Talk:Nursery Cryme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] About the recent merges

I know this has already been discussed on the 'Articles for Deletion' discussion pages, so I hope I'm not being too intrusive, but I really think that adding complete song descriptions to this article has made it look awful.

IMO, it's a much better idea to have separate pages for significant songs. That way, anyone who reads the article with a general interest in the album can get a good overview of the album, and anyone who wishes to go further and find out the specifics of the individual songs can do so without having to scroll through the whole article. (Having individual performance credits for each track looks especially messy, as the credits for the whole album are already given at the bottom of the article.)

I agree that it might not be necessary for *every* song to have a separate article, so perhaps only the most significant tracks (Musical Box, Hogweed and Salmacis) should have separate pages, but I personally don't mind having all the tracks get their own page.

But, having a track-by-track analysis will make this article too long and redundant. Jphillst (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting this. Here's why:
  1. The argument made for deleting the Track information section...

    if these aren't notable enough for separate pages, then they aren't notable enough for full details on the article itself.

    ... is exactly contrary to Wikipedia:Notability, which says Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. Information about songs on an album is obviously relevant in an article about that album. If anything, this is the most relevant information there is.
  2. If you object to redundancy, it makes sense to edit these sections. Restoring song stubs only introduces greater redundancy.
  3. Your objection based on article length is not supported by Wikipedia:Article size. 12,720 bytes is still a fairly short article, and would usually be considered too short for Good Article status.
  4. "[M]ade it look awful" is a similarly subjective and unencyclopedic standard. Sections for Track information were considered in WP:ALBUM, and have been applied to other albums.
  5. Restoring the song stubs is against WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fountain of Salmacis(Genesis song). You first need to convince a few people that this needs to be done.
Per WP:SUMMARY, very lengthy song sections can be spun off into separate articles presuming the information is encyclopedic (notable, verifiable, et cetera). At this point there is no need for spinoff articles. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original canvas

I'm pretty sure the original canvas for the artwork is lost for good, although I don't think I can source it. Shouldn't this be included on the artwork section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.224.33.88 (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Only if it is unlikely to be challenged by anyone reading the article. General unobvious information should be sourced. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)