to someone trying to find out about the album. We have no space constraints, no need to delete this information, so I think it can and should be kept - that every album by a band judged as notable can have its own article. You believe that an article only containing this information is unencyclopaedic - that albums should be judged for articles in their own right. The consensus above seemed to be for the inclusionist viewpoint.

Additionally, you still seem to think these editors are acting in bad faith by creating these minimal album articles (to show off their music journalism or something). But there seems to be no consensus against doing that on this page, so I'm not sure where this "plate steel evidence" is - they are just following the generally accepted convention. Trebor 22:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point. That's ok, I'll clarify further. The idea that because we are not at risk of running out of storage space for the Wikipedia is, my apologies if you find this offensive, the most absurd argument I've heard for the retention of material that abysmally fails to provide encyclopedic information. I throw my household waste out at home, I live in a largish townhouse so I certainly have the room to keep it but it is of no value and makes my living environment of lower quality if I do so I discard it. I don't think the editors that add album stubs are acting in bad faith, I just don't think they get what the Wikipedia is for. In the worst cases the additions fail Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and in the best cases overrepresent the importance of the subject matter they are commenting on. We are running the risk of the ridiculous situation where notable people are in notable bands because they produce notable tracks which are notable because they are on a notable album produced by notable bands which are notable because they contain notable people. It's rare it would happen I admit, but I've seen the beginings of people defending a band, track, album or label by using the notability of one of the other things which is itself not asserted in a satisfactory manner. Why is the sky blue? because it's the sky. Why is it the sky? because it's blue.

The plate steel evidence (yeah Ok, I was being melodramatic which is proabably poor style but let me explain) is typically gleaned by going to new pages and hitting F5 in your browser periodically. From time to time this window will fill up with new articles entitled "Something (album)" which will be tagged CSD for not being notable about seven minutes later, the tag removed by a petulant author of the article, it re-added with an admonishment by the tagger asking that tags not be removed by authors, a {{hangon}} placed and then a drawn-out argument in the talk page and a subsequent AfD which is closed with the result that because a drummer who joined the band that relased the album was associated with another band twelve years ago which had a charted hit; the article scrapes under the notability requirements. The people suggesting it be kept, who clearly have a (perfectly understandable) pride in the article, then leave it as a stub which sits on Wikipedia. This article lives forever with no information other than the tracks that are on it and it serves as no better reference material than a memory-jogger for someone who can't remember which order the tracks on the album are in or how long they are.

I think the notability (albums) policy needs to be adopted, but I don't think it will be because besides the stated original objectives of what the Wikipedia is and what it is not, more people participate in the practice of creating album stubs than people care enough to offer an opinion as to why they shouldn't. Therefore I have to be happy with just explaining why it shouldn't be done, no matter what the policy. •Elomis• 05:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But your definition of "encyclopaedic information" is still hopelessly unclear. I think you have to go by the core policies, and album stubs fit all of them (NPOV, verifiable and they're not indiscriminate collections of information - they're all connected to the album). Where do album stubs contradict policy? Trebor 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic information is a lot of things. It's a lot more things than a track listing. Examples of what is and isn't enyclopedic varies for article to article and it's difficult to shake the feeling that any person could read the comments here and still not follow is being facetious but I have to assume good faith and conclude that I am really not being clear. I guess it breaks down to this;

Look at any article of good quality, it has more information than just the simple key bullet points that are the very core of what the subject matter is. Encyclopedia articles may have alternative viewpoints, commentary on the cultural or historical significance of the subject matter. They sometimes have criticisms of them, references, mention of where the subject matter is indexed, origins, pictures of the subject. Animal articles have their binomial name, and conservation status as well as their behavior and habitat. Album stubs are the equivalent of saying that an Aardvark is four legs, a body and a head.

Where are these lip-services to encyclopedia violation of policy? I don't think it matters, they are damaging to what Wikipedia is so whether or not it violates policy doesn't seem to matter to me (per WP:IAR) but since you asked;

• Wikipedia is not a an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT). Including, weird though it may sound, Wikipedia is not a plot summary. How is this relevant? If it is considered that a sole summary of a television show or movie is not acceptable, how is the mere named parts of a musical work ok? I think you are a little confused about the meaning of indiscriminate, it doesn't mean irrelevant, it means not discerning.

• WP:V requires that editors cite a source of information, these articles do this next to never.

• These articles are simply lists of the tracks, nothing more. Wikipedia:Listcruft is not a guideline, it's an essay. But it completely applies, particularly the 'meaning' section.

•Elomis• 11:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like, or "get" the music projects then don't interact with them. Go and edit on things that interest you, rather than try and remove topics that don't. You've suggested that album project contributors don't understand what Wikipedia is about - we certainly do and many of us have been active for several years. Secretlondon 18:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil. If you have comments about my comments and the proposed guideline please make them, but your thinly veiled 'shut up and go away' was inappropriate. •Elomis• 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering your statement concerning the "sea of music enthusiasts who don't understand that Wikipedia is not a completely arbitrary collection of the thinnest information about every single album to ever exist by every garage band that played together for twenty minutes," I'm not sure what kind of reaction you were hoping for. The information this misguided proposal seeks to eliminate is entirely appropriate for this project, and the current status quo - if the band/artist is notable, their albums are worthy of inclusion - works more than well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

it's difficult to shake the feeling that any person could read the comments here and still not follow is being facetious. Thanks for that. Considering the number of people who disagree, I feel you might be slightly misguided in believing your position is the only one that can possibly make sense. You might need to double-check civility yourself - making broad comments about the motives of album article editors doesn't really fit in. But assuming good faith, your points were:

• Wikipedia is not a an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT). Including, weird though it may sound, Wikipedia is not a plot summary. How is this relevant? If it is considered that a sole summary of a television show or movie is not acceptable, how is the mere named parts of a musical work ok? I think you are a little confused about the meaning of indiscriminate, it doesn't mean irrelevant, it means not discerning.

But this information is discerning - it is the bare bones details about the album in question. How is it indiscriminate? Would you say a perfect article on an album wouldn't contain a track listing, or release date, or cover art? You say that "even miscellaneous information would be great" - surely that's much more indiscriminate...

• WP:V requires that editors cite a source of information, these articles do this next to never.

But this presumably falls under the same idea as plot summaries and the like - no reliable source will have listed every track or confirmed the album art is what it is, but it is clearly true (and listed on websites like Amazon), so requiring sourcing would be ridiculous. It's verifiable - you can buy the album and check.

• These articles are simply lists of the tracks, nothing more. Wikipedia:Listcruft is not a guideline, it's an essay. But it completely applies, particularly the 'meaning' section.

I'm not sure how you see this applies (other than your repetitive unencyclopaedic argument which you still haven't justified). That page refers more to articles on lists at any rate - most album pages also have release dates and album art at the least.

• I don't think it matters, they are damaging to what Wikipedia is

Are you seriously saying this? I cannot see how in the least. If I wanted to find out about an album, I'd want to know who it was by, what songs were on it and when it was released. I'd also like to know information about production, sales, reviews, etc. but I'd prefer to learn something than nothing at all. Do you not think it would be "damaging" to have half the albums by one band on their own pages, with release date, track listings et al, and half given a passing mention on the main band page because they're not "important" enough?

• Album stubs are the equivalent of saying that an Aardvark is four legs, a body and a head.

Fine. I'd prefer a stub on the Aardvark saying that than nothing at all. Album stubs can be expanded in many cases: failure of articles to be perfect right now is never a reason for deletion. But to be honest, that's all irrelevant, because most people seem to believe than an album article containing basic information is much better than no article at all.

Trebor 21:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So, so far the counter arguments are summarised as "not really" and "better this than nothing" and "it may not be the rules but everyone thinks so" or "you can act yourself to check validity".

• no reliable source will have listed every track or confirmed the album art is what it is, but it is clearly true (and listed on websites like Amazon), so requiring sourcing would be ridiculous. It's verifiable - you can buy the album and check.

• Sure, and I am sure that New Caledonia is there even though I've never seen it for myself but I could, I imagine I can duck over there and remove all the citations because hey, someone can easilly jump on a plane and see for themselves. Articles are cited to make them verifiable regardless of what other means are available to the reader to verify them. This is the point of the policies on sources.

• That page [listcruft] refers more to articles on lists at any rate - most album pages also have release dates and album art at the least.

• Sure, but it's point is that a bulleted point of individual phrases or words does not constitute brilliant prose. I am not at all arguing for the exclusion of track listings and album art articles, I am not even campaigning for their removal (as I know others are), but can't the editors who gain personal enjoyment from editing these articles do more in keeping with other encyclopedia articles here to improve their quality?

• I feel you might be slightly misguided in believing your position is the only one that can possibly make sense. You might need to double-check civility yourself - making broad comments about the motives of album article editors doesn't really fit in.

• Oh I don't at all think my position is the only one that makes sense at all. I don't think any one person's position ever constitutes consensus and I'd like to think that the motives of album editors are identical to everyone else's on Wikipedia which is to make the encyclopedia better by adding content. I don't assume good faith, I wholehartedly believe in it. Let me take this point to apologise to anyone who has taken me as meaning that I am right and they are all wrong, it's absolutley NOT where I am coming from. My previous comments illustrate that I think a change in focus from creating barebones articles about barely notable albums to creating enyclopedia articles that illustrate albums would be of significant benefit to Wikipedia. And unapologetically that the lack of that focus change is damaging, sorry but that's what I truly feel. Despite my best intentions to point out the importance of enyclopedic information, I guess I am still not making myself clear enough so I'll try another definition. Have a look at Point of No Return (3LW album), an example (although this one does have some good info at the top) of what I am talking about. Have a look at User:Elomis/Example_(album), a quick knock-up of what I personally believe consitutes enyclopedic information about an article and what most articles should look like. Finally have a look at Nevermind (album), wow, everything an album article should have. The only way I can explain enyclopedic information (other than the stuff a person should expect to see in an encyclopedia) is to say that the first example has almost none of it, the second some, and the third all. I hope that clarifies.

• But this information is discerning - it is the bare bones details about the album in question. How is it indiscriminate? Would you say a perfect article on an album wouldn't contain a track listing, or release date, or cover art? You say that "even miscellaneous information would be great" - surely that's much more indiscriminate...

• How? Indiscriminate means that it doesn't discriminate, that there is no overall thought process involved in it's inclusion or exclusion other than perhaps a flimsy precedent. I'd like to see information included after a discriminating process whereby people consider whether the information is of value to people researching the phenomenon of a musical work, and whether those people would think of Wikipedia as a great resource if the only information they received could have been gained by buying the album and looking at the front and then back of the case.

• Fine. I'd prefer a stub on the Aardvark saying that than nothing at all. Album stubs can be expanded in many cases: failure of articles to be perfect right now is never a reason for deletion. But to be honest, that's all irrelevant, because most people seem to believe than an album article containing basic information is much better than no article at all.

• Agree wholehartedly. Would prefer to see some information than none, would prefer to see lots than some, would prefer to see details than cruft. I don't think that the failure to be perfect is reason for deletion, but I do believe in all of the reasons outlined in the proposed guideline. There are heaps of album stubs that are fine under it, I just hope that people with the knowledge will see their way clear to improve them into something that someone would look at and think "this comes from an encyclopedia, and a good one".

•Elomis• 00:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree-I don't see a problem with "This isn't a great article yet" (there are tons of perfectly valid stubs which can and will one day be improved). The problem comes when there just isn't enough source material to make it a good and comprehensive article-ever. That's the definition of *cruft-it has an article "because it's a..." not "because there's enough material on this to one day make it a great article, even if it isn't today." I also entirely agree that "buy the album and see for yourself" is an unacceptable source-at the very least, if an Amazon track listing or the like is available, that should be cited. But if that's all one can say about the album, it belongs under the artist's article, not on its own. Nevermind, as mentioned above, is a notable album with a ton of source material about it. An album from a no-name band which just barely scrapes by WP:BAND probably is not, and should be covered with them-likely, their article's hurting for verifiable content anyway! Seraphimblade 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I disagree with this proposed policy in general (see my comment above, way up there), Elomis and Seraphimblade make some excellent points. I have refrained from making album articles for one of my alltime favorite bands, Victim's Family, because most of the albums were released pre-internet, and there is just not much encyclopedic info out there on them. I satisfied my own desire to illustrate their discography by simply using a table in the band's article. I knew that all I could add to an album article would be a track listing. So I have no problem with stubby album articles and think they have the right to exist, but I won't create one.

However, I also have created plenty of articles using textbooks I own. These books are not available to everyone - does that mean I can't use them? Of course not. They are more reliable than any website you can access that doesn't even give a source for their information. Same goes for using the album itself as a source. It doesn't matter that not everyone can access it. --Joelmills 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, offline sources can be used as verification. However, Amazon would probably be preferable-it's immediately verifiable to the reader (this is not a requirement, but should be done when possible), and it's independent (secondary rather then primary sourcing, again not required but preferable). Still, if the only verification about the album is "It exists, is by this band, has this cover photo, and contains these tracks", it's likely non-notable. I think your method of handling such situations is a much better one-cover it in the artist's article, and if the album later becomes notable, spin it off. Seraphimblade 03:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think probably that can be expanded on. Amazon is preferable, yes because it's immediate and largely effortless, but also because it makes sense for an online encyclopedia to be referenced with online references. Usually things are best referenced like-for-like, text books are cross-referenced to themselves or other texts that are likely to be read in conjunction with them. Online materials often reference other online materials. The easiest verifiable references given the context are usually the best. •Elomis• 12:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nontrivial, independent, reliable sources

The general standard of notability that I've seen on wikipedia is as the title says, nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. I'd consider most album reviews to constitute nontrivial coverage, and there are countless reliable sources for them, (AMG, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, Christgau, Popmatters, etc.). I'd say any album which recieved nontrivial review coverage (at least a few sentences) in multiple sources should qualify, since once you have a couple of secondary sources (reviews) you can synthesize them into a tertiary source article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the standards currently listed are ridiculous, and would only possibly apply to a tiny fraction of the albums included in wikipedia. We don't only want the "best of" or the top 20, or the albums that "Helped launch a notable record label." We're not paper. We can write about a lot more than that without delving into trivia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a "few sentences" would be nontrivial, but a full writeup certainly would be. The issue isn't just verifiability (which generally would be satisfied with a simple Amazon link), but notability-is there enough source material on the album (itself, not the band) that a good article could be written about it? If not, no one's arguing the album should not merit mention-only that it would be better handled under its parent band article until/unless there is enough sourcing to spin it off into a decent article of its own, populated with real information that isn't just a track list and cover photo, but actually explains why the album is significant. It need not be a "Top 20" for this-but in addition to WP:NOT paper, is mentioned that WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Creating articles "because it's an album" rather than "because it's a notable subject" is the very definition of indiscriminate-information added "just because." Now, that being said, if an album's received a ton of coverage in "alternative" but reliable circles, we certainly should not exclude them for simple lack of mainstream coverage. The standard should be, however, that we have something to work with allowing an article more then "The Cow Jumped Over The Moon is the second album by the Barely Notables. It was released in 2010 and has 12 tracks: (listing). One critic said it was 'okay but not inspiring.'" Seraphimblade 17:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel like reviews should be the #1 criteria, because 99% of the albums that deserve articles are going to have reviews. Everything else is just there for completeness in all sorts of little categories, but if you can find reviews for the material then you have your secondary sources. Of course it's being discriminate: we're limiting ourselves to material that someone else has considered worthwhile enough to review. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we're mostly in agreement-I entirely agree with "notability is not subjective", if it's received non-trivial coverage, it's notable period. However, I think we should consider the nature of the review-if it's a site which allows anyone to post reviews, there's no verification or reliability. If it's a major site with professional reviewers (or at least well-known, identifiable amateurs who undergo editorial review), that's probably a different story. (This should, of course, include those sites which mainly focus on a specific genre, so long as they're not doing trivial coverage, anonymous coverage, or reprints from the band or its label.) However, I think length is still a consideration-an album which received one review, which consists basically of "X released Y on mm/dd/yyyy. It's alright but needs some work." is probably not an establishment of notability. On the other hand, one lengthy and in-depth reviews or several reasonably deep ones should qualify. My only objection would be allowing "mentions in passing"-almost every album gets mentioned somewhere, notability should demand that someone cared enough to actually delve in. Seraphimblade 19:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is any counterexample to why this can't just be the sole criterion. Are there any albums out there that pass any of the other criteria, without having enough written about them to pass this one? Or, vice versa, is there any album that would be included by this criterion that doesn't deserve an article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sure. What we're proposing here runs contrary to how we handle other works by other similar artists. Would we limit the movies by a notable director? Would be hesitate on books by a notable author? Of course not. If an act fits in per WP:MUSIC, it's perfectly reasonable to include their albums on a separate page that doesn't make the main article look crappy, and most of those sources that WP:MUSIC requires is going to mention their albums, anyway. We're simply approaching this from the wrong angle, and we don't reallt need this to make our current standard work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would encourage hesitating on a book by a notable author, if it's not generated much press. Same with a notable filmmaker. Now note, we're not talking about Steven Spielberg or Stephen King here-anything they write is going to generate a ton of press, guaranteeing its notability. But what about an indie filmmaker or smaller-time author who just barely passes notability? Maybe they've had enough written about them to be notable, but little has been written about a book they wrote. In this case, I'd say we should mirror the coverage in reliable sources-if the book's only been mentioned in passing in connection with the author, or the film only mentioned in passing in connection with the filmmaker, we should mention it in passing in their article. Similar with music-if we're talking about Nirvana or Led Zeppelin, all of their albums are going to have generated ample coverage to write a good article. On the other hand, if we're talking about a band who juuuuuuust barely scrapes by the notability criteria, their albums may not have generated much press. In this case, it's best to handle it as with any non-notable thing which requires mention due to connection with something notable-mention it at first in the article about the notable subject, and then, if it later does generate enough press, spin it off into its own article then. Seraphimblade 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that all material produced by a notable person is itself notable enough to warrant an article. I certainly understand the thinking that we're only placing limits on ourselves, but from what I've seen of Wikipedia:Notability, this line of thinking is not what Wikipedia is about. Rather, albums should be evaluated as to whether they were influential and notable, not just whether they were performed by a notable person or group. Take, for example, the realm of classical music. There are quite possibly over a hundred thousand recordings of classical music, and a large number of them are performed by people considered to be notable; it would be rather ridiculous for each of those albums to have their own article. Or take the compositions by J.S. Bach; we would find ourselves with nearly a thousand more articles each detailing the specifics of those pieces. You may say, fine! Let's add all of these articles! And to some extent, that's what the philosophy of Wikipedia has been. I can certainly see why; such information can be useful, and it's convenient to have it all in one place. However, my point is that the material isn't important for an understanding of the main subject. You can give me a page about a tiny Bach work, or one of the least popular albums of a famous band, and I'll be able to learn about that one item, but my understanding of the subject would have been much better served by a summary in the main article generalizing the style of the music. If we continue in the current fashion, I predict we'll have ten million articles, but less than a million will be about broad, notable topics, and the rest will be articles about specific, minor topics related to or produced by things that are actually notable. Be that as it may--if, as you say, minor books and movies are being deemed notable, then we have little choice but to adopt the same approach for albums. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)