User:PEJL/WT:ALBUM archives/1–16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Hey there,
I think this is a very interesting project and I've devoted some thought to how it might be done myself. The template you've outlined here offers pretty much the same information as each www.allmusic.com entry, perhaps even a little less. So I don't really think such an undertaking is all that useful. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum, and so I don't think we should try to duplicate what is already done, and done well.
What I do think would be useful, and if done well could be really fantastic, is an examination of each album from a slightly broader perspective. In the examination of each album, how about a consideration of its specific influences, specific followers, where it fits in its genre and what leanings it may have toward others, etc? With regard to the Funkadelic albums, I'd much sooner go to allmusic.com for that information than to these wikipedia pages, but allmusic doesn't have the kind of musical matrix information that I think could be really exciting.
What do you think? I'm up for more chat on this topic. -Tubby

Thanks for the input. I have added some of what you wrote to the above. The whole purpose of coming up with a template for Funkadelic stuff was because I know there are lots of info that should be in the articles--each song and album has specific traditions and like associated with it, but I don't know what they are. I was hoping it would draw in others who did have more unique information. I saved it here because the handful of albums that actually had an article in wikipedia seemed like the author didn't know what kind of information would be appropriate to put there, so this is meant as a list of ideas of things that could or should be in an article on an album.

If you are interested, perhaps we could try and accomplish some sort of depth in this field. Perhaps if we found a list of influential albums (many such lists exist), we could divide them up so that each one would get a thorough article. I think having info on recent music would bring a lot of new contributors to Wikipedia. Tokerboy 22:52 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)


Right on - good idea. There aren't too many newer albums that I could do a 'critical' study on, maybe some Beck or some Stereolab, but yeah, I think if we come up with one or two 'deeper' articles, we could compare them and then hash out some standards. It might be useful to begin with some musics we both have some related interest in. I'm really not that familiar with Parliament and its associated associations, or really much funk at all (my loss), so do you have some other suggestions? I don't feel qualified to tackle huge albums like Zeppelin IV or Sgt. Pepper or Dark Side of the Moon, even though I'm familiar with them, but there should be some middle ground somewhere.
-Tubby

In general, newer albums will probably be more difficult because their impact can not be fully measured yet. Some of David Bowie's stuff was years ahead of its time, for example, and was dismissed as bizarre and stupid until it became a genre ten or fifteen years later.

I'm appended a quite long-list to the Talk page--it's obviously not something the two of us will do, so I am trying to advertise on the mailing list--I think we should each do two or three and add them to a list somewhere here (or on the Talk page), and then we can start discussing standards. Tokerboy 21:03 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)

I've done Highway 61 Revisited, Aquemini, AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted, Ziggy Stardust and The Violent Femmes. Tokerboy 21:57 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)

Please don't create edit links for every song. The vast majority of songs are not famous enough to warrent their own articles (not to mention the problem of finding info to fill these articles). Please also make sure italics and quotes are used where needed. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --mav


Excellent work on Highway 61 Revisited and Desolation Row. I'll check out the Violent Femmes later. I've got one quick suggestion so far: I would like to see some information on the structure of the album, like why the songs are in the order they are. That's a fascination of mine, so it may not appeal to others.
I've started compiling some ideas on Paul Simon - Paul Simon, so they should be up in a while.
Tubby


I'm not sure if the order is always something terribly important, but that's a good suggestion. I'm adding it to the above (and revamping it). BTW, I see you are linking to the uncreated article on Paul Simon (album) for his self-titled. I think I agree that Paul Simon should be an exception, but please note that thus far (as at The Violent Femmes and Funkadelic, plus more that I can't remember) self-titled albums are on the same page as the band. Paul Simon's different because he's a person and not a band. Do you think this standard should be changed, or is Paul Simon an exception? (I don't have terribly strong feelings either way)

I'd lean more to having a separate page for a self titled album. It is an album in its own right after all. But yeah, it becomes a problem when trying to classify or arrange or list the album in some larger set. Having it on the same page as the band suggests that perhaps the band and the album share something or have some identity, when that may not be the case. Would you put The White Album/The Beatles on the main Beatles page? Probably not, cause the Beatles are so much more than that album, as good as it is. Anyway, that's my opinion.
I'll write a little more about my opinions on structure later. Nothing serious though..
Tubby

I think you've convinced me. I've created Funkadelic (album) and The Violent Femmes (album) and will do others as I stumble across them. Tokerboy 14:25 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, I've spent the last little while writing semi-stubs for musicians on the list with no article. I realized it just seems kinda silly to be writing articles on individual albums when Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye had absolutely no article. I shall return to albums soon. Tokerboy 21:37 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)

Is it time to work out some more standards or goals? Please feel free to comment on the Paul Simon article I've put together. Eventually I'd like to have a little something something about each song. Good work on those articles that you have written, at least the ones I've read are very well done.
I think some specific thing that I would like to see would be, say, on each album page, two links to other bands or artists that are similar in ways, but a few words on how they are different, and perhaps also a bit of a chronology to it. So, in a perfect world where every album is documented, one could travel back or forward or sideways, reading on one album page the description of related artists, finding stuff that may be more to their liking. However, this could lead to some repetition, with all albums pointing to only two other bands.
-Tubby

What you've got on Paul Simon looks good. My only suggestion is to take the big chunk about one song and put it into paragraphs, one for each song or whatever seems appropriate. I had Aquemini set up like you, and I think it looked a lot better after I changed it (you may wanna look at the very first revision in the history). The analysis itself looks good, very informative.

I've added this to Ziggy Stardust. Tell me what you think of the format. I was thinking about making it a table, but that's tedious and probably wouldn't be that useful.

Precursors: T. Rex - Electric Warrior, The Stooges - Raw Power, The Velvet Underground - The Velvet Underground & Nico
Followers: Queen - Sheer Heart Attack, Mott the Hoople - Mott, The New York Dolls - The New York Dolls

I like this idea, though I suppose there will eventually be some serious disagreements about which to choose. I think aiming for three of each seems good too, though I'd hesitate to make it a rule.

I've gone ahead and made the section above a rough draft. Feel free to comment or make changes. The only thing I'm not sure about is linking to external reviews/listing something like "Rolling Stone: four stars; Source magazine: five mics" or something along those lines. What about amateur reviews? Do you have any ideas about how to handle this? Tokerboy 23:27 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

Anyone can find a boat load of reviews on an album just through Google, but idf someone wants to put a useful quote from a review in the article, in order to emphasis a point, or even to offer an opposing alternative, I think that should be encouraged. Major reviews like Rolling Stone or whatever could or should have links, if desired.
Regarding the Followers/Influences thing, I think there should be some description of the differences and similarities between the two bands or albums. The more specific the better. For example, for Ziggy Stardust, if I didn't know T. Rex or Mott the Hoople, I wouldn't know why they were on the list, or how they were different from the Velvets or Queen.
This is a problem that allmusic.com has. I think we should actively try to avoid being like allmusic. We can't realistically hope to match what they do, so we have to be different, or provide more information on the albums we do cover.
The section above looks really good. When people start to get on board, there will definately be some order and regularity to the articles. -Tubby

How about:

<snipped what is now the example in the standard -- Ziggy Stardust>

Two possible concerns: 1: too much info; 2: this is inherently subjective--I can't prove any of the above Tokerboy 03:31 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)


Awesome! I think this is absolutely great. With this kind of extensive information, people could do lots of interesting things, like make a map of the progression of music, or rearrange their cd collection, or whatever. I think it would be even better if the release dates for each album were included.
Regarding your concerns:
1. It is a lot of information, but I don't think there's such a thing as too much info. What you've got here is extensive, but it's useful and compelling. Besides, it's a knowledge that a lot of people don't have. Probably only a few people would be able to write such a detailed article.
2. Good point. But, as far as I'm concerned, what you've written is right on. So there must be something that's "right" about what you've written, despite its subjectivity. I'm sure most people who know what's what would also agree with you. And if they don't, so be it, it would be a good chance to discuss these subjective issues and maybe develop an idea further.
I think if we were to try to add objectivity to these write ups, we would have to be as specific as we could. In order to actually make the link between Ziggy and T. Rex, the actual specific sound similarities would have to be detailed, whatever they may be. Consider the "woo-hoo" sound, which began in "Sympathy for the Devil", or earlier, and then also turned up in Blur's "Song 2" and the recent Sheryl Crow tune called "Steve McQueen", and probably other places too. What would those songs be like if it wasn't for "Sympathy for the Devil"? Would they even exist?
Obviously, this kind of meticulous detail is excessive, but I think that those kind of specific sounds do exist and can be tracked and followed. Kind of like a musical meme. Defining certain terms, setting certain characteristics and conventions to terms like "proto-punk" for example, would be especially useful.
-Tubby

I think you're right on all counts. I doubt we'll have many problems with people disagreeing with something along the lines of what I wrote above (though I'm not sure Morrissey is officially a shoegazing or Britpop band), though I'm sure it will occur eventually and someone will make some absurd claim (Britney Spears is heavily influenced by Ziggy Stardust) but we can deal with that when it comes up. I also agree very much about specific sounds ("woo-hoo") being nice, and I'll add them when I can but I don't really know much about music itself, so I couldn't discuss the use of minor chords or Wilsonian harmonies or anything like that. Still, I'll do what I can. I suppose the best part of being a wiki is that if I don't know something, someone else can (and will) pick up the slack. I also think we need articles on genres like proto-punk--there aren't many right now and I'm not really qualified to write them, but I agree that it would be helpful.

Unless you have any other suggestions, I'll go ahead and officially declare the above as WikiProject:Albums Standards 1.0. It seems that we are in agreement on anything. (If you write an article on something that better fits the second category of articles, please replace what's there now because neither of the examples actually fit the recommendations--Bob Dylan and the Violent Femmes are not prog rock, dance music nor symphonic by any stretch of the imagination) Tokerboy 21:53 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)

Just a question in between: What about capitalization? I see you're using different methods. Sometimes every word is capitalized (like in Minutemen: Double Nickles On The Dime) and sometimes not (Midnight Oil: Red Sails in the Sunset). Shouldn't there be one choice? In the articles I started I capitalized every word, so Red Sails In The Sunset already exists. I capitalized only the first word of the songs mentioned in the article (though this might not be the right choice). Dhum Dhum 22:31 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)

The normal practice is to capitalize the first and last words and all other words except articles (a, an, the), conjunctions (and, but, or, nor), prepositions (for, to, through, and so on, and the to in infinitives. (And remember albums in italics, song titles in quotes , as "She Said" from Revolver.) Ortolan88 PS, of course, if there's anything special about the title right on the album, you should copy the album. You know caMel cAse, allonewordlowercase, ALLCAPS, tricks like that.
I've always capitalized "through" and "with" (and probably other conjunctions and prepositions), but if that's the rule I'll try and remember not to. Maybe if I get the chance I'll fix the talk page's list to reflect that, since many are probably wrong (don't blame me, though, I pasted most of it from various other sites). Tokerboy 00:47 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)
I lifted that from the Harbrace College Handbook, pretty standard. It says there used to be a fashion for capitalizing longer prepositions like before, between and through, but that is now considered old-fashioned. In fact, I just looked at the Little Brown Handbook which is pretty much the same as Harbrace and one from the 50s that says the longer preps should be capped. So, I think, the rule is pretty much as I stated it. Ortolan88


---


As you may have noticed, I'm fascinated by the chronology of music (and indeed of other things). So I've started a bit of a side project. See 1972 in music. On it I've basically just got a handful of the albums released that year, plus a little write up about Harvest. If this grows into other years and people include some specific innovations, it could develop into something pretty groovy. When does the first mention of punk come up, for example. I took the liberty of redirecting the 1972 link on the Ziggy Stardust article.

Allmusic now has a page for each artist listing Grammy awards and Billboard music chart positions. I think this could be very useful, and have added it to David Bowie as an experiment. I'd like suggestions on formatting, though--it was tedious to do what I did, and it still doesn't look good. I'd like a chart, but it would be time-consuming and difficult to do all that (I think). Does anybody have any ideas? Billboard tracks the US and, I think, Canada. Who does it elsewhere, and is there a way we could easily adapt this information for Wikipedia (If so, it should probably all be moved to a separate page like David Bowie's chart positions or something).Tokerboy 05:03 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

Wellll..... Random thought:
  • Year - Song or Album Title
    • Chart: Position
For example:
I didn't spend a ton of time thinking about this, but I thought I'd toss up a possible starting point.
The Allmusic data is in a simple format. It would be trivial to write a script or program to parse it and spit out the format decided on so we don't have to go through and do this by hand for that massive volume of data. (Somebody had better beat me to this, or else it's going to end up in C++ instead of something sensible like Perl ;).)
I also think it would definitely be a good idea to put this stuff on separate pages, unless we're dealing with an artist/band that has a very short list of releases. That chart data on the David Bowie page makes it unbearably long, IMO. --nknight 09:52 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts and I don't see anything wrong with your format, though I'd suggest the year should link to 1986 in music. I would write a script, but I couldn't do so if my life depended on it. Tokerboy 19:45 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

I'd suggest aligning the table holding the album cover to the RIGHT, rather than the left. Left alignment is unusual, feels rather unnatural to me, and results in varying results across browsers which are all rather ugly. Mozilla and derivitives render as shown in http://www.runawaynet.com/~nknight/crushold.jpg (problem area highlighted to better show the details, like text on the image). Konqueror shifts all text as far as the end of the track listing on the Crush page to the right, which is equally ugly and disturbs the flow of the page significantly. Aligning to right results in http://www.runawaynet.com/~nknight/crushnew.jpg, which I think is far more attractive and natural, individual browser glitches aside. -- nknight 13:20 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Fine with me. I just arbitrarily picked a side. If right looks better, let's go with right. Tuf-Kat


Is does not appear to be a set image size for the album covers. If there is what is it? - fonzy

I get most of mine from allmusic.com, though I don't think there should be a set size. Some are real detailed and maybe should be bigger so the reader can get an idea for what's there (Sgt. Peppers) and some could be smaller and less intrusive because there's less to see (The White Album) or whatever. Tuf-Kat

Ok, What do we do if there is more than 1 album cover for the same version of the album? -fonzy

No reason not to include them both. Abbey Road has a couple pix from the inside cover, for example. If it helps to establish a social, historical or artistic theme relating to the album, it should be fair use, I think. (IANALAFVGR -- I am not a lawyer and for very good reason) Tuf-Kat

Contents

Album Track List

(was CD Track List)

Some CDs have noticeable cultural and/or historically significance, so it may be of interest to list all the tracks on the CD. But, is the complete track listing of every CDs of every non-garage band to be included on Wikipedia?

For example, all CDs of Blink-182 have Wiki-pages, created mostly by one or two anons. But except to the band's zealous fans, none of them is significant. The only Wiki-pages that link to them are just back the Blink-182 page, the members of the band, and a one-phrase mentioning in an "n-year in music".

Are they really encyclopedic (again, except to the fans)? --Menchi 18:11 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't think so, you don't think so, 99.9 percent of humanity doesght Oil]]: Red Sails in the Sunset). Shouldn't there be one choice? In the articles I started I capitalized every word, so Red Sails In The Sunset already exists. I capitalized only the first word of the songs mentioned in the article (though this might not be the right choice). Dhum Dhum 22:31 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)
The normal practice is to capitalize the first and last words and all other words except articles (a, an, the), conjunctions (and, but, or, nor), prepositions (for, to, through, and so on, and the to in infinitives. (And remember albums in italics, song titles in quotes , as "She Said" from Revolver.) Ortolan88 PS, of course, if there's anything special about the title right on the album, you should copy the album. You know caMel cAse, allonewordlowercase, ALLCAPS, tricks like that.
I've always capitalized "through" and "with" (and probably other conjunctions and prepositions), but if that's the rule I'll try and remember not to. Maybe if I get the chance I'll fix the talk page's list to reflect that, since many are probably wrong (don't blame me, though, I pasted most of it from various other sites). Tokerboy 00:47 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)
I lifted that from the Harbrace College Handbook, pretty standard. It says there used to be a fashion for capitalizing longer prepositions like before, between and through, but that is now considered old-fashioned. In fact, I just looked at the Little Brown Handbook which is pretty much the same as Harbrace and one from the 50s that says the longer preps should be capped. So, I think, the rule is pretty much as I stated it. Ortolan88


---


As you may have noticed, I'm fascinated by the chronology of music (and indeed of other things). So I've started a bit of a side project. See 1972 in music. On it I've basically just got a handful of the albums released that year, plus a little write up about Harvest. If this grows into other years and people include some specific innovations, it could develop into something pretty groovy. When does the first mention of punk come up, for example. I took the liberty of redirecting the 1972 link on the Ziggy Stardust article.

Allmusic now has a page for each artist listing Grammy awards and Billboard music chart positions. I think this could be very useful, and have added it to David Bowie as an experiment. I'd like suggestions on formatting, though--it was tedious to do what I did, and it still doesn't look good. I'd like a chart, but it would be time-consuming and difficult to do all that (I think). Does anybody have any ideas? Billboard tracks the US and, I think, Canada. Who does it elsewhere, and is there a way we could easily adapt this information for Wikipedia (If so, it should probably all be moved to a separate page like David Bowie's chart positions or something).Tokerboy 05:03 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

Wellll..... Random thought:
  • Year - Song or Album Title
    • Chart: Position
For example:
I didn't spend a ton of time thinking about this, but I thought I'd toss up a possible starting point.
The Allmusic data is in a simple format. It would be trivial to write a script or program to parse it and spit out the format decided on so we don't have to go through and do this by hand for that massive volume of data. (Somebody had better beat me to this, or else it's going to end up in C++ instead of something sensible like Perl ;).)
I also think it would definitely be a good idea to put this stuff on separate pages, unless we're dealing with an artist/band that has a very short list of releases. That chart data on the David Bowie page makes it unbearably long, IMO. --nknight 09:52 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts and I don't see anything wrong with your format, though I'd suggest the year should link to 1986 in music. I would write a script, but I couldn't do so if my life depended on it. Tokerboy 19:45 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

I'd suggest aligning the table holding the album cover to the RIGHT, rather than the left. Left alignment is unusual, feels rather unnatural to me, and results in varying results across browsers which are all rather ugly. Mozilla and derivitives render as shown in http://www.runawaynet.com/~nknight/crushold.jpg (problem area highlighted to better show the details, like text on the image). Konqueror shifts all text as far as the end of the track listing on the Crush page to the right, which is equally ugly and disturbs the flow of the page significantly. Aligning to right results in http://www.runawaynet.com/~nknight/crushnew.jpg, which I think is far more attractive and natural, individual browser glitches aside. -- nknight 13:20 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Fine with me. I just arbitrarily picked a side. If right looks better, let's go with right. Tuf-Kat


Is does not appear to be a set image size for the album covers. If there is what is it? - fonzy

I get most of mine from allmusic.com, though I don't think there should be a set size. Some are real detailed and maybe should be bigger so the reader can get an idea for what%e." It says that you assert that the copyright holder is willing to release it under the GFDL.
- The images are an exact reproduction of the album covers. I don't think the size really matters.
- The images aren't really the subject of the article -- the album itself is. They're two different copyrighted works. This doesn't seem to be a case of scholarship about the work.
- They're not necessary. They sure make the album pages look fancy, but they don't really add all that much. Is it worth the hassle for the rest of the project to add these gray-area items? I don't think so.
My two cents worth. I'd discourage this stuff. -- ESP 04:58 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Damn. This is an awkward message to reply to :) About the note about "fair use" - it makes it clear to downstream sources, if they're paranoid and states pretty clearly that the image is *not* under the GFDL. About fair use not being clear cut, laws aren't really made to be clear cut; there's always room for a judge's interpretation.

That's fair enough, but fair use is specificly about exceptions, not the rule. w/r/t downstream: you're making more and more of the corpus of Wikipedia non-free, by a reasonable definition of "free" (such as the OSI definition). Including fair-use images makes Wikipedia less free for commercial and personal use downstream, and less free for people in other countries without the United States' fair use precedent. This probably shouldn't be done lightly, if at all. Our primary goal is to make a free encyclopedia.
But the exception is part of the rule; and an important part. As to making the corpus of wikipedia less free; that's if you take the wikipedia as a whole to be a single work, and fine, it is; but it's also a collection of individual works. Nothing makes it less free for personal use; personal use is given more leeway than any public use, commercial or not. I understand the OSI (or rather, DFSG) definition of free and non-free; and yes, a small percentage of my contributions have been non-free. And clearly marked as such. Which is within the guidelines set out on the meta page this page is attached to. And should those guidelines change, it'll be easy to track them down. Of a more pressing nature are the fair use images which have not even got copyright information attached. Our primary goal is to make a free encyclopaedia, but the secondary goal is to make it as good as possible.

As for the covers not being the subject of the article, that's not entirely true. The artwork is part of the overall package of an album, and deserves some discussion. I haven't gotten around to it for most of the articles I've written, but I've never claimed to be finished with any article I've written. And I think that in some cases, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band or Abbey Road being the most notable examples, that the covers are as famous, if not more famous than the music on the albums, and so are (or should be) part of the focus of the article. I have no problem with shifting my focus in that direction if it makes people more comfortable.

I'd say it'd be necessary for any piece of copyrighted work that it be the subject of "scholarship" or "research". Just using the copyrighted work as a decoration for an article doesn't seem to come under the auspices of fair use. The fact that 100% of the work is included is also a bad sign.
To summarise, if the cover is just attached as decoration, there's a flaw in the article. A good album article; and there are few of them as yet; would discuss the package and circumstances of the album as a whole, including the packaging.

As for the covers not being necessary... there's a lot of people trying to make the case that most of the album articles aren't necessary to begin with. Track listings aren't necessary, a list of people who made appearances on the album is not necessary. But they're part of the guidelinentries without the United States' fair use precedent. This probably shouldn't be done lightly, if at all. Our primary goal is to make a free encyclopedia.

But the exception is part of the rule; and an important part. As to making the corpus of wikipedia less free; that's if you take the wikipedia as a whole to be a single work, and fine, it is; but it's also a collection of individual works. Nothing makes it less free for personal use; personal use is given more leeway than any public use, commercial or not. I understand the OSI (or rather, DFSG) definition of free and non-free; and yes, a small percentage of my contributions have been non-free. And clearly marked as such. Which is within the guidelines set out on the meta page this page is attached to. And should those guidelines change, it'll be easy to track them down. Of a more pressing nature are the fair use images which have not even got copyright information attached. Our primary goal is to make a free encyclopaedia, but the secondary goal is to make it as good as possible.

As for the covers not being the subject of the article, that's not entirely true. The artwork is part of the overall package of an album, and deserves some discussion. I haven't gotten around to it for most of the articles I've written, but I've never claimed to be finished with any article I've written. And I thinntries without the United States' fair use precedent. This probably shouldn't be done lightly, if at all. Our primary goal is to make a free encyclopedia.

But the exception is part of the rule; and an important part. As to making the corpus of wikipedia less free; that's if you take the wikipedia as a whole to be a single work, and fine, it is; but it's also a collection of individual works. Nothing makes it less free for personal use; personal use is given more leeway than any public use, commercial or not. I understand the OSI (or rather, DFSG) definition of free and non-free; and yes, a small percentage of my contributions have been non-free. And clearly marked as such. Which is within the guidelines set out on the meta page this page is attached to. And should those guidelines change, it'll be easy to track them down. Of a more pressing nature are the fair use images which have not even got copyright information attached. Our primary goal is to make a free encyclopaedia, but the secondary goal is to make it as good as possible.

As for the covers not being the subject of the article, that's not entirely true. The artwork is part of the overall package of an album, and deserves some discussion. I haven't gotten around to it for most of the articles I've written, but I've never claimed to be finished with any article I've written. And I thinverything I did (even yesterday), so it may take a while. I don't think it's going to happen though; it's not just album articles which will be affected, and this sort of discussion seems to come up every two or three months, and the status quo wins -- Jim Regan 20:56 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


What does everybody think about having a table for this series, perhaps something like (crappily cribbed from the taxobox/planetobox) the below. There seems to be a stray /table somewhere in there, but I dunno where. I had included a track listing, but decided that was too difficult and not very useful. I can't seem to make the top and bottom section ignore the fact that there is a third column in the middle one.Tuf-Kat 06:49, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

Centered images & slightly cleaned up your HTML. I'll be back to do more, but don't have time right now. -- Jmabel 02:56, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) Making better use of colspan, and nailed some more element closure issues; not finished though, there's still apparently some stray markup, although I'm beginning to suspect a wiki bug. -- Jmabel 07:48, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks great! I'm now inclined to think that the "major contributors" bit should go, as it makes the whole thing too big, and I'd rather keep the reviews. Tuf-Kat

Culprit found: missing </small> tags in the Reviews sections. I agree that the box should be shorter. Do you want me to try converting the tables to wiki-table-markup? —Paul A 09:11, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please do!. Tuf-Kat
Done. —Paul A 04:06, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why not put album LENGTH (min./sec.) in the table? --Juuitchan

Hmmm, our comments are appearing in the Abbey Road table. Help! I'm trapped in a table, and I can't get out! Seriously, album lengths might be good. Tuf-Kat 08:23, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

can someone clarify the Fair use issue for me? I just uploaded a page about Herbie Hancock's Head Hunters album, and within a few minutes someone (anonymous) had come along and removed both the Album cover art and the Tracklisting and the List of artists on the album. I'd have thought that all of these would be covered under fair use, and I'm tempted to just revert to the previous version of the page, but I don't really want to get into a war with the other guy. If tracklistings and lists of personnel are really off limits, then the whole album project is stuffed, really.

Any thoughts?

PS A couple of images I uploaded for other albums just disappeared - for example Bitches Brew. The page for the image is still there - which proves the image was succesfully uploaded (and I could see it on the page for a day or so) but now that image is nowhere to be found. Has it been deleted (no record of this) or is this just a glitch?

PPS ( ! ) I like the idea of a table for the cover, but I don't think we need to put quite so much inro in it. Maybe just artist, year, label, genre, but leave the reviews and contributors to the body of the text?

Cheers Ben User:Bwmodular 03-Feb-2004 16:07 GMT

The track listing and personnel list is not even fair use, as neither can be copyrighted provided there is no expressive content in the organization. A list of songs in the order they appear and a list of performers in alphabetical order (or any other basic order) is not copyrightable, and can be reproduced on the wiki without issue. The album cover issue has been discussed numerous times, and the general consensus has been that it is fair use and is not a problem for the wikipedia. I have reverted Head Hunters. Tuf-Kat 17:21, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
On the reviews, I think that the contributors can go, but I like the reviews. The other info is something that a thousand other sites put in some easy to find place (and for good cause, we should follow suit) but there is usually a dearth of genuinely useful information beyond those facts and a track listing. This is a way we can make Wikipedia stand out, by providing links to and summaries of professional reviews. The Abbey Road table is, indeed, a bit long, but the vast majority of albums will have fewer reviews than that and will be more like the same size as the Spears album. Tuf-Kat 17:37, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
The disappearing album cover is probably a glitch and will be recovered. See the note at the top of the village pump. Tuf-Kat
I can't seem to touch the table without breaking things. All I did was try and delete the "major contributors" section, and now both tables, our comments and the wikilinks at the bottom are all part of one giganto-table. Isn't there a firm way to just end a table? (/table would seem logical, but there's a gaggle of those already). Tuf-Kat 17:47, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
The problem was bad nesting in the first table (the Britney Spears CD). I've redone them both using exclusively COLSPAN instead of nested tables, and handled the float-to-right problem with a clearly marked outer table and DIV. Boy do we need proper wiki markup for these boxes, or what? Zack 21:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, this now gives a lot more "grid lines" in the tables. I presumed that the reason for the nested tables was to get borders in some places and not others was precisely to avoid that, which is why I didn't change it when I made my edits earlier. (They don't look bad to me, I was just trying to help fulfil what I presumed to be Tuf-Kat's intent. This one-table approach should be less sensitive to minor coding glitches,though.) -- Jmabel 04:55, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I like it better this way too. I'd have done it that way if I knew how. Tuf-Kat 07:13, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
Primo! BTW, feel free to call on me in the future if you need HTML help for wikipedia. -- Jmabel 01:46, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A lot of Wikiprojects use different colors in the table to mean different things (for example, plants, animals and fungi all use different colors, but the same table). I'm not sure this really has any useful application to this project, but is worth considering. Dividing by genre might be nice, but would probably lead to arguments (fill in band name here is not punk enuff for the punk color!), and I'm not sure it's worth it. I've also thought about having different colors for notable bands (for example all Rolling Stone albums could be blue, with orange as the default) but this is probably even less useful. Maybe by decade of release... Tuf-Kat 03:49, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

In the list of sources for professional reviews, can somebody find a homepage to link to for this site? http://www.acclaimedmusic.com doesn't work, and neither does http://hem.bredband.net. I can't seem to find any kind of main page or search function, and I need to go to bed.Tuf-Kat 08:54, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

It's http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/, it turns out. —Paul A 09:06, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! Tuf-Kat

After doing a couple more albumboxes (needs a better name...), I'm not sure including e.g. Rolling Stone List of 500 Greatest Albums of All Time is a good idea, even if it is an encyclopedic source. There's an awful lot of them, most are reproduced on non-official pages and could very well be mistaken or even totally fictional and... I hate them. Tuf-Kat 19:51, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Previous/Next album links?

What would you think of adding a [[< Previous]] album and [[Next >]] album link at the bottom of the 'taxobox', for those artists who have writeups for more than one album? Appropriately piped, of course, and removed if not applicable. Might be a nice way to browse through an artists work.

Could be done as text links at the top or bottom of the article text as well. Yust a thought.... -- Catherine 22:02, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting idea. I'll add it to Abbey Road and see how it looks. Tuf-Kat
Done, and I like the effect. I'm not sure there's any reason to limit it to cases when articles already exist for the other albums -- a prominent link might inspire someone to write it. In any case, the Abbey Road example treats the first column (Yellow Submarine) as a header and makes it bold automatically. How can I override that? Tuf-Kat 22:23, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. What do you think? (The problem was using a "!" instead of a "|" to start the Yellow Submarine cell -- "!" tells it that it's a Table Heading, which it automagically bolds.)

I also made the album name text smaller, centered, and with a forced break (br) before the year. Does that work?

I've added infoboxes to Duran Duran (album) and Rio (album) already, BTW. -- Catherine 06:01, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the sample here to include the "Chronology" as well as a section for the producer". Tuf-Kat 17:11, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Two issues:

Barring disagreement here, I am going to change the project to specifically disallow "100 Greatest Albums of All Time"-type lists, even if they are by a reputable source.

It seems to me that some "100 Greatest Albums" lists are encyclopedic topics in their own right. For example, the topic of what has come and gone from Rolling Stone 100-best lists over time could be a very good way of looking at changing tastes in music. Or is this not what you are talking about? -- Jmabel 01:04, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, I'm not so sure that such a thing would be encyclopedic (it sounds like original research, but I suppose there's nothing wrong with collecting such lists on a single page -- except maybe a copyvio?), but that's not really what I'm talking about. I mean using such a list on the "reviews" section of the albumbox as at Back in Black. Many of the major music magazines have done dozens. Check out music.net, it's got sometimes dozens of chart placings for well-known albums -- I think that would clutter up the albumbox with notes regarding the subject's placement on obscure magazines' "100 Greatest Metal Albums of the 70s" list from years ago. Tuf-Kat 09:13, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

There has been little or no discussion anywhere on the wiki regarding the suitability of Greatest Hits or other compilations having their own albums. I am of the opinion that most should not, though Bob Marley's Legends, some box sets, that Pink Floyd greatest hits and probably some more could easily have an article. Discuss. Tuf-Kat 23:43, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't exclude an album simply because it wasn't the original issue of the material involved. For example, Nuggets, a multi-band complilation, is arguably one of the most influential albums of all times, certainly more influential than the individual songs collected therein. Similarly, some of Roky Erikson's "original issue" albums are rather weak, and have not matched the sales or impact of the collection "You're Gonna Miss Me". -- Jmabel 01:04, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Certainly, I support some compilations of various kinds having an article -- that's why I gave them a color for the albumbox. These albums are the exception, however, and many of the most famous bands have released dozens of greatest hits albums. Most could realistically never have any more information than a track listing, release date and label and I suppose, in some cases, chart information. There are some articles on bands that link to every greatest hits or compilation release ever to include the band's music. It seems highly unnecessary. Perhaps a single article with all the track listings and release dates and obscure info on compilations would be best. Tuf-Kat 09:13, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Release date and album length format

I have started using the format and have the following questions/issues:
- for the release date, what if the album is released on separate dates in different countries/regions, probably most notably the United States and United Kingdom? A number of Pink Floyd albums are like this, typically released in the UK first then the US. Should it only list the first date (which tends to be for the UK)?
- for the length, what about double albums? Should there be two lines with each line ending with the disc/record # in parenthesis? See The Wall for an example. RedWolf 08:42, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

To the first question, I think the best thing is to only include the date of first release -- if we include the US/UK, why not Australia, Brazil and South Africa? It would become much too long. In most cases, aren't the release dates in US/UK roughly the same, within a few months to a year at most? Is the week-long delay in the US release of The Wall really all that important? Maybe we should include the country of first release on the date instead (as in November 30, 1979 (UK), and place the other releases somewhere in the article.
As to the second item, the first time I looked at that I assumed it was saying there was a difference in the lengths of the UK/UK releases... I suppose I agree that the two side lengths should be given, but I could go either way, really. Tuf-Kat 09:02, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Template:SampleWikiProject

Well, I don't think any album articles are quite ready yet, but I'm going to try and get something, maybe Aquemini, there soon. Any other thoughts? Tuf-Kat 23:52, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Just a q. What should be done for the Pink Floyd double album Ummagumma? It has 1 disk of live, and 1 disk of studio material. What should be done for the colours? - Fizscy46 01:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I suppose have the first and third boxes darkturquoise and the second and fourth boxes orange. Tuf-Kat 06:33, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Colors

Why has the color orange been chosen for studio albums? About 90% of the album articles on Wikipedia are about studio albums, so it would be better to use a more standard color (like black).

Acegikmo1 23:03, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

LP vs Album vs ... ?

I noticed in the header of the sample albumbox the listing "LP by Alice in Chains" -- noting that LP is linked to Vinyl record. Is this the standard format we want to use, given that records are rarely released on vinyl anymore? Should it just be "album"? If we're trying to maintain the distinction between LP and EP, we can still say "album by" or "EP by".... ? I'm not versed in the subtleties of music terminology, so please let me know if I'm off base here.... Catherine

Yes, this concerns me as well, but I don't have an answer. Tuf-Kat 18:51, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
An EP is syill considered a vinyl record. Same as the 1000 transistor Microchips of the past still being called microchips despite have 1 million+ per inch². Just have it say EP by {Insert name}, and have it link to vinyl record, unless someone has a better idea

. - Fizscy46 02:59, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that in most cases, we're not referring to vinyl records, at least not exclusively -- albums are issued and reissued in multiple formats, and we're not referring to a specific one. LP, as "long-playing record" seems to apply pretty specifically to an analogue disc record, and we should probably prefer album to describe a collection of musical tracks released as a unit. EP, on the other hand, describes something that has more tracks than a single but fewer than an "LP", and is still used in this context even though they're now almost always on CD rather than vinyl -- and who knows what they'll be released on 10 or 20 years from now.

I guess I'm just saying that the title we apply to the collected work should reflect the content, not the format it was released in. Catherine 05:06, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

LP is actually a disambiguation page so will always require the pipe. In any case, I think "LP" should be changed to album as well. I have substituted CD for LP on a couple pages because I know LPs will/have never be released for the album. However, who knows what the future holds in store as to what albums will be released on. Album seems to be a good neutral choice although I'm open to other suggestions at this point. RedWolf 05:12, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a bit of a can of worms, huh? :-) Having worked in radio, my impression is that original recordings can fall under three general classifications today, regardless of the medium: "single", "EP", and "album". A "single" will feature chiefly one song, but it may (indeed, usually will) have more than one song on it (a 45-rpm vinyl record will have a B side, a CD single may have additional remixes, other unreleased songs, etc.). An "album" is a collection of different songs, usually totaling at least 35 minutes or so. An "EP" is in the fuzzy area in between—not as many songs as an album, but too many or too varied a list of songs to be called a single. Make sense? I think it's kind of subjective. But if, say, Rolling Stone and AMG and Soundscan all call it one thing, I think it's safe for us to call it the same thing. :-)
I do think we ought to figure out a standard way to indicate the media on which a recording is released, though—and especially when. Especially with older recordings, there can be vast amounts of time between the release of the same album on different media (vinyl... CD... cassette... 8-track... wire spool...??)
By the way, a bit of trivia. It was actually the advent of LPs that made the term "album" an anachronism. The original, true albums were big books where the pages were sleeves holding 78-rpm records!
--LarryGilbert 02:44, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

I think this is a very interesting project and I've devoted some thought to how it might be done myself. I don't think we should try to duplicate what is already done at other sites, and done well.

What I do think would be useful, and if done well could be really fantastic, is an examination of each album from a slightly broader perspective. In the examination of each album, how about a consideration of its specific influences, specific followers, where it fits in its genre and what leanings it may have toward others, etc? With regard to the Funkadelic albums, I'd much sooner go to allmusic.com for that information than to these wikipedia pages, but allmusic doesn't have the kind of musical matrix information that I think could be really exciting.

What do you think? Arbitration Matter of Hephaestus 16:40, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Note that the above message was written by Tubby and is in the archive. Feel free to add information on whatever you like of encyclopedic interest. Tuf-Kat 18:05, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki Album

I have created Template:Album to place at the top of talk pages for album articles. For those who don't know how to use the MediaWiki namespace, typing {{msg:Album}} will present the text at Template:Album. Feel free to revise the note, as I have no strong attachment to the wording. Tuf-Kat 06:34, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

And I have added it to the talk page for every album on List of albums in the first and second sections (Numbers and "A"). Just in case anyone else would like to do the "B"s. Tuf-Kat 06:47, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe this should only be added to talk pages for those albums that actually have the Album infobox? By doing that, we can see the actual list of albums where the infobox has been applied by clicking the "What links here". RedWolf 06:57, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
That's a good idea, but could be difficult to enforce. (I've already placed it on several other talk pages, for example, with no infobox...) Tuf-Kat 15:20, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Why just those with the infobox? Maybe someone else will want to add an infobox if it's not there. —LarryGilbert 20:25, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

I've added the msg to a few albums that may not even be on your list of albums list - they are just linked to from the band. I have one concern about adding the infobox - it seems to require a fair use image, and it would be illegal for me to add that in the UK. If they are required than a US contributor will have to add them. I presume I should add the info box, and someone else can add the image. Secretlondon 18:54, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've added the info box to Rammstein's albums - a US contributor will have to add a photo. Secretlondon 20:08, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Done, for all but Mutter. Tuf-Kat 21:15, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks - I've done the three albums by The Housemartins now (writing about albums is light relief from normal wikipedia stuff). Should I make a list of ones that need pictures somewhere? Secretlondon 22:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Needs cover? Tuf-Kat 23:25, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Colours

  • What colour should we use for mix albums? They are more than compilations of exiting material. Secretlondon 10:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I've taken the same colour for other soundtracks as used for movie soundtracks. I didn't see the need to differentiate between stage production soundtracks and movies. Secretlondon 19:04, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Needy Articles

As there has been a suggestion that we list articles without infoboxes somewhere. Secretlondon 20:31, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In contrast to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums/Needs infobox, I had an idea for how to track pages with albumboxes which would be pretty much self-sustaining. Create a new mediawiki page, say MediaWiki:Albumbox, but leave it essentially blank (with just an invisible html comment explaining it's purpose), then place {{msg:Albumbox}} in the first line of every albumbox like this

This won't affect the table provided the page is blank. Since almost everybody just takes an existing box as a template (and nobody touches the first line), new boxes would be linked automatically to MediaWiki:Albumbox. Anyway, unless anyone objects, or has a better idea, or just thinks it's pointless, I'm going to implement this and start tagging all the albumboxes tomorrow (or maybe tonight if I get bored). - Lee(talk)21:54, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) This is a good idea - as we could then check against list of albums and see which are missing. Secretlondon23:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if this is feasible but what about extending that idea with replacing the entire first line of the table with the standard attributes.
e.g.
the mediawiki page for AlbumboxStart would include:

border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="225" align="right"

If the cell spacing needs to be tweaked or the width changed, it's a simple change in one file. Just a thought, as to how well it might work is open for debate. RedWolf 23:33, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see why that wouldn't work. At least, it would be very obvious after tagging the first box if it works or not - in which case we can just blank the page and go with the first option. - Lee (talk) 11:55, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've done all the albumboxes that link to Record producer. I know there there are a few boxes out there that don't have a producer section, so they still need to be hunted down.
Check here for the list. - Lee (talk) 13:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tried to follow the guidelines for Generation Terroristsby the Manic Street Preachers but don't seem to have table aligned as per the example template. if anyone could fix it let me know what I did wrong it would be much appreciated. Scraggy402:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Chronology Links

I noticed ScudLee has been going around fixing some of the existing album pages (thanks, by the way), and has let some people (including me) know that the Chronology section of the table is meant to be a back/forward section for albums rather than a listing of everything that the band has released. This wasn't clear from me from the main WikiProject Albums page and I was wondering if someone could add something in there to clarify this. Thanks! -- Jrdioko 22:42, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've given it a shot. This is only based on what I do, though. Feel free to add or amend as you see fit. - Lee (talk) 23:20, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks! -- Jrdioko 23:43, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Sec vs. S

The 'sec' wording on the albumbox was recently changed to 's.' The 'sec' wording already exists on the many album pages that exist, and that form corresponds with the 'min' used for 'minute.' I've changed the 's' back to 'sec' since I believe continuity is important unless there is a good reason to change something like this. If there was a reason that this (and the other albums pages) should be changed to 's', I apologize for reverting the edit and feel free to remake it with a note here explaining why the change was made. Thanks! -- Jrdioko 04:11, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Some of the albums by Rush were also changed from 'sec' to 's'. However, I have found no explanation for this change. In any case, it should have been discussed here before making such a template change. If one is going to change 'sec' to 's' why not change 'min' to 'm' to be consistent? I agree with your revert Jrdioko until this issue has been discussed. RedWolf 04:49, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
I think this is part of a wider attempt to standardise to official SI abbreviations. I agree with you though, it doesn't look right next 'min' which can't be changed to 'm' ('m'=metre). (This change has been made to a lot of album pages). - Lee (talk) 10:52, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Once I thought about it I realized the change was probably a switch to SI like Lee said. Maybe since changes have already started to be made we need to discuss it here and come up with something final that can be applied to all the new and old pages. 'Sec' could be avoided by simply putting something like 38:42, but that seems much more confusing than '38 min 42 sec.' It would be nice to use SI, and I'm usually someone in support of standardizing things like that, but '38 min 42 s' does look strange. What does everyone else think? Any ideas? -- Jrdioko 15:10, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

The options: (as I see them)

  1. 38 min 42 sec -- A wholesale revert and damn the standards.
  2. 38 min 42 s -- Bring everything into line with style but end up looking odd.
  3. 38 m 42 s -- Looks ok, but there may be problems with m = metre.
  4. 38:42 -- meh.
  5. 2,322s -- Maybe not...
  6. 38' 42" (KeyStorm 17:43, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC))
  7. Other.

I'm stumped. - Lee (talk) 16:14, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Given those options, I would choose #4 and then #1. The others just don't work for me. Since we don't use the min and sec stuff for the individual track times, I don't see it as a big deal if we drop it for the "Length" in the infobox. However, for some double and triple albums, we are talking a couple of hours which would then tempt many to probably want to use hours, minutes, seconds unless they give the times for each CD or disc. Would it really be an issue for people if we just used mm:ss instead of mm min ss sec?
This was my comment which I added on April 14 but forgot to sign. RedWolf 02:34, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
I would tend to think that to avoid future SI conversions switching all the album pages from whatever we decide here that the original "mm min ss sec" doesn't work. "mm min ss s" really does look weird and "mm m ss s" I'd say definitely can't be used. I'd say go with mm:ss, but that is a little confusing as to what is minutes, seconds, and hours, especially if some albums are longer than an hour. You could do something like 76:43 in that case, but that's even more confusing. I'm stumped as well. I'd say "mm min ss sec" is the best looking and least confusing, but I'm afraid that would result in future SI changes. Not that it's absolutely vital that we stay standarized with this, but it would be nice. -- Jrdioko 23:26, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I think with the upcoming template namespace (which is live at the test pedia), it will be as simple as changing a MediaWiki page to update the format of infoboxes. Tuf-Kat 01:01, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea, would you mind passing along the URL to that infobox project? I haven't looked around much at the test site. -- Jrdioko 01:20, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
See this edit window for an article on Belgium using a countrybox template. I'm not sure where the Template namespace is discussed in detail (somewhere at meta, but can't find it now), but my understand is that a page called Template:Albumbox will be created and at an article (say Abbey Road), one need only type:
{{Template:Album
|Title - ''Abbey Road''
|Cover - Image:AbbeyRoad.gif
|Format - LP
|Band - The Beatles
And so on, thus automagically creating an infobox. (as the Belgium link above shows, the markup is somewhat more complicated than I wrote it... not sure why, exactly). So, that's the gist of it all. Now that I think about it, however, if the "min" "sec" notation is in the box on the right, it might not be considered part of the template by the computer, and would thus need to be entered individually on each albumbox, but there's probably a way to avoid that. Tuf-Kat 04:24, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
That's awesome. I've been wishing for a feature like this. —LarryGilbert 19:13, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea to experiment with when it is released. -- Jrdioko 04:36, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Strangely enough, I've already been playing with this over at test. The template is at Template:Albumbox (there's also Template:Review for the reviews). The code (from Aquemini) looks like
{{Albumbox| Title=Aquemini| Artist=OutKast| Type=Album| Artwork=Aqueminicvr.jpg| Released-day=[[September 28]]| Released-year=[[1998]]| Recorded=| Genre=[[Southern rap]]| Length=74:47| Record label=[[La Face]]| Producer=[[Organized Noize]], [[Babyface]] and OutKast| Previous=[[ATLiens]]| Previous-year=[[1996]]| Next=[[Stankonia]]| Next-year=[[2000]] }}
There's also a hidden Color (and Alt-Color - for dual types like Ummagumma) parameter, which I cheated with by making it default to orange. Length should probably be split into two though, min and sec, to make format changes easier. Unfortunately, I had to do a bit of a kludge to get the reviews in. I am very open to better suggestions on that score. - Lee (talk) 11:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let's get back to the topic: I want to report that Bobblewik has been changing 'sec' to 's' -at least in many of my watched albums-. So I encourage everybody to change it back, since he took the decision for us all. Why don't we use the 'ed format? 38' 42" (I'll add it to the list)--KeyStorm 17:43, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was not aware that this was under discussion here but thanks to Keystorm, I have been pointed at this page. I have been fixing the many inconsistencies in unit symbols and standardising to SI (e.g. hr -> h, km/hr -> km/h, kph -> km/h, mps -> m/s, kg/sec -> kg/sec, km/sec -> km/s, sec -> s). You will see at the offical SI website:
http://www1.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table6.html
that the standard symbols are second (s), minute (min), hour (h), day (d). Trying to help.
Bobblewik 18:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And we're pleased with all your metric unit corrections. I myself would do it if I saw any. But the fact is here that it visually dosn't fit. I completely agree with you, though, that it's 's', but I think we should wait until we find a consensed solution.
Thanks for your weeding. KeyStorm 18:32, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the format m:ss (7:42, 38:42) or even h:mm:ss (1:15:42) is universal. It is even enshrined in ISO 8601 (See: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html). I think 'Duration' would be a better word than 'Length'. It looks fine to me.
Bobblewik 20:38, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not very sure. 'hh:mm:ss' is more usually used to express a certain point in absolute time (t) and not to express a time period or duration (t-Δt). That's why the most correct form is the scientific form followed by an unit. Also you can't determine whether 14:56 means 14 minutes and 56 seconds or 14 hours and 56 minutes (since we are allowed to ommit the seconds). For this and other aesthetic reasons I keep defending the M min, S sec (although wrongly abbreviated) and the M' S" formats, since they are the correct form to express time intervals and durations (for instance, in athletics).KeyStorm 21:56, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the correct scientific form should be a value followed by a unit e.g. ks, Ms, Gs, etc. Time is an anomaly unfortunately. To use the example of athletics, the format mm:ss is indeed used. See:
Bobblewik 23:21, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ok, bad example :-/, but I'm happy to see you got my point anyway ;-)

Personnel

I was reading through the new formatting of this page (which is much clearer by the way, thanks Lee), and I saw that part near the bottom titled "Personnel." Shouldn't this information be on the band's article and not on the album page? Maybe you do need it just in case the band members are different for different albums, but I don't think "Personnel" is the right name. Also, in that case, what do you put on the main band's article (if the members are different for different albums)? Again I hate to create a mess with this standardization business, but I always like to see some sort of "format" that's recommended to use for all articles. Then again, I am mildly annoyed by the fact that every disambiguation page has a different sentence at the top ("Blah can refer to," "Blah has several different meanings," "Blah can mean one of several different things," etc., so maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine. In any case, I think personnel has to go unless that's the correct name for the members of a band. -- Jrdioko 23:26, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

In most cases, the "personnel" is much more than a list of band members. The band members should be on it, of course, but many or most albums are recorded with the help of at least a handful of session musicians, plus producers, engineers, cover artists, etc. Also, a particular band member may be a bassist, but may also play the vibraphone or cow bell or glockenspiel on a particular song -- may be appropriate on the band page, but is certainly appropriate on the article page. See, for example, Aquemini, which has dozens of personnel, but only two are members of the crew OutKast (admittedly, hip hop is kind of a special case, because guest rappers and producers are so common). Tuf-Kat 00:59, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. So is "personnel" the preferred term for such a list? I haven't heard that term used in that context, but I'm not an expert in music by any means so I was just curious if that is correct. Also, now I see that the list can be useful on a page where the personnel covers more than the band, but, back to my other question, what should be included on the ==Band== section of the band's article if different members produced different records, and is that the correct heading name. There isn't a Wikiproject for band pages is there (I looked around before but didn't see one)? -- Jrdioko 01:17, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Nope, there's no WikiProject for bands as of yet. Feel free to start one if it floats your boat. I'm not sure if personnel is the best word, but nothing else strikes me as more appropriate. Aquemini has separate sections for performers and technicians, so maybe that should be more standard.
Your other question (what should be included on the ==Band== section of the band's article if different members produced different records, and is that the correct heading name.) I don't really understand. If a band had a changing line-up, that should obviously be explained in the band's history. A list of band members should probably include all members, with appropriate notes for those which were not a part of the band throughout its existence. Bands with many line-up changes over the years might need some special format to make it easier to see who was a member when, but I'm not sure how best to do it. It has occurred to me that for such a band, a tabled discography with albums in colors depending on which lineup recorded it might be wise, but I've never implemented anything. All in all, I'm not sure there should be any policy on how to handle it, because the circumstances will be different for different bands. Tuf-Kat 04:05, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusing question and thanks for the answer. I don't think I have enough knowledge on the subject to start a Wikiproject for bands, but it seems to me if albums and songs are being standarized that it might not be a bad idea to do the same for bands. Then again, there are so many different situations that could exist with bands (such as what you were discussing above) that perhaps a little variation and flexibility is a good thing. I just thought I'd bring up the idea. -- Jrdioko 04:36, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Albumbox colors

I've just added all of the album covers for michael jackson that were on the missing images list and entered them onto the relevant album pages. I noticed that some of the colours are set as darkgreen for the Albumbox on these pages and just wanted confirmation that the correct policy at the moment is for them to be orange???. didn't want to change them incase orange had now been switched to green as the standard colour.Scraggy4 19:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Orange is the standard color for "Original studio albums," but different types of albums are designated different colors. Take a look at the main project page for details. HTH, Jrdioko 01:23, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)


many thanks, I have now noticed my oversight. That's what happens when you work with blind people for a living, it sometimes rubs off.Scraggy4 16:47, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are these colours sufficiently contrasting with the foreground colours for all viewers? I can imagine that readers with diminished eye-sight would have problems reading some of these texts on relatively dark backgrounds.--Branko


I was waiting for someone to mention this problem with the wiki colour boxes. As far as I aware my organizations policy is for all text to be made available in either Arial or Times New Roman with a font size of 16 as well as supplying audio and braille versions. All background colours should also be avoided if at all possible. Obviously very few articles are written with thought for the visually impaired (many older people also develop various vision problems which makes contrast a problem) in mind. The easiest solution is by making a text only version of the page available for all users to who this may be of help. Scraggy4 19:08, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Needs cover

After a message from user:Jrdioko on my talk page I was wondering if the needs cover page could be expanded to include other info. that users haven't been able to find, possibly in easy to use table form something like the following.Scraggy4 11:23, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

band name album name cover release formats release date recorded length label producer no. of reviews
Relaxed Muscle A Heavy Night With... ok ok ok still required still required ok still required 3
That sounds like a great idea. Move the /Needs cover to something more general (I can't think of anything great off the top of my head right now), and put all the albumbox info there. After a new article has been made, the user can go to that page, copy and paste the box, fill in the info, and then others can take it from there. The only problem I can see is if some of the more detailed information simply isn't available anywhere, but then whoever is working on it can just remove that entry. Suggestions?  — Jrdioko (Talk) 17:39, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)


I have put a possible example of an album / single information required box on my user page from the list on the needs cover page. This would allow all song missing info to be in one place. I thought I found a different page earlier that was for missing info but I can't find it now (sort of explaining the problem and possibly confirming the need for info in one place.) It would also have to be explained on the album & song project pages. anybody have any suggestions?? Scraggy4 00:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Album

I have turned the message at Template:Album into a hybrid opentasksbox and comejoinWikiProjectbox. Thoughts?Tuf-Kat 20:18, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

It's funny, I'd just been thinking of doing an open tasks box (Great minds etc.). I hadn't thought of doing it on Template:Album, though. Interesting... It might need a little tweaking, especially once Needs cover gets fleshed out to include all missing info. It might also be an idea to mention Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums/Needs infobox|Needs infobox (which could probably do with filling up) as well. - Lee (talk) 20:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've now completed entering all of the albums (from List of albums) by bands beginning with 'A' that have some or all albumbox info missing onto my userpage. It didn't take very long and if you compare against the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums/Needs infobox|Needs infobox you will see that just the letter A on my list is far longer than the whole of current Needs Infobox. I will continue to add B, C, D, etc so feel free to take info from my page or if you create a new page for the info let me know. Apologies if I am doing something wrong but it just seemed like it needed doing and I would like to track down all of the missing info. Help appreciated with this obviously. Scraggy4 22:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
My problem with this is that very few albumboxes are complete, and by including pages without albumboxes as well, you're effectively mirroring the entire list of albums on a single page, but with vastly more information per listing. It's just going to be too unwieldy.
My suggestion is this, (this runs slightly opposite to how things currently stand)
  1. Make Needs cover list only those pages without albumboxes (or covers obviously).
  2. Make Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums/Needs infobox|Needs infobox list only those pages with covers (but no albumbox).
  3. Move the page you're working on to Needs info (say), shift the info you've already collected on non-albumbox pages to the relevant page (cover/infobox) and restrict this page to just those pages with albumboxes (by using this list).
We can then, much more quickly, go through the rest of the list pages and sift the remaining album pages onto needs cover/infobox as appropriate.
This way we get a progression 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> complete, with different people able to work comfortably on different tasks. Plus the first two pages only need to link to the page in question (like they currently do), so the sizes shouldn't be too large. What do you think? - Lee (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2004 (UTC)


Hi Lee, I would say that the
  1. Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums/Needs infobox|Needs infobox to only include those without either cover or infobox;
  2. Needs cover to be renamed as Needs sleeve image to include those with boxes but without image;
  3. and the third page to be Needs more info or Incomplete infobox to include those with boxes but info missing.

Some items would appear on links 2) & 3) but 3)would give a list of all incomplete boxes whereas 2) may include complete boxes except for cover and some incomplete without cover.

Another alternative I see is to have list 1) as above, and forget 2) as the fact the image is missing would be included in 3).

Whichever is decided upon these pages should be clearly directed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, Template:Album, Album, Music

I can also see advantage in adding options 1),2),3) or 1) & 3) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, Template:Album as a See Also from each artist/band individual page. This may seem a huge task but all it would not take long to copy and paste. I could see this encouraging many more people to become involved with adding the odd snippet of info here and there. I personally did not find the relevant info regarding the project that easy to find and not classing myself as the dimmest person in the world I expect a few others have had the same problem. I still feel that some clarity needs to given on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums page regarding formats Cd/vinyl etc that I mentioned previously.

Hopefully these lists will soon decrease in size as we, and hopefullly others, clean up the pages.Scraggy4 22:34, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we agree on what should be on 3, anyway. I'd suggest you pick a name and move it to a subpage sharpish (it reeeally shouldn't be in the main article space). I still prefer my suggestion (but then I would), because I see those three tasks - uploading an image, adding an albumbox, filling in missing info - as totally separate and distinct, and I'm more inclined to add a box to page with artwork already present (because I'm lazy). I do agree that under your system 2) would be redundant.
As for adding links to these pages, from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, Template:Album - definitely, absolutely, it would be pointless otherwise; from Album, Music - definitely not, articles should avoid linking into the wikipedia: namespace except where absolutely neccessary (I think there's a policy page on this somewhere). Same goes for the See alsos (this is also the reason why the list you're compiling needs to be moved). If they're linked to from Template:Album, then they'll be linked to from every album talk page, which is good enough. - Lee (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Album box necessity?

Okay, now I don't mean to offend here, so try to read what I have to say objectively. I have just finished adding albumboxes to all of the Modest Mouse album articles. And, thinking back, I really think they looked better before, with the info in the article, and the album cover just float right, like any other image. The albumboxes seem kind of unnecessary. Plus the text of the article seems to run too close to the albumbox - like there's not enough buffer space around the albumbox or something. I just think the articles looked better before. And why is orange the color? Why not something more standard like white or grey or wikipedia-yellow? Thoughts? blankfaze 23:08, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, those Modest Mouse articles are little more than stubs at the moment. The point of the table is to condense certain pertinant information at the top of a decent-sized article for easy reference. You should really think about adding more to the article than removing the albumbox.
As for the orange - dunno, I wasn't around when that decision was made. I think it might be a little too late in the day to change it, unfortunately. When the new mediawiki software (1.3) comes, with the ability to use templates, it might be worth rethinking the colors, if it's decided we should replace the existing albumboxes with templated versions, that is (which I think we should). It might also mean making sweeping changes like that would be easier in the future. - Lee (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I suppose I see what you're saying. I just think these Albumbox things are kind-of ugly (no offence to anyone). But Wikipedia is a community encyclopædia, not my encyclopædia. blankfaze | &#9835 01:28, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


A similar quesion was recently debated on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. See The Table Format.
Bobblewik 18:55, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New Skin

With the new skin, the albumbox is pushed to the top of the page instead of forming a bar on the right. What can be done about this?

Acegikmo1 01:17, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

For some reason, the parser isn't accepting the {{msg:albumboxStart}} in the first line of the table. I tried moving it to the template namespace, but that didn't help. Currently, the only solution would be to ditch the msg and use subst instead. I've been working on a templated version over on test (see Aquemini), but it's still a bit buggy. - Lee (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
It appears to be the skin's fault, not the album boxes', so why don't we ask the people who work on the skin to see if they can do anything about the skin to fix it? -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon Talk]] 01:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
This is not the only project suffering this problem with the new skin. I believe any project using templates for their infobox/taxobox has also ran into the same issue. I think the skin needs to be fixed, rather than us trying for a workaround. RedWolf 03:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Not all of them are having problems. Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements seems to be doing fine. --Caliper 23:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
It's working for Elements because that project is not defining a table using a custom message. The Albums project uses {{msg:AlbumboxStart}} which defines a table using wiki syntax. MediaWiki 1.3 seems to be ignoring the parameters specified in the custom message which tell it to put a border around it and right justify the box. RedWolf 04:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

A workaround for the MediaWiki 1.3 bug is to replace {{msg:AlbumboxStart}} with {{subst:AlbumboxStart}} as suggested by Lee. I have done that for The Division Bell for an example. The drawback of doing that is not only do all the album pages have to be changed but then if the message is changed, the changes will not be reflected in all the articles that have been updated to use subst unless the article is edited and saved again. I would say wait for a few days when some of the developers get back (I hope!) from the USA long weekend and have them fix the broken 1.3 parser. Of course, with the dozens and dozens of bugs reported in the last 2 days with 1.3, they might not get around to it right away. RedWolf 04:36, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I have added a comment to an existing bug [1] related to use of tables within templates. RedWolf 06:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
The developer seems to have ignored my comment when he fixed the original issue reported by the bug. So, I have opened a new bug: [2] RedWolf 16:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Proposed category schema

Fairly simple - two "top-level" categories "Category:Albums by artist" and "Category:Albums by year". Each album page is then placed into two categories, "Category:<Artist name> albums" and "Category:<year> albums", which are then placed as sub-categories into the respective top-level category. For consistency, the artist name should be the same as the title of their article (in terms of punctuation, "&"/"and", use of "The", etc.) minus any disambiguating terms of course.

Suggestions, improvements, refinements? - Lee (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

The album boxes look messed up now. They don't align to the right any more (I'm using the standard skin), and they aren't "boxed". I noticed this happened after the Categories were added, but it may be something else, like the {{msg:AlbumboxStart}}. Can someone try to fix this? -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon Talk]] 18:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

See my comments in "New Skin" above. I believe it's a bug in the MediaWiki 1.3 template mechanism. Other projects that also use a template to define a table have the same problem at the moment. RedWolf 19:54, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I added Category:Albums by genre. When using categories with album pages, the image or table must be moved beneath the first paragraph to get proper alignment. -- Jim Regan 08:29, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I added a section, based on ScudLee's comments. The "Let It Be" comparison doesn't work at the moment because of the "Wikimedia Board Elections" notice at the top of each page, but that won't be there forever. -- Jim Regan 08:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I think we should hold off for a day or two in doing the changes needed to implement Categories for all the existing album articles. There are currently 4 open bugs in SourceForge related to Categories. RedWolf 15:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

The main one is 963343: Categories push right-aligned element left. As noted, we do have a workaround for it, so I don't think it's much of a problem. -- Jim Regan 02:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Schema Proposal #2

I don't particularly agree with the proposed category schema. If you use "Category:<artist name> albums", then what do you do with other articles that are not albums like those on songs? What about members of the group if a band or not a solo artist? What is wrong with just using "Category:<artist name>"? That way you can put all three of these types of articles into the category. I really don't see a need in creating separate categories just for the members of the group as I've seen some have done already. So, for example, I created Category:Pink Floyd to contain the members, the song articles and eventually the album articles. No need to go overboard in the first week of categories IMHO. We can always subdivide them later if it serves a useful purpose. At the moment, I don't think it would. RedWolf 06:36, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

# I don't see why "Category:<artist> Albums" cannot live together with "Category: <artist>. As much as I see it, "Category:<artist> Albums", "Category: <artist> Songs", "Category:<artist> Singles" should be all subcategories of "Category:<artist>". (as would, probably, "Category:<artist> band members" for a band and "Category:<artist> collaborators" for session musicians, producers etc.). "Category:<artist>" would be a category for articles which do not fall under any of specific categories.
# We should also decide on hierarchy above "Category:<artist>" - should it all go into "Category: Musicians", or should there be specific subcategories created?
# Additionally, should there be categories for albums which have charted, like "Category: UK Top 40" or "Category: US Top 200" or similar? - Asn 06:57, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)

(I'm a bit too tired to explain what I mean properly, but I'll give it a shot). This is how I see categories working:

  • Albums
    • Albums by year
      • 1970s albums
        • 1977 albums
          Never Mind the Bollocks
    • Albums by artist
        • Sex Pistols
          • Sex Pistols albums
            Never Mind the Bollocks
          "Sid Vicious"
    • Albums by genre
      • Punk
        • Sex Pistols
          • Sex Pistols albums
            Never Mind the Bollocks
          "Sid Vicious"
  • People
    • Musicians
      • Bass guitarists
        "Sid Vicious"
      • U.K. Musicians
        "Sid Vicious"
      • Musicians by genre
        • Punk musicians
          "Sid Vicious"
      • Musicians by band
        • Sex Pistols
          "Sid Vicious"

With categories laid out like this, if I know nothing about punk, but want to find out about the famous British punk album whose name I can't remember right now, and can't remember the band's name; but I can remember that their bass guitarist was famous, and I'll remember his name when I see it; I'll have a better chance of finding it through the categories if they are sub divided like this. If articles are left under-categorised, I haven't a hope. -- Jim Regan 07:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is something I knocked up (partly in jest) on Wikipedia talk:Categorization, but it sort of matches with how I wouldn't mind things ending up.

                 /------------1970 albums--------------------Albums by year
               /                                                        \
             /             /--Rock and roll albums-----Albums by genre   | 
           /             /          /     \                       \      |
         /             /          /         \-------------\         \    | 
       /             /          /                           \         \   \
Let It Be----------/----The Beatles albums---Albums by artist-\--------Albums-\
                 /         \                    /              |                \
        John Lennon albums---\----------------/                 \                 \
                     \         \                 /----Rock and roll--Music genres   \
251 Menlove Avenue-\   \         \             /                       \             Modern music
                     \   \         \         /  Musical groups by genre  \---------\  \
                       \   \         \     /      /                 \                \  \
                         \   \         \  Rock and roll groups  Musical groups-----\   \  \
           /---------John Lennon-----\   \           /           /                   \   \  \
         /                             \   \       /    Musical groups by nationality  \   \  \
       /                                 \   \   /                    /                  \   \  \
John Lennon------The Beatles members---The Beatles------British musical groups             \-Music
  \   \                    \                                \                                /  
    \   \                    \                         United Kingdom                       |
      \   \                    \                          /                                 |
        \   \                   British musicians--British people--People by nationality   /
          \   \                   \                                   \                  /
            \  Vocalists-\   Musicians by nationality---Musicians------People          /
              \            \                           /    \                        /
            Guitarists----Musicians by instrument----/        \--------------------/

How does that compare/fit in with other peoples' ideas? - Lee (talk) 14:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Great. Much better than my example :) -- Jim Regan 18:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

New Template

The Template namespace initialisation script has gone around to the album articles and changed the album boxes. They are no longer aligned to the right, and they are missing their borders. This needs to be fixed soon. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon Talk]] 19:39, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That page does not exist. The infoboxes have been broken since the upgrade to MediaWiki 1.3. There seems to be a bug in 1.3 where it will ignore table tag parameter values in a custom message/template. I reported it as a bug in SourceForge [3] on May 31 and no one has even bothered to assign themselves to it yet. One solution is to do what we did in the Mountains project by editing the article and replacing:
{{msg:AlbumboxStart}}
with
{{subst:AlbumboxStart}}
I have already done this for Pink Floyd albums.
RedWolf 22:01, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
Ultimately, I'd like to see AlbumboxStart and AlbumboxEnd done away with in favor of a new Albumbox template that can just be filled in using parameters. I made a first attempt (see Template:Albumbox), but it needs work. In particular, there needs to be a good way to include multiple reviews in the albumbox. Maybe make a Template:AlbumboxReviewItem that can be fed multiple times into the "reviews" parameter or something. Perhaps a better plan will emerge once we all get more experience with the template system. —LarryGilbert 16:39, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)
I had a crack at this a while back on the test wiki, see Template:Albumbox and Template:Review, with the results shown on The Fat of the Land. Unfortunately, with the current problems with images and piped links, parameterized templates aren't really tenable at the moment. - Lee (talk) 16:59, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, a parameterized template would be the best solution but like Lee, I also ran into similar problems when I tried to make one for the Mountains project. Until this solution works, using subst seems to be the simplest workaround for now. What I have been doing is when I add categories to an album page, I also implement this workaround. RedWolf 17:26, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
I noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries has started using a parameterized template for their infoboxes. See Belgium It seems that they have worked around the image bug by requiring a certain format for their images and then generating the name in the Template itself. See the coat of arms and flag on their template, Template:Infobox Countries. It seems to me that this might be a good step to take anyway, to standardize our album cover images. Perhaps something like Image:ArtistAlbumNameAlbumCover.png (e.g. BobDylanBloodOnTheTracksAlbumCover.png). The main problem would of course be moving the old images to the new format, which wouldn't be necessary unless we used the template. What do people think? - Bgoldenberg 19:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
They get away with the use of images because they use the {{PAGENAME}} variable (= PEJL/WT:ALBUM archives/1–16 for this page) rather than a parameter, so the file names, for us using their method, would have to be Blood_on_the_Tracks.png, or worse, say, Insomniac_(album).png or even Everything_Must_Go_(1996_album).png. Not impossible, but maybe not desirable. And we'd still be stuck on the piped links. - Lee (talk) 22:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I realized that they used {{PAGENAME}}, but I forgot that this is often not just the title because of disambiguation. This now seems like it would probably be too much trouble. I still think that it might be worth standardizing the name of album cover images, though. This would make it easier to link to album covers without specifically looking up the image and generally simplify things. It would likely be too much work with too little benefit to convert all the old images, but perhaps we should adopt a standard for new images, such as my earlier proposition, ArtistAlbumNameAlbumCover.png (e.g. BobDylanBloodOnTheTracksAlbumCover.png). Of course, the exact standard doesn't really matter, just that a standard is adopted. What do other people think of this idea? - Bgoldenberg 023:34, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
The problem with trying to specify a naming convention for album cover images, is that there's the issue of bands with long names and/or albums with long names (especially the latter). I tend to use the full name of the artist but there are exceptions and I like to use underscores in the names. If the album name is quite long, I tend to abbreviate the words in the name. On the album cover image page, I link to the album page. I've uploaded the vast majority of the album covers myself that I use in articles so I really don't have a problem with locating the cover images. RedWolf 06:49, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Promoting n/a

I would like to promote "n/a" instead of "???" for those fields without information.
Let me know what you think and if that can be implemented to the standard table. --KeyStorm 21:49, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, n/a is ambiguous. Someone not familar with the project standard wouldn't know for sure which was meant. I would agree that the ??? should be changed to something else but n/a doesn't seem to be the best solution.RedWolf 03:03, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Quantity of articles

This is just for interest but:

I think there may be a maximum cutoff so there may well be more... Secretlondon 22:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't it somehow also include all subst:AlbumboxStart? --KeyStorm 11:20, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Using "subst" causes the system to replace the text in the article with what is currently in the template. Once the article is saved, the template reference is no longer in the article. We were forced to use subst to fix the problem caused by the MediaWiki 1.3 upgrade which broke right alignment of the infoboxes. RedWolf 16:48, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
And isn't there any way to fix that? Since I'm seeing most tables without borders and wrongly aligned while using the original AlbumboxStart. Should we maybe use both AlbomboxStart and subst:AlbumBoxStart in the table parameter line? Or what's better, couldn't the subst template include the original AlbumboxStart? Sorry if I sound picky or annoy with stupid questions, but I'm new here and I'd like to do things the best way possible while helping to somehow inprove what we already have. --KeyStorm 09:11, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I played around with using a template for specifying the year of an album which would automatically add a [[Category:yyyy albums]]. Unfortunately, trying to use a template parameter for a Category link fails miserably. See AlbumYear on test for the dreadful result. RedWolf 22:00, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Compilations in chronology

Should compilations be included in discographies and in the last section of the album boxes? --Auximines 13:02, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some say that articles for compilation albums are not needed, while others feel it preserves the consistency of the discography. The album boxes for Pink Floyd and Rush albums include links to the compilation albums. For legendary bands, there's probably a bigger push on providing articles on the compilation albums. For those bands who have released just a few albums and then their record label releases a greatest hits album, I tend not to create articles for that case. There's no hard rule that says you shouldn't create articles for compilation albums or link to them in the album infoboxes. RedWolf 21:55, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

British chart info

  • Everyhit.com is a searchable database of chart entries in the UK. This may be useful for people. Secretlondon 22:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Very useful and very interesting, thanks. Lots of nice trivia and award sections too. --Bwmodular 08:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fixed column widths

I've seen some painfully stretched and shrunk columns in some albumboxes. That's usually due to the length of some comment fields that usually make the third column smaller than usual. I would put a width="33%" in all columns (or at least in the first non-"colspan=3" ones). I have tested this in Rammstien and results were satisfactory. Should we add it to the example? KeyStorm 22:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Albumbox template

I've picked up the work of LarryGilbert and made a new albumbox template which is here: Template:Albumbox. An example of how it looks and how it works can be seen in the talk page: Template_talk:Albumbox. What do you think of it? Should it replace the existing tables? DragonFire 22:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I personally don't like it. It takes up extra space, and seems to be aesthetically lacking. I think we should just stick with the current template. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon Talk]] 01:43, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Echoing the above comments I think it seems to be larger without having much more reason to be and I also don't particularly like how the reviews are separated by a gap. I don't think it is hideously ugly or anything but think that the current version is slightly better. I do like that you were able to design a template for it, though. This is something that I have always wanted and seems very useful, especially if we ever want to make changes to all the album boxes. I would encourage you to design a template for the current album box. If you don't, I'll likely try, but I'll be out of town for a few days. I would think it should be easy to modify the one you made to match the current album box. (I hope I didn't come across as rude or unappreciative; I just feel that your version isn't any better than the current version, except for the fact that it is a proper template). Good luck. Benjamin Goldenberg 06:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've modified the template so that it looks like the current albumbox, with the exception of the gaps between reviews (see here: Template_talk:Albumbox). I can't seem to find a solution for the gaps, using templates. DragonFire 18:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are issues with template parameters that need to be resolved before we can consider switching to using it. The key problem is piped links (there are a couple of others but it's been a few months since I was playing around with getting a template to work). RedWolf 23:30, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, piped links seem to be working now, so it might be time to give the template idea some serious consideration. - 10:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)

Ok, stealing heavily from the taxoboxes, I've thrown together a new albumbox template, with the results viewable at Template talk:Albumbox. It's basically just a tidy-up of DragonFire's, but the only visible difference now between the template and the current box is the location of the reviews, which are now at the bottom. It consists of 4 distinct parts Template:Albumbox, Template:Music review header, Template:Music review (& Template:Music review2), and finally Template:Albumbox end (which consists solely of </table>). Basically, each one just needs to be written down in turn, without the need for an extra enclosing table, i.e. there's no gaps between each template call like before. Since the problem with the piped links is resolved (see the Q link in the template), and the image problem can be worked around by using the full syntax (including resizing), what do people think about switching to templates? - 19:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)

I would definitely like to switch to using the new template. However, I think we need to put it through some more rigorous testing to make sure it will work for all possible cases. Also, it would be nice if we could switch over the old album boxes to using the template, so we could make global changes. Does anyone know if this would be easy to do with a bot? - Benjamin Goldenberg 00:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I noticed that the new template uses HTML table markup and not Wiki table markup. Is this how all the issues are bypassed with using templates and tables? I seem to recall now one issue where if I used wiki table markup, I could not break up the infobox using multiple templates because the server would auto-append a table end tag at the end of template containing a table start marker. In any case, we need to do some extensive testing first to make sure it can handle some more of the complex info boxes with multiple CDs, producers and any other quirks. The test site should be good for this stage. If that goes well, then I agree with migrating to the new template. As for using a bot for migration, it might be doable to write such a bot in a manageable amount of time. We have quite a few people on the project though, so I don't think it would take all that long to convert them manually, although a bit tedious I suppose. RedWolf 01:48, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better to test the new template in subpages of Wikipedia: WikiProject Albums, such as Wikipedia: WikiProject Albums/Template test, because the test wikipedia gets reset every time they install a new version of MediaWiki. It would be nice to be able to use these tests in the future in case we need to test other changes to the template. Before we decide on an official location, I think I will do some tests on my user page. Benjamin Goldenberg 05:32, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have started testing the template on this page User:Bgoldenberg/Album Template Test. It looks good except for one major difference. The template puts the chronology in the middle instead of at the end. I personally think it is much nicer and more useful if the chronology is at the end. Does anyone know if this can be fixed without making a third template for the chronology?. Also does anyone know of some more complicated album boxes; I've been searching but can't seem to find anything very complicated. Benjamin Goldenberg 06:04, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Try The Wall, a two CD album with multiple release dates, track times for each CD and an album link that requires a piped link for disambiguation. RedWolf 06:23, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see an easy way to have multiple release dates or multiple track times. I have used a piped link in the other tests, for a Rolling Stone review and it worked fine, so I would imagine it would work fine with an album link. Maybe someone, such as one of the authors of the template could comment on the proper way of going about this. Benjamin Goldenberg 06:31, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
According to the Details section on the project page, you should only include the earliest date / track time in the albumbox, but then, since it was me who added that in, I'd hardly call it definitive. That would be one solution, however. Another would be to not break those entries into separate parts, just have "released" and "length" parameters, but then you would have to duplicate the yearreleased anyway, for use in the chronology, and you'd also risk the whole sec/s issue again. A third (and the best I can come up with) option would be to have two extra parameters "releasedmore" and "lengthmore", say, which just sit in their respective table cells after the other parameters, but are forced blank for all cases where they are not needed, so for example on American Beauty it would look like
...
 dayreleased=[[November]]| yearreleased=[[1970]]|
 releasedmore=|
 ...
whereas for The Wall it would be
...
 dayreleased=[[November 30]]| yearreleased=[[1979]]|
 releasedmore= (UK)<br>[[[December 8]] [[1979]] (US)|
 ...
That puts a little restriction on the format, obviously, but it should be doable. I'll test it in a minute. - 09:35, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
The problem I see is that it we won't be able to change the time format on the albums with multiple lengths by just changing the template. I suppose this probably isn't a big problem since there won't be many albums with multiple times. The obvious change would to make two parameters, lengthmoresec and lengthmoremin, howeveer this might be overkill since we would have to write it on every page. Just a thought. P.S. I am moving my template tests to the project page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Template test Benjamin Goldenberg 18:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm suddenly reminded of the Sweetheart of the Rodeo albumbox, one of my own ill-begotten creations. Three separate track times in that box. - 19:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)

I've put a comparison up at Wikipedia: WikiProject Albums/Template test of The Wall albumbox against the template (with the added parameters). Not much between them, except for the whole chronology bit. - 10:13, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)

I tweaked the box for The Wall a bit but otherwise, now looks good to me. I think we might be ready to start using the new template. RedWolf 03:52, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I gave the new template a go and have noticed a few minor issues:
- since the release day and year are separate parameters, when they are displayed together, the comma after the day is not displayed (if using MMM dd, YYYY date format in preferences). Why not just combine into one parameter?
- if there is no next or previous album, will end up with a strange looking [] displayed in those locations.
RedWolf 04:13, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I like the new template, but I think that the chronology should remain at the bottom, below the professional reviews. It works nicely as a menu, and menus usually are most useful as footers. Acegikmo1 04:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you, as stated above. Unfortunately, I think the only way to do this with the current template features, is to make a third template for the chronology. I suppose this may not be a large problem, but it does make things more complicated. Does anyone else know of a better solution. (I don't know too much about the templates.) Other than that, I think it is probably ready to be put in to use. Benjamin Goldenberg 04:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone object if I were to merge the release day and year into one parameter (e.g. releaseDate)? Also, one other issue I've noticed is that if a page uses the new template, the image description page for the album cover will *not* list the page as linking to the image. RedWolf 21:27, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

The only problem with having a single releasedate parameter is that is you end up duplicating the release year information for use in the chronology. - 22:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)

What's the status on the template? I have about 5-6 album pages I'd like to do today or tomorrow. Should I use the template or copy the code from WP:ALBUM? Nadavspi 18:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Check out Template:Album infobox. ed g2s • talk 23:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Vinyl record" v/s "Gramophone record"

There has been discussion about merging the content of the vinyl record article into the gramophone record article and making the first into a redirect to the second. I'd therefore suggest linking "LP" or similar designations where appropriate directly to "gramophone record". Alternatively, if some folks feel that "vinyl record" should remain a seperate article, explain your reasons at Talk:gramophone record. -- Infrogmation 00:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Record label

As many albums released in different countries are released on more than one label, which record label should be included in the information box - all of them or just the one in the country the album orginally came from? Deus Ex 10:25, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since this issue also arose when it came to release dates, the decision was to use the first date of release of the album in whichever country came first. So, I would say only list the first label. You could put the other labels and dates into the article body itself. RedWolf 16:41, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Albums and band's article, together or separated?

I've been working a bit with HIM lately completing information, adding albums, etc. and I noticed that some days ago, without posting anything to the discussion and even adding some albums (at least Love Metal) to VFD during surprisingly only 37 minutes Samuel J. Howard redirected all 4 album articles to the bandpage and appended them chronologically to it, as you can see now.
So my question is: is this the way supported and recommended by WikiProject: Albums? Or should it be splitted back again?
I'm afraid this is not the right way, but I thought I should bring the discussion right here to get the clear opinion of WP: Albums about this. -KeyStorm 13:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The albums should be in separate articles. Initially, album pages tend to be just just a brief description, track listing and personnel. Over time, the info box is added as well as additional information about the album itself (see the project info for more details). The band page should contain a Discography section, listing all of the band's albums in chronological order (which helps get the next/previous albums in the infobox correct). At this point, sometimes the albums are not linked. So, as for your particular case, the album info should be split out again. A message should be left on that user's page telling him not to fold albums back into the band page. RedWolf 16:37, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

AllMusic.com ratings

Ive noticed that AllMusic.com is listed as a place to cite reviews for albums. Not sure if anyone had realized this, but AMG's rating system is vastly different from most other sources'.

From AMG's FAQ: Our experts use a 1 to 5 star system (5 is the highest rating). It is important to note that we rate albums only with the scope of an artist’s own work -- we only compare a release to other releases by the same artist.

Thus, every band will have at least one very highly rated album. Maybe this sort of rating shouldn't be used in the tables. Or should be distinguished from the traditional sort of rating.

opinions?

Album template too large?

Discussion at Template talk:Album.

— Matt 03:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →


Notable records and redlinks

I was fixing up The Kinks Discography, and I noticed that the singles list has thirty two entries, and only four articles. Is this normal? Should it be? Speaking as a Kinks fan, I can't imagine articles being written on half these songs, and I wouldn't link them. What do you all think about this? Freekee 03:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Big Star's first album

The main Big_Star page has no link to any page on #1_Record. Meanwhile, the infobox on Radio_City_(album) links back to the previous album, #1 Record, which, as you can see, looks for the nonexistent "1_Record" section of the Radio City page. There should be an article on the first album -- if only a stub for now -- called "Number_1_Record" or something like that and shown in article text as "#1_Record". I've searched for it before and come up with nothing, and the question I raised on Talk:Big_Star has no definitive answer yet, with one user in agreement with me. Having no experience in this matter I thought I'd come here and ask you all for feedback... or for someone who also likes Big Star and knows Wikipedia in and out to make a stub : | Thanks. Morypcaina 23 September 2005

In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida

I came upon the page for In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida, which seemed to be about both the song and the album. It didn't have an infobox or much about the album, so I split it into In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida (song) and In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida (album) and added the infobox to the album page. Now I'm sort of having second thoughts though, as to whether the song warrants it's own article, or that information should be part of the album article. Anyone have any input? Foxmulder 00:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

As Iron Butterfly are widely known almost solely for that song (though there are obviously other fans, I have another question: How much information is available in the pages on their other albums? If In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida (album) has significantly less/different content than their other album pages, I'd recommend the song and the album pages be merged. That recommendation is based on my interpretation of common sense, not on any particular Wikipedia rules, and I certainly don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but here's another consideration. Morypcaina 13:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Time inconsistencies

I was just editing the page for U2's War and I noticed that the times for the songs and album were much different than the ones I had. I bought the album from iTunes and my files are about 5 seconds shorter than those found on the page (which are also those found on allmusic). I don't believe that the songs from iTunes are necessarily any shorter than CD ripped files, since I checked the songs on London Calling against the copies in the iTMS and they're the same. I don't have a copy of War however to check the real times. What should we do in this situation? I have left it as it was for now but my opinion is to use the times I have (after all, allmusic's been wrong before).FilthMasterFlex

The difference is probably just the leading and trailing silence. This isn't even always counted the same way on CDs, and variations in counting can be expected for an older album like War that was released when LPs were still commonplace. --iMb~Mw 08:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A very good point, which is made even better by my finding a promo vinyl copy of the album, which lists suggested cuts. The times the record label suggests are the ones listed on the page. So there it is.FilthMasterFlex

Changes to the example table

Neutrality made several changes to the example table on the main page, which I've now reverted. The first reason is because I personally disagree with most of them, but even aside from that, some of the changes made directly contradict other information on the page, namely using a piped link to a "year in music", and also not using the date of a review as the link text (when known). It's important that the page at least be consistent in itself, you shouldn't go changing one thing without ensuring that the rest matches up, and you shouldn't make such changes without at least discussing them first. - 00:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)

Why does the example infobox table have background=transparent set in its style tag? This causes the horizontal line from section headers to show behind the box? Most albums I've viewed do not have this problem, is it a recent change? I created several Mike Doughty album pages from this template and I'm wondering if I did something wrong. Rhobite 00:06, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
Guanaco made the change on August 29. I removed the transparent style from the template. DCEdwards1966 00:41, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Awards

Are there any thoughts on a standard way to list awards and nominations (such as the Grammys) for albums? I added an "Awards" section to Billy Joel's 52nd Street and The Eagles' Hotel California. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. DCEdwards1966 04:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Goals

I have lately come to the conclusion that WikiProjects should set goals. I have begun to do so at Wikipedia:WikiProject World music/Phase 2, but that isn't a very active WikiProject. This is, however, an active project. We could set a goal, such as making a non-stub article on each of the albums at list of rock and roll albums (which is an aggregate of professional "best-of" lists), and promote any five to featured article status, for example. When we all agree that the articles are non-stubbed and all five have been promoted, then we can begin to keep tallies on the number of non-stub and featured articles, and showcase our best work and such. What do y'all think? Tuf-Kat 20:09, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Featured albums proposal

Sample uploading project

If I made a WikiProject Sound samples to encourage the uploading of ogg vorbis music samples, would anyone join me? I think it'd be great if we had samples of as much as possible, but it's rather tedious and time-consuming to do in bulk. If you don't know how, it's easy -- I can walk you through on a Mac and point you in the right direction on a Windows. We could even advertise a week in which we encourage Wikipedians to do just two a day for a week, or maybe just one sample for their five favorite bands/albums/whatever -- with the number of users who probably have copious sound samples, we could really move towards having a comprehensive review of music. Any takers? (I am posting this to several project pages, please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music) Tuf-Kat 22:23, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Albums by artist

Recently a couple of sub-categories of Category:Albums by artist have been listed on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Category:Ashlee Simpson albums on the grounds that she only has one album released so far, and Category:Chantal Kreviazuk albums due to lack of notability. Also, List of albums has been listed on Vfd, where quite a few people recommend scrapping the list in favor of categories. Now, when I first suggested the Albums by artist category, I envisaged it to be just that, a categorical equivalent of (or replacement for) List of albums, that is to say, a list of album articles sorted alphabetically by artist.

With that in mind, I had hoped that all album articles would eventually be marked with the appropriate artist album category, alongside the year category. Perhaps I was wrong to suggest it. Anyway, I would encourage more people to pass comment (for or against) at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, to help get a clearer sense of consensus on the use of these categories. - 18:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax and List of albums

There are about 15 items from the List of albums on WikiProject Wiki Syntax (at this page). Since you all are interested in this area, I wanted to let you all know about this. Maybe one of you could fix these? JesseW 05:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. - 10:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
Great! Thanks! JesseW 15:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Music Collaboration of the Week

I would like to announce the introduction of the Music Collaboration of the Week, which aims to coordinate our efforts in improving a music-related article every week. Please come help us decide on the first article to be chosen! Tuf-Kat 04:40, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Lyric excerpts

In writing the article Autobiography (album), I've been fairly liberal in using lyric excerpts in discussing the various songs (in addition to liberally quoting critical reviews, cited). But what is the feeling on doing this? Is it discouraged, or is fine to use excerpts in this context? Everyking 22:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess I should've asked a question about a template or a category, bet I'd get an answer then. Anyway, I went ahead and nominated it as a featured article, because I think it ought to be fine. Those who read this are encouraged to vote and raise any reasonable objections they may have. Everyking 06:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I've been quoting lyrics very liberally on Furious Angels (10 to 15 verses for each commented song) in a condensed format intended to provide the gist of a song using concatenated lyrics. I think it's Fair Use since it's still an excerpt, in the context of an album overview or analysis, and the concatenation itself is a form of analysis of the song's topic. - 213.228.60.174 12:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Questions

I just stumbled onto this "project" while looking at an Alex Chilton article I had added a sentence to that mentioned an album. Somehow the album name has a link (leading to a disambiguation page for "Live in London" albums) although I do not recall putting that link in the sentence. Now, what I'm wondering is, am I supposed to make a link on every album I name in a music article? The Live in London album for Chilton wasn't particularly one of his best albums; I just happened to mention it to explain what he was doing during a particular time period. If one looks searches albums named "Live in London" at allmusic.com, you will find that there are scores of albums by that name. Should all have their own album page and be part of the disambiguation page for Live in London? I think for now I will remove the link in the Alex Chilton entry to that album name unless I learn from you folks that you want every album mentioned to be discussed in your wikiproject albums section. Also, I saw on the Live in London disambiguation page that a Strokes album that seemingly was not even released is listed and has its own page! Why??? Do you really have space to list every album that was never released? Bebop 04:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For well known bands that have been around for many years, if an album doesn't currently have an article, it likely will eventually. For more obscure bands that have only been around for a few years, or only released one or two albums that never had any success or those by garage bands don't usually end up with an article (especially garage bands). Normally, one doesn't create articles for live or compilation albums but again, long standing bands such as Pink Floyd and Rush basically have articles for all of their albums, studio, live and compilation. As for disambiguation pages for albums, if there are multiple albums by the same name, the convention is to either disambiguate using the format: album name (YYYY album) or album name (band name album). Even if AMG lists several albums by the same name, I don't usually bother creating a disambiguation page if none of the other albums are by any known bands (or at least any that I recognize!). RedWolf 07:28, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Random note: there's also a cute page at List of sets of unrelated albums with identical titles -- although they specifically discourage listing titles like "Live".... (There's also List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums and List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles....) And no, I'm not following you around Bebop, I just happen to have this page on my watchlist too! Catherine\talk 17:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just to follow up on the naming conventions I listed above, I originally used album name (YYYY album) because this format followed the conventions used for disambiguating films and some bands can have really long names which can make the page name rather long for my tastes. With the advent of categories and specifically the albums by year categories, I have now tended to use the other format album name (band name album) although I sometimes drop the "album" at the end. RedWolf 21:58, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering what the protocol is for obscure bands that have only a couple even obscurer albums, all of which are stubs with little chance of gaining much more substance. Would it be more desirable to merge two album stubs with the artist stub in hopes of one meatier article or leave them as they are? Although probably applicable in other circumstances, the band specifically in question here is the Moog Cookbook and the two albums are The Moog Cookbook and Ye Olde Space Band: Plays Classic Rock Hits. Krash 03:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Use categories for "Needs Infobox" entries?

See Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Albums/Needs infobox for a possible template & category usage... please comment and improve. Catherine\talk 06:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Metacritic?

How appropriate is it to include Metacritic reviews in an album sidebar? I personally think it provides a better opportunity for judging new albums than a handful of links to regular reviews. When I added sidebars to articles on two recent albums (Crimes and ...Burn, Piano Island, Burn), I included a Metacritic link under a section entitled "Averaged Reviews". Does anybody have better ideas about how to handle this sort of thing or disagree with me on including it?--Words to sell 09:50, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • One nice side effect of listing the individual reviews is that the verdicts will survive broken external links. IMHO the Metacritic average would be useful as an additional line item in the review box but not a replacement for what is done now. --iMeowbot~Mw 11:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's better to use MetaCritic only for providing a "meta-link" about paper reviews not available online (my example on Furious Angels), the same way links to Buy.com's reports are used. Averages aren't useful because they mix sources you trust and sources you always disagree with.

Chart positions?

Is there a standard for how to show chart positions? The most common format seems to be to use a fixed width font, as in

1993    Today            Modern Rock Tracks           No. 4

There's been a discussion on Talk:Today (song) about whether it should be a table instead. Personally, I'd prefer a list in this case. Does the Project have an official recommendation?

Also, is there a recommended way to get album cover images besides scanning or photographing a physical copy? I noticed that the Pisces Iscariot cover was taken from Amazon.com. This can't possibly be legit, can it? --Dbenbenn 01:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the non-proportional font for chart positions. For one thing, it appears to be a straight copy and paste from one of the various music sites that show this type of info. If there's only one row, it looks awful wit the default style. Verbalizing the position is much better IMHO. Tables would be much better than the above style being used currently on a lot of album pages. RedWolf 06:51, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Template:Album infobox

About 30 albums are using this template for their infoboxes, and it has some nasty cosmetic issues (it's awfully wide). What's the best course for dealing with these? Fix the template, or edit the articles and try to make the template go away? iMeowbot~Mw 07:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer the template to be fixed, but we don't really need it. I haven't ever used it. I think that it's nice because it looks easier to put into a page than the normal infoboxes. Tim Ivorson 15:48, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK. In the discussions from this summer, there were some concerns that there might be unusual text that would get in the way of using a template. What I'm thinking to do is steal ideas from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Template_test to give Template:Album infobox the expected look, and point people here for the boilerplate (in a big comment or something) if it doesn't work. Does that seem reasonable? iMeowbot~Mw 20:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you can make the template work that would be great. I used the template on just one album (My Favorite Headache) but the existing template just has too many problems with it, partly due to limitations in the Template mechanism. I really don't like the workaround solutions others have used. The most common one is breaking up one template into several helper templates. IMHO, that's just a hack. Templates really need to be "fixed" to support optional parameters but the usual response to that is they don't want to make templates seem like programming. RedWolf 20:16, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. I'd have bought an argument that overly complicated macro/script stuff might make the servers sweat too much, but the programming thing is weird. Wiki markup already has that "programming" feel to it 8) All right then, two steps: cosmetic issues first to deal with existing articles (band aid applied iMeowbot~Mw 11:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)), better functionality after that. (I've already seen an album have its infobox reverted rather than reformatted over this, and want to do the expedient thing to keep information from getting buried in histories.) iMeowbot~Mw 10:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The template works great for me with a different writing of the pipes, and a little formatting hack using comments for keeping all values in column and avoiding BR. I've added a proposition about using it with source and result on the Template talk:Album infobox - 213.228.60.174 12:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Music Wiki

wouldn't a project like this be better at MusicWiki? 134.117.152.179 02:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would be a fork, which is generally a bad thing. Tuf-Kat 02:57, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • I did take a look around recently, and simply couldn't see a reason to mirror content there, let alone move. I don't object to the project, but its purpose is unclear. Does it address a need that Wikipedia can't (or won't)? Maybe it does offer something unique, but I couldn't find it.
I knew about it several months back and have looked at it but I really can't see the point of making a copy of everything here onto there. AFAIK, those who set that site up did not even approach this project with the idea of doing so. Not that they had to but it kind of makes sense (at least to me) to get a consensus from a group of people who have probably made the most contributions to the music articles on Wikipedia. RedWolf 05:28, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
There are some points at MusicWiki Wikipedia does not cover. Please, take a look here to see these points and some feedback from both, Wikipedia and MusicWiki users. AlissonSellaro 17:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So, MusicWiki is a fork but will allow POV content or other information unacceptable to Wikipedia? I really think the people who setup the site need to write up a mission statement as to what the intent of MusicWiki is and what differences it will have versus Wikipedia. Having some responses buried in a talk page about the goals of the site is not the best way to defend against criticism. I'm not going to contribute to MusicWiki if these goals are not clearly defined. I guess one thing MusicWiki could have that Wikipedia no longer has is the complete list of songs from all the album pages. RedWolf 18:31, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions, RedWolf. We will try to implement them. By the way, I would like to say that MusicWiki has just created a mailing list for project discussion. Interested contributors may subscribe by sending and e-mail to project-request@music-wiki.org with "subscribe" (quotes must be excluded) as subject. AlissonSellaro 14:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
MusicWiki's Mission Statement is on-line now. Please, take a lookt at it. We are also devoloping a FAQ article, so potential contributors cand figure out main differences between MusiWiki and Wikipedia. AlissonSellaro 12:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I used a template...Ops..

Well I changed the box for a new infobox, called Template:Original Studio Album. I think we should really start discussing using thisoe kinds of templates in wikipedia. Because the article gets less cluttered and easier to edit, because it gets easier to change templates as it's easy to change skins, because we would make wikipedia more machine readable. Well, of course there are some problems but all could have a turnaround.

Only then I discovered the discussion about the Template:Album infobox. Well, sorry for the double work I just done. But still, There should be more thinking on how those templates work. --Alexandre Van de Sande 23 dec 2004

Hey, every little bit is a chance that we might find a trick to make the things work ideally! There are some links at the top of Template talk:Album infobox that lead to earlier discussions on infobox templates, seeing what went before might save you some hair pulling (maybe not too much, I'm still pulling out mine after reading it all). iMeowbot~Mw 19:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article format changes

I propose two changes to the article format:
1. Record Label in the infobox should be simply displayed as Label using a piped link (i.e. Label). First, this would make it consistent with Record producer being shown as Producer. Secondly, I see record and label ending up on separate lines in a lot of infoboxes, which to me, doesn't look great.

I agree with this proposal. I have recently started doing this. DCEdwards1966 05:19, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
Agree. Tim Ivorson 11:44, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agree. Tuf-Kat 11:59, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

2. Change the Track listing header to Tracks. I can see it's a list so why tell me something that's obvious?

I don't think this is a good idea. It seems that "Track listing" is a common term. Google shows almost 2 million hits for "Track listing". DCEdwards1966 05:19, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
I think that Track listing is more helpful in a table of contents than Tracks would be. Tim Ivorson 11:44, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm neutral, leaning towards agree on this one. It is obviously a list, but "track listing" is the term almost always used, I think. Tuf-Kat 11:59, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

RedWolf 04:26, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, since there was no objection to #1, I have changed the infobox accordingly on the project page. RedWolf 03:32, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hooray for title standardization

Whose bright idea was it to have Johnny Cash's first live prison album under "At Folsom Prison" but his second under "Johnny Cash At San Quentin"? --Paul A 00:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Single album categories

I've just added some text about the consensus regarding creating categories for artists who only have a single album. I didn't want to mess up the main page with these links, but the discussions can be found at:

Category_talk:Ashlee_Simpson_albums
Category_talk:4_Non_Blondes_albums

GreenDay - Kerplunk

On the talk page for Kerplunk, it asked for the article to be split. So I turned it into a disambig page, also pointing to Kerplunk (album). I tried to find all relevant links and changed them to point to the specific album page. Hope you don't mind, just thought I'd let y'all know. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:2000s_albums on CFD

Category:2000s_albums was listed on Categories for deletion on January 2, 2005 with only two comments received which recommended that Category:Albums by year by subcategorized by Category:2000s_albums, Category:1990s_albums, etc. with the relevant children moved to those new subcategories. Although CFD notices were placed, I doubt few in this project noticed. Since most in this project would be affected, I strongly recommend you make your recommendations known on CFD as soon as possible. The normal 7 day voting period has ended but I will add a note to extend it to allow project members to cast their votes. RedWolf 04:41, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that Category:Albums by year be moved to Category:Albums by date and that Category:2004 albums, etc. should be subcategories of Category:2000s albums, rather than of Category:Albums by year. Tim Ivorson 13:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My vote was twice removed from categories for deletion. In case it stays deleted, could you count one extra vote to keep? I'd just put it back again, but Wikipedia pages aren't loading reliably for me today (and they rarely load quickly), so it would take a while for me to do so. Tim Ivorson 22:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've worked out what happened. It was an edit conflict (the user who removed vote changed the time of their comment). I don't know why there have been problems today. This doesn't usually happen for edit conflicts. Tim Ivorson 23:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've got it to stay there this time. Tim Ivorson 13:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Request for opinions on Talk:Selling out

This is somewhat off-topic for this page, but the opinion of folks knowledgeable about the music scene would be appreciated on Talk:Selling out. An anon and I are disagreeing about whether to include a long list of bands who have allowed their music to be used in commercial advertising. He considers it relevant since such bands are sell-outs; I consider it off-topic and POV. More voices are needed to establish a consensus. Thanks. Isomorphic 18:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Without having read the discussion yet, my first thought is that if the anon wishes, they can make a "List of bands whose music has been used in commercial advertising" or some similar article name. Selling out could have a "see also" link to that, with no editorializing on how linked the topics may be. -- Infrogmation 19:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Singles

Do people agree with me that singles are more correctly a subcategory of songs than of albums and should be covered by the songs project instead of this one? Right now it is covered by both. The infobox in the songs project is actually tailored especially for singles (as singles are more well known than 'album tracks') and the boxes for other types of song are derived from that. --Moochocoogle 23:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

EP's and Singles in Chronology

Should EP's be included in an album chronology? I'm working on articles for Millencolin's EP's, but I don't want to insert them into the chronology if they aren't supposed to be there. Should I even include a chronology section in their album box? thanks - Mattingly23 18:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I would normally list an EP with studio albums with note to say it is an EP - like EP Title (EP). They fit into the album chronology in the infobox too. --Moochocoogle 18:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • What about singles? Do they belong in the chronology in the info box? - Mattingly23 22:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • No, they don't. There's a special infobox for singles at the songs project (see my singles topic above) and that include a singles chronology.--Moochocoogle 00:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merging cells in the chronology

How do you do it with this newfangled infobox for the first and last albums? I'm too used to using "colspan=2" with the old ones. ~~ Shiri 01:26, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Rather than merging, I feel visually more useful to mark the first cell of a chronology with symbol " [ " , the last cell of an open chronology with " . . . " and the last cell of a closed chronology with " ] ". Which means the first and only album of a live author has its three cells like
[ First Album . . .

Changes to the album infobox

Although I appreciate the effort being taken by Drak2 to alter the main album infobox for this WikiProject, IMHO the previous version seems like a better looking and tidier one, we should use back the old one. Is anyone with me here? --Andylkl (talk) 12:01, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm torn on it, really. It's far easier to alter this one and it makes for a smaller page size, but I like how the old one looked. ~~ Shiri 15:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
My first question is, where did Drak2 announce his intentions to make major changes to the look of the infobox and requests comments before doing so? RedWolf 17:22, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
He never did, he just went ahead. I noticed it when he did it a month ago, but nobody really made an issue of it. ~~ Shiri 17:51, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
The code for the new infobox is indeed much cleaner and easier, and the new look is cleaner too IMHO. It's true that Drak2 should have said something about making such a major change, but yes, nobody's brought it up until now. - mako 06:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Infoboxes for music DVDs or videos

I'm working on improving the Dream Theater article, and I have gone through all their albums adding Infoboxes to each, but I'm unsure of what to do when it comes to music DVDs or VHS videos released by a band (for example DT's Live in Tokyo or Metropolis 2000). Currently I'm just recycling the album Infobox and changing the colour to differentiate it from the albums, but that Infobox contains some unnecessary information for a DVD (for example, producer, which isn't the same in the sense of an album) and could do with some extra fields. Is there a standard way of dealing with music DVDs, and if not, should there be? plattopus (talk) 18:36, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

HAHA, we had the same idea, at roughly the same time too. I guess I'll just add my support for such a standardization. I was looking at the infoboxes that are used for movies, but they, too, have things like producer, director, etc. that aren't really appropriate for a music DVD. So yes, I think that there should be a standard way of dealing with music DVDs. The album infoboxes would be the best place to start. Add a new colour for them, and perhaps a few extra fields for things like audio commentaries, 5.1 surround sound, multiple angles, and whatever else is relevant for music DVDs. --Durga2112 19:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Great minds think alike ;) plattopus (talk) 19:19, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

copy control album releases

I believe this is the right place to ask for help in tracking down albums that are released under copy control format. I created a category for albums released under copy control and other related information... Category:Copy_control. I also created a template to be put on pages of such albums... Template:Copycontrol Good luck in hunting down copy control logos in album covers. Note that this is only for the "standard" copy control format a super project can be created to track down releases in other formats alike. How about a subcategory for artists whose music has been released under copy control? Should the albums be moved to a "copy control albums" sub category? Any other ideas? --Easyas12c 20:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the same album is released under copy control in all countries. Also there are several non-CD formats. Secretlondon 21:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only American Singles

A very annoying thing I find is that when the singles and their chart positions are listed underneath the album, ONLY American ones are listed! I can include all the UK Top 40 ones, but then there's that annoying Billboard (North America) tag above the table. What do you suggest I do?

Just make another box but change the tag, or extend the box. I'm not sure if there's a standard way to do it. I know there are albums with chart info outside of the US and Canada, but can't find one right now. (I seem to recall someone adding Australian charts to a number of articles, perhaps only by Australian bands) Tuf-Kat 21:40, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

List of albums

According to the database dump of April 6, 2005 there are 4,160 album pages that have {{Album}} on their talk page. I can create a list page with links to all of them if people are interested. RedWolf 05:22, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a way to add them to the List of albums by name? That's supposed to be a list of every album in the 'pedia. Tuf-Kat 21:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
That would be difficult as that list is by performer and not by album name. I know SQL but by no means an expert. RedWolf 04:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Category for soundtracks?

Hey Guys, I just noticed something troubling and I didn't know if I should bring it up here or on WP:CFD; I generally have luck going through wikiprojects though so I'm trying this first. I noticed that there are both Category:Soundtracks and Category:Soundtrack albums. Soundtracks has more entries and seems more polished, and that term seems more appropriate. Does anyone have any problems with me going through and recating all the "Soundtrack albums" articles, and deleting the category? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:30, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to blast Category:Soundtrack albums then. Also, Soundtracks doesn't belong in cinema necessarily because it has tv show and movie soundtracks too. I think I'm going to eventually create three subcategories, Category:Movie soundtracks, Category:Computer and video game soundtracks, and Category:Television soundtracks. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:37, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Colored Review Listings

I propose this change: how about using colored text with reviews? Such as making their rating text a green, black, or red color corresponding to the review score. Obviously, green being positive, black being neutral, and red being negative. -sdornan 05:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Who are you that is proposing this? Nevertheless, I vote no to having different colors for reviews, it would be too distracting. RedWolf 05:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a Rotten Tomatoes thing... --Madchester 00:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Done well, the different colors would actually look very nice. Better than the infobox colors we have now. --madh 23:46, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Earlier Release

I just entered a new article for Telluride Sessions, an only album by a bluegrass supergroup. I have the 1998 re-release of the 1989 album (both were on CD and the earlier on vinyl as well). When searching the Internet for reviews, I discovered that the 1989 release had a different cover and a slightly different title: The Telluride Sessions. I'm not sure how to indicate this information in the article, especially in the infobox. Any suggestions/edits would be appreciated. -Acjelen 06:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • The re-release of Pink Floyd's Relics had a different cover although it was based on the original cover. The original cover is used as the infobox cover with the re-release cover underneath the infobox. RedWolf 05:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Albumbox models

As far as I know, there are two alternative 'looks' for albumboxes. There is one using ordinary wiki markup (like in Murmur (album)), a template following it (Template:Albumbox) and another, different template Template:Album infobox. The latest one is the ugliest and the clumsiest. Its heading blocks snap before the borders of the box, which looks rough. Its reviews section looks sketchy and is horrible to edit. The another template has also drawbacks, like the wrong placement of the chronology section. I like the ordinary wiki markup box best. It also looks clearest to edit. I know it doesn't have any central control system for its look, but I don't think that it is a big drawback compared to the other problems. Now I am curious of who decides which albumbox model you advertise in the project page because I think that you have chosen the worst one available. Actually the section in the project page is more than an advertisement, it looks like a recommendation or standard. -Hapsiainen 22:57, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Track Title Format

We need a section that contains general guidelines for a song title format after a discussion about an Avril Lavigne album. I've come up with some guidelines based on this and the CDDB policy.[4] Please discuss the following:

  • Track titles should be listed as they appear on the first release of an album unless:
They appear in all lower case letters, all capital letters, or there is a discrepency. In this case, an alternate reliable source should be used that does not use that naming convention (ie. an official website). If none exists, standard language rules apply.
  • Remember, don't correct a deliberate 'misspelling' by the artist.
  • If a track has no title, specify "Unknown" as the track name. If the track has no title, and no audio, specify "Blank" as the track name.

--Nabber00 03:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't really followed the specific Avril Lavigne debate, but I think normal capitalization rules should apply except in unusual circumstances. If a song is deliberately all lower-case for example, because the musician chose for it to be that way, then we should follow that. The vast majority of the time, I doubt the musicians/songwriters really care very much themselves, so we should follow ordinary english rules (capitalize first letter of first word, and first letter of all words that aren't prepositions, conjunctions or articles). Tuf-Kat 21:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
That has been discussed on the Avril page a little. The problem arises in determining what the artist wants. How do we know? There needs to be some authoritative source, which I try to outline here.--Nabber00 04:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Should the word is be capitalised to Is? It's a verb, but to me it is a minor word in a title! Someone has moved the album God is in the House to God Is in the House and I was wondering if there was a convention. Thanks, Marky1981 22:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Internal articles, prepositions and conjunctions are the only words that should not be capitalized in a title. --Gika 23:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
That was me. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names. Flowerparty 09:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


Printing track titles in BLOCK CAPITALS or all lower case is generally a decision taken by the record sleeve designer, an issue of presentation and appealing typography, FOR THAT SPECIFIC PRINTED CONTEXT. It surely not appropriate to continue to use this in a different context such as an encyplopedia article. (Would we also print an artist's name in block captials becuase they were listed on an album sleeve note that way?) The only exceptions I can think of would be where there is a particular artistic point or meaning involved in that particular spelling/typography. I had (and lost) this argument, for example, with the band Neu!, for whom I argued their block capitals and exclamation mark "NEU!" was a deliberate Pop Art device, and important to reproduce, but others disagreed. The compromise was to use conventional typography but to add an explanatory note to the article.

Hyphens

The use of hyphens before track times is odd (nothing's being hyphenated) and looks a bit messy to my eyes. There's no standard on album covers, but a quick survey suggests that the commonest approach is brackets of one sort or another, and the second-commonest a different typeface (especially bold italics). I'd prefer the brackets; any comments? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Hyphens look good to me. A quick survey of whom/what? Other web sites? Absolutely not to bold italics. RedWolf 05:07, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    A survey of album covers... Why not to bold italics (it's not my choice, but it would still be nice to have a reason; consensus is difficult otherwise). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I think simply putting the time in italics after looks good, no extra characters needed.--Nabber00 05:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd probably go along with that (my own first preference is for brackets, which make sense, and is at least a very common if not the commonest way of doing it on albums). But could you not revert articles until we've come to a decision? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to stick with the current standard on the main page until we reach a consensus on a new one here. Isn't that how you said we should do it on another issue? I am requesting that you do not revert anything that uses this standard at this time. If you must, it requires an explaination as to why you are deviating from the standard. Otherwise it is a free for all for everyone to format things as they like while it is in discussion.--Nabber00 02:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

DrippingInk spent a good deal of time editing two album articles in good faith; to revert all his (and my) work on the basis of a standard that is under discussion, and which seems likely to change is at best discourteous. I'm unsure of the status of this project page; my understanding was that it's not Wikipedia policy (as is capitalisation in titles) — have I got that wrong? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

If it is not an official standard, it is still a de facto standard, since most albums seem to use it.--Nabber00 02:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I have always thought that it is a dash that is written as a hyphen. I have never had problems with it. I think it would potentially awkward-looking to use brackets, because the article may already have the song authors in brackets before the track length. Italics and bold text look like emphasizing the track length more that the song title. So I like the hyphen best. But one could also use an en dash surrounded by full spaces. It is more correct than hyphen. -Hapsiainen 00:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
If it were a dash at all, I'd prefer an em-rule. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
It must be a dash. From A List Apart: "The em dash (—) is used to indicate a sudden break in thought." and "Some typographers prefer to use an en dash surrounded by full spaces instead of an em dash."
I would use en dash with spaces, because an em dash would glue not very related words together. (However, I admit my cultural bias: I am accustomed to typography, which practically never uses m dashes. "Both European and Anglo saxon typesetters do in fact separate words by close to a full em length in this situation, but the European style is to leave a bit of white space around the (shorter) dash while the Anglo saxon style is to cover the full em length with a correspondingly longer dash instead." [5]) -Hapsiainen 12:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

If Nabber00 is going to continue reverting the edits on a couple of album poages, it would be nice if he at least didn't write in his edit summaries that I had given no reasons, in light of the discussion here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose recommending to use en dashes instead of hyphens in track listing and personnel sections? Please say it in next couple of weeks. Otherwise I'll change the official recommendation. "Use an en dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) as a dividing horizontal punctuation mark. You can add it by writing &ndash; HTML entity to the edit box. If you think that this is too difficult, you can still use a hyphen and hope that someone is going to change it into a dash. This holds true both in 'Track listing' and 'Personnel' sections." -Hapsiainen 18:17, August 27, 2005 (UTC)


I think this idea of using an en dash for track times is rather gross. An en dash is used as a substitute for the word "to" when specifying a numeric range (look it up on wikipedia if you don't believe me! ;-) If we must use a dash, an em dash would be typographically correct - however, as others have pointed out, a common practice on album sleeves is to use a different font. This is more elegant as it avoids cluttering the list with unnecessary typography, which looks fussy and distracts the eye from the information. For HTML rendering, I'd vote italics as the easiest to implement and nicest to read—having the track time as italics immediately makes it look like less important info to the eye, you can more easily skim over it unless you are interested.--feline1 16:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Album cover information template.

I was kinda getting sick of writing it in all the time, so maybe we can start using this template. Use the link to actually see the template. Working example would be:

Template:Album Image

WB 08:17, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

A new list needs populating

I've created a new list, List of albums which include 20 or more tracks. If anyone knows of such albums, please contribute.  Grue  06:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are compilations included? Even if they weren't, the scope of the list seems too broad. You'll see that when the list keeps growing. -Hapsiainen 10:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)


2 pictures for one album/single, etc.

How would you place two pictures in the album cover box? The new infobox tenplate kind of restricts that.. --Madchester 03:26, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

My suggestion would be placing the original or most commonly used album cover in the infobox, and place the other picture in the article body. Just my 2 cents... :) --Andylkl (talk) 06:25, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
You can also combine two pics into one, putting one under the other with Photoshop or some other tool.  Grue  07:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Corel PhotoPaint it is! --Madchester 06:52, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Track listing into Albumbox?

I haven't thoroughtly thought about the pro-s and contras of doing so, but therically the track listing is a technical part of the album, as length, label or chronology. Actually it should be a part of the infobox, because it is important but is not formally an article (or even a part of an article). If there's some additional information to add to the track listing, that should be done in the article with some prosa and avoiding the "listing" form like for example translations of Reise, Reise or descriptions at Strange Little Girls. This would allow to add some information or a summary of the song article, if any.

It should be one column for track number, one for the track song name and one for the length in m:ss or m' s".

First disadvantage: The box may take more space and in articles lacking any actual article (substubs with box) it may look certainly empty. But that could be an extra motivation for editors and fans to add text and facts about the albm, like trivia, cover art descriptions for blind people or extra information about it, album case formats and description, releases, album tour, easter eggs, history, styles... Well all that sort of things that make an album article top class.

Also, I'd maybe remove the reviews from the box, because not all albums have reviews and it's actually not a physical part of the album itself, but rather more or less objective critics about it that, in my opinion, should go in the article (which also would allow quoting comments like it's done in several album articles).

I've seen the template and I don't think it could cause big problems for backwards compatibility.

Well I just wanted to drop this suggestion. I'd be pleased it was taken into consideration and was properly matured and discussed. --KeyStorm 22:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Anyone? So may I add it to the specs? -KeyStorm 29 June 2005 22:39 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm sympathetic to the idea of removing the reviews section; this should perhaps be discussed separately. But I'm not convinced the track listing should go in the box. The box should place the album historically and seems to do so quite succintly. Flowerparty 29 June 2005 23:43 (UTC)
An emphatic NO from me. It would clutter up the infobox unnecessarily. Not only that but there are some really long song titles out there (e.g. "Several Species Of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together In A Cave And Grooving With A Pict") which would likely make the infobox look even worse. The infobox is already getting a bit long in the tooth and adding what could be 50 more lines to it (consider double albums) would really make it unpleasant. RedWolf June 29, 2005 23:51 (UTC)

What about EPs categorization?

I need to categorize some EPs, but I see we don’t have categories as we do for singles, albumes, greatest hits, etc. I have seen that some website refer to EPs as singles, so I thought it could be possible to cagegorize them just like that, but Ii’m not sure. So... What should I do in these cases? Regards, Luis María Benítez 23:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The trouble with categorising EP's as singles is that currently singles are a subcategory of songs. EP's are generally more like albums than singles in that they do not have one main track and then supporting tracks. EP's are currently covered under albums and are listed as albums in discographies. I think they are often categorised as singles because of their running time - making them eligable for singles charts instead of albums charts. --Moochocoogle 16:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Split an article?

Thanks for the answer. I have published an article about Rokk í Reykjavík, which was a documentary broadcasted on the Icelandic TV by 1982 and later released as a VHS and a double vinyl compilation.
The VHS features short interviews with the musicians and some concerts. The compilation is exactly the same, but with the exception of the interviews. Even further, the covers have slight differences. So, I was thinking in extending the original article adding the VHS information and its cover. I also have a full list of credits. What do you think? Is it possible to categorize this article as a film and album at the same time or should I split its content into two separate articles? Please, let me know. Kind regards, Luis María Benítez 22:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tracklisting and times

After my edits to the two Gorillaz albums were reverted, I would like to suggest that the times in the tracklisting for the WikiProject be amened and improved. Please see MCMXC a.D. or the reverted articles in question ([6] and [7]) for the suggested format and the talk page for the reason. -Andylkl (talk) June 28, 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Inclusion of catalog numbers

There has been a discussion about the inculsion of catalog numbers within the album infobox on Talk:Gorillaz (album) and I thought it would maybe be useful to have a general discussion about that here... I personally don't think catalog numbers should be listed in Wikipedia at all, as I don't see what's the use of them in an encyclopedical article, but apparently some poeple do (even though I haven't heard any arguments supporting that, yet). --Fritz S. June 28, 2005 15:46 (UTC)

I think we should distinguish between original catalogue numbers and current catalogue numbers. The former is purely of historical value (and could, for that matter, go with the original releasing record company, even if it might not be very useful anymore when the company's defunct and/or the original pressing OOP).
The latter, of course, is every bit as relevant as the ISBN number with books, making it easier for the reader to get ahold of the record itself, and I'd be very much in favour of it if there were such a thing as a ISBN-like standard number for records. Trouble is, of course, a record may be released in many different countries by many different record companies under many different catalogue numbers, which leaves us with either a(n unfair) choice to include only a few of the catalogue numbers, or a cumbersome list in each album entry of all known catalogue numbers, some of which may be current and some of which may be OOP. Curt Woyte June 29, 2005 11:58 (UTC)
I agree that inclusion of the original catalogue numbers is relevant for historical purposes. For instance, the original numbers for the first issue Beatles or Stones albums. Also, inclusion of those numbers also means that they are undoubtably OOP so that would have to be an oversight in that distinction. I also agree with you that current release info should be included because it could guide the reader to find a copy, and that is where the encyclopedic value comes in because they would have the proper knowledge to find a specific version, as many albums now are coming out available in many distinct variations, such as CD, DualDisc, etc. Cbing01 29 June 2005 21:06 (UTC)
The question once you decide to have catalog numbers in the article is, what catalog numbers to include and where in the article. As Cwoyte pointed out, it would be unfair to list only one current number. I think the Gorillaz albums currently list numbers for Japan, the US and the UK, but the albums have basically been released all over the world...
Also, I think these shouldn't be included in the infobox, because there are so many. Maybe we could have a table further down in the article in a section called Catalog numbers? --Fritz S. June 30, 2005 09:05 (UTC)
Agreed, I have no problem with the inclusion of catalog numbers, I simply think that the infobox is more for quick reference, and that the numbers belong in some other table or section as you describe.--Amigadave June 30, 2005 17:27 (UTC)
I am beginning to see the points raised by my fellow editors. I think that as some of the Infoboxes (particularly both Gorillaz albums, as stated before) we need to reevaluate what constitutes the "original" release date and label, catalog info. Continuing to use both these albums as examples, I think that the original date would have to be the British one as the primary members are British. Therefore the label and catalog numbers should reflect that release date. This is just my first thoughts and some of the other editors may not agree, so let me (and everyone else know). Thanks, Cbing01 1 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)
I added a "release" box to the end of the Let It Be... Naked and The Capitol Albums, Volume 1 articles. Let me know some opinions. Cbing01 1 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)
I think your release box is great. I would move the Format column before the Catalog number column, but apart from that, it's perfect.--Fritz S. July 2, 2005 09:31 (UTC)
Please, make any changes you feel would enhance the box. That would be a good move. Cbing01 2 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

EP link in template?

When a CD is described as an "EP" in the infobox, the "EP" is often linked to EP. This no longer redirects to Extended play. Is this link specified in the template, or does the person adding the album infobox specify it? (Sorry for stupid question - not sure I understand how the template works!) Bobbis 5 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

The link is specified by the user. If you still find some wrong links, you can correct [[EP]] to [[Extended play|EP]]. --Gika 18:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Publisher = Label?

Does the publisher = the label of the CD? -- Dangerous-Boy

no, it does NOT, they are completely different things! The record label owns (or has paid for a license for) the sound recordings on the record. The publishing company owns the (mechanical) copyright on the musical compositions (songs) which have been recorded.--feline1 19:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

What about promotional albums?

A band I'm interested in (Rustic Overtones) has released several promotional recordings which weren't ever offered for sale (but, they still exist and can be purchased from eBay). How should they be categorized? What about singles that are only released to radio stations? Ottergoose 15:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Add them under a new category "Promotional recordings", explaining how they were released. --Gika 17:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
So, for each page created for the promotional recording, the info box's next/previous titles should be other promotional recordings? That's what I was getting at... Ottergoose 15:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
It's up to you. Some people include even singles and EPs in infoboxes of regular albums. Personally, I would use a separate chronology for promotional recordings, as you suggested. --Gika 18:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Take Penacilin Now

Need a bit of help with this article...namely, is there any way I can get the "chronology" section off the infobox, since it's only a one-off label compilation and thus has neither an "album before" or an "album after"? I can't seem to figure out how to do it. Thanks. Bearcat 06:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The only way I can figure out to do it, is to go the template page and edit it, copy the table code, paste it in your article and remove the code for the chronology section. You'll have a lot of ugly table code in the article instead of the quite clean template code, but it'll do the work. Teklund 11:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Lyrics link on the albumbox

Is is possible to add the lyrics link to the albumbox? The way I see it, it is a part of the album and it does not belong in the external links section where misc other info should be placed. Take a look, for example, at the albumbox for Demons and Wizards and how I've formatted it and tell me what you think. --DB0 12:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment on style

Which looks better, be honest. The infobox for Paranoid or the infobox for Dirt? I think the Paranoid one looks better. Redwolf24 19:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

They look pretty similar to me: both rather unattractive. Perhaps you're referring to the dirt on the project page? Flowerparty 19:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Neither is using the proper album infobox template... And I don't really see any notable difference between the two, either. --Fritz S. 19:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Both are ugly; the latter is cleaner however.--madh 23:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Album infobox

Just asking this here, as this page appears to get a lot more attention than the album infobox talk page itself :)

When using the infobox, is there any way to prevent some of the categories showing up for which I don't have information, or will there always have to be the question marks showing the missing data? Mallocks 21:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Once you have created the infobox in your article from the template, you may remove the items and question marks that you don't have the info for. However, this makes it more difficult to add them later. Gbeeker 21:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem

When publishing articles for albums, or replacing the album info boxes I always find problems because something looks not the way I wanted. For instance: I put the catalogue number of a strange record and it is not displayed on the info box, but you could see it when editing the article! (see this example: Mjötviður Mær)
When I don’t have the image cover, I can’t use the info box because there appear some HTML coding (or whatever) highlighting the missing image (see this example: Live in Reykjavik). I don’t know what I’m doing wrong here or what I should do to correct further mistakes. I have a lot of work which has been deferred for the fear of doing more damage than a good job. I hope there’s someone who could help me out. Regards, Luis María Benítez 20:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Your problem is in the use of the template. The current template is very strict and forces you to include a picture; hence the policy which says to include Image:Nocover.gif when you don't have the cover. (See the fixed Live in Reykjavik.) If you don't like this you could copy the code from the Template:Album infobox page and leave out the cover that way, but that's a bit messy. Can you not find a picture anywhere?
Also, the template will only allow you to include the things which it specifies, which explains your trouble with Mjötviður Mær. If you want to include a catalogue number you have to cheat. Instead of,
  Length      = ?? [[minute|min]] ?? [[second|sec]] |
  Label       = [[Eskvimó]] |
  Catalogue number      = ESQ 2 |
  Producer    = ??? |
you need:
  Length      = ?? [[minute|min]] ?? [[second|sec]] |
  Label       = [[Eskvimó]]<small><br/>ESQ 2</small> |
  Producer    = ??? |
...Hope this helps. Flowerparty talk 20:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer. Now I will get back to the move and make all necessary modifications. Kind regards, Luis María Benítez 23:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

How to deal with bootlegs?

I noticed there are some articles about bootleg albums (such as Nirvana's Outcesticide I) on Wikipedia and I was wondering if we should come up with a new color for the infobox, or just use the same as for official box sets, etc. It might also be useful to create a category for Bootleg albums... --Fritz S. 11:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Why Should the Fire Die?

This article needs lots of tender loving care. -leigh (φθόγγος) 19:18, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I did what I could with it. Gbeeker 20:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Split EPs/Albums

Is there any available or planned method for dealing with split releases (e.g., Like a Virgin EP by Harkonen/These Arms Are Snakes) in the infobox template? In particular, any suggestions on dealing with the seperate chronologies? Will the additional chronologies have to be added manually? Rynne 02:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion list

Hi folks,

I just wanted to let you know about a new list of deletion debates related to articles on songs and albums. You can find it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Songs and albums.

If you find this list useful, please help maintain it by adding new items or archiving old ones. Thanks!

Oh, and please feel free to join WikiProject Deletion sorting. We need all the help we can get.

Cheers,

-- Visviva 15:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Conflicting style conventions

Mel Etitis seems to be working MoS edits on album articles on music album articles that are ultimately in conflict with the guidelines set in place under Wikiproject Albums] criteria [8] Unless there's been a policy change, the current conventions should take precedence for these types of articles.--Madchester 14:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The Template as it stands is out of keeping with the Manual of Style in two respects, but there are a few other problems (MoS and others) concerning the Album-project style:
  1. The only problems with the template itself, though admittedly fairly minor, are:
    1. It links the artist name twice.
    2. It capitalises "chronology".
  2. The examples (see above) concerning its use include:
    1. Linking months, etc. (what relevance has October, say, to most albums, much less Summer? Most date-year links, such as March 1980 are red-links, and again don't seem relevant).
    2. Two styles of timing are used: one used in the text is fairly standard ("mm:ss"), the one used in the infobox is not ("mm min ss sec") — it not only uses non-standard abbreviations, but unnecesssarily links them. Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs uses the former in the infobox too, which is surely preferable.
    3. A hyphen is used to link dates instead of the en-rule (&&ndash;).
Most problems in articles actually come from people ignoring the Project guidelines, or copying out-of-date versions of the template from other articles, or editing according to music-journalism norms under the (often very strong) impression that they're set out in the Project. Articles on singles are in fact much, much worse, but this is again mostly because editors are working with out-of-date templates and with editing prejudices unrelated to what's in the WikiProject. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Can't argue with that. I was bold and fixed the "chronology" thing. The double artist link is more difficult. Flowerparty talk 19:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey I've read through the albums page, saw you noted "the chronology thing" so perhaps this is a good place to bring it up Flowerparty - I've seen albums and movies listed in both ascending and descending orders (starting either with most recent or least recent) - at least with films, I think makes more sense to start with most recent, but again I've seen articles list them both ways. Is there a "correct" way? (And if you answered that here or elsewhere I apologize but again I can't seem to find the answer. -- Barrettmagic 20:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
You're talking about discographies, right? The "chronology" is horizontal, see Template:Album infobox. Flowerparty talk 21:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Chart Trajectory

Uh, speaking of things that are fugly, what is with the chart trajectory seen on a lot of album (and song) articles. For an example, see Jagged Little Pill. 1) I'm not even sure if this info is useful to anyone but 2) if it is, there has got to be a better way to display it without screwing up the page width and stuff. At least on my firefox browser, it looks horrible. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:07, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Title dispute over album most widely known as Led Zeppelin IV

(Left-to-right: Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, John Bonham, Robert Plant)
(Left-to-right: Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, John Bonham, Robert Plant)

Obviously Led Zeppelin IV is not the actual title.

  • Some editors contend that the actual title consists of the four symbols depicted in Image:Zoso.svg
  • Others believe these symbols (each of which represents a band member) are merely artwork, intended as obscure signatures perhaps, and that the album has no official title.
  • If somebody can prove it has no official title (which does not equal "no textually rendered title"), it should be moved to Untitled (Led Zeppelin album).
  • But even if we do concur that the intended title of the album is, in fact, , the plot thickens. What would be the most appropriate facsimile title (within wikipedia/unicode technical limitations)? I would suggest Zoso due to the uncanny appearance of the first symbol (that of Jimmy Page) and the fact that "Zoso" has no other possible meaning. But such a transliteration seems likely to offend astrology/magick enthusiasts (who will be happy to inform you that it represents capricorn, saturn, etc., and not letters of the alphabet by any means). However, the other proposed surrogate title, Four Symbols, seems too wtf-ambiguous IMHO.
  • It appears that most of the usual sources list it as Led Zeppelin IV, and are therefore of little help. So perhaps this is the best title due simply due to its prevalence of use?
  • I figure if no consensus can be reached, the article and its two dozen redirects should be moved to the (willfully unitalicized) "Led Zeppelin's fourth album" with a notice stating that the official title is a matter of dispute.

If somebody else could step in here I'd appreciate it.

— FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Where is User:Jimmy Page when you need him.

Actually, Wikipedia policy is to give the best-known or "most recognizable" name, not necessarily the officially correct one.—Wahoofive (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Greatest hits

According to the first rule of this page, "Unless there's extenuating circumstances, greatest hits and compilation albums don't need an article." This hasn't really been followed since I put it there a very long time ago, and it irks me because I don't really see how your average greatest hits album could ever be much more than a track listing and a few other details -- I'd rather combine all the greatest hits albums by artist into a single article. Thoughts? Tuf-Kat 04:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree somewhat. But I think if an artist has only one compilation album, it should get an article. If they have several Best of... albums, these can be combined as one article, especially if they follow the same naming scheme (e.g. Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits Vol. 1, 2, and 3 might be combined as sections of Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits even having been released decades apart). Might an exception be made for a Hits album which also contains a significant amount (3+ tracks, perhaps) of previously unreleased material? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:39, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
There is a difference between artists who have lots of different greatest hits albums - and those who produce one greatest hits album as a career finale with unreleased tracks, singles etc. The latter should certainly get articles imo. We clearly don't want to have an article on every Marilyn Monroe compilation.Secretlondon 05:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caruso recordings (various articles) —Wahoofive (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Chronology section

The Beatles chronology
[[Image:RubberSoulUK.jpg|50px|Rubber Soul
(1965)]]
Rubber Soul
(1965)		 [[Image:Revolver.jpg|50px|Revolver
(1966)]]
Revolver
(1966)		 [[Image:Pepper's.jpg|50px|Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
(1967)]]
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
(1967)

Would it be possible to have the chronology links as thumbnails of the coverart? Something like (for Revolver by The Beatles): {{{Ifdef{{{Last cover={{{alt}}}}}}}|[[image:{{{Last cover}}}|50px|{{{Last album}}}]]<br>{{{Last album}}}|alt={{{Last album}}}}}

Any thoughts?

--Tokle 08:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


My thoughts:
It would be possible, and feasible even, if we enforced a policy of giving each image of an album cover exactly the same name as the article about the album, the task would be a lot easier. You could set the template up to say...

<center>
[[Image:{{{lastalbum}}}.jpg|50px]]<br>
[[{{{lastalbum}}}]]
</center>

...and then on the Revolver (album) page:

| lastalbum = Rubber Soul |

... but the cover image would have to be Rubber_Soul.jpg. Is there no easy way of retitling images? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think there is an easy way of retitling images. And a proccess like that would be extremely time-consuming anyway.
But with my suggestion you would only need two more parameters; {{{Last cover}}} and {{{Next cover}}}. And adding that line to the template would not, I believe, cause any problems with the existing infoboxes already in use, since if the parameters {{{Last cover}}} or/and {{{Next cover}}} are not present it would just use {{{Last album}}}/{{{Next album}}} in the way it is currently used. In this way we keep the date as well. I am not an expert in writing code, but I recon it might work... --Tokle 13:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC) (my bad. it didn't work. I was not really thinking straight.--Tokle 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC) )

I have created the template Template:Album infobox 2 to create the effect described above in the chronology section.

--Tokle 10:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Links to reviews

User:BGC has been removing the review excerpts from albumboxes, which link Buy.com or Metacritic as their source. (See this and several other R.E.M. albums. [9], [10], [11], [12]) I've read from the project guidelines that they are OK, if the official source is not available online. BGC thinks that they are pointless. I think that their purpose is just to briefly describe, what kind of reviews an album has recieved. We have been reverting each other several times. I'd like to make sure that people here widely accept the use of Metacritic and Buy.com links. I'd like to hear other opinions and comments to stop this edit warring. There is also discussion about the disagreement in my talk page. BGC removed the discussion from his own talk page very quickly. [13] -Hapsiainen 18:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, my talk page is my talk page and I cleaned house to remove old posts. Yours was one of them. And I wouldn't classify something that's been removed a day later "quickly". Secondly, after writing "I don't think you deserve that star!", perhaps taking it out makes you look better. I could easily re-instate it so others can see your aggressive nature if that makes you feel better.

Now to the main issue..... Every Q Magazine reference you've put either has no link whatsoever (as in Green), or leads you to their home page with no mention at all of the albums in question. Therefore - a pointless link. As for your other ones that go straight to buy.com, you're merely reading a one-line excerpt of an entire review - usually the best thing about the album. It does not allow for the other comments that the reviewer may be making (i.e. the negative ones). Secondly, by sending us straight to an CD order site, you are promoting the Buy.com site over amazon or tower. In other words, whether you realize it or not, you are promoting Buy.com on Wikipedia - an information-based site. And for what? One line out of, likely, a multi-paragraphed review? That's why it defeats the purpose and is pointless. BGC 21:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the links. Ideally, we'd be able to link to every actual review of the albums, but since that isn't possible, we do the next best thing. If amazon or tower had similar reviews, we could link to them as well, but afaik, they don't do that. We link to buy.com because it's a source for the album's rating, and we must cite our sources. I guess I just don't really see the problem here. Tuf-Kat 23:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
We really should avoid linking to e-tailers like buy.com or amazon.com. If possible, Wikipedia should refrain from becoming a co-marketing partner of companies on the Internet. Adding links to ordering sites is basically a free referral (something companies usually pay money for- ad banners, etc). However, reviews do add some interesting information to the infobox and provide a quick way to compare how different work from artists was received. I think reviews should be added if there is a linkable source that is reputable and not an ordering site. That criteria will also naturally limit the number of reviews that are added to the infobox (more than 3 reviews seems excessive and redundant to me). --Chevan 03:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
All the links to Q reviews that I added, used to work once. Some of them are still working, but BGC removed them as well. They don't always display properly, though. I took away the links that didn't work.
I think that it is sensible to only use those reviews from Buy.com that have a number of stars, a grade, or something similar, which is impossible to distort. If I have ever added other Buy.com links, it was a mistake. There is also Metacritic, but it has only reviews of rather recent albums. 3 reviews isn't definitely enough. It can't give a reliable overview. If the albumbox grows too large because of many reviews, they have to be moved elsewhere.
This has nothing to do with this disagreement, but I still have to say it. I have noticed an annoying habit: people remove broken review links and reviews without checking, if they are now available behind a different URL. The structure of a website may have changed. I have readded such links, but that was months ago. -Hapsiainen 08:37, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
When someone comes to an encyclopedia looking for information the basic assumption is that they are looking for facts and thoughtful analysis on the significance of the article. Linking to reviews is really a convenience factor. As I mentioned above, although there are benefits to having reviews linked, Wikipedia should not attempt to have an exhaustive linking nor should it participate in marketing for resellers and e-tailers.
Fundamentally, I would say that Wikipedia could actually do without the infobox links to reviews as they are inherently subjective and POV (an album is not inherently good or bad and the general critical consensus may end up being at odds with the actual album sales). It seems better to have someone write good copy about the album and support their assertions with citations to the reviews (but I realize that that is considerably more work that placing a link in the infobox). Also, as User:Hapsiainen mentioned, links to reviews can change if the structure of the destination website changes. --Chevan 14:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
External reviews are allowed to be subjective and POV. We link to them to attribute opinions to the people who hold them. Ideally, a brief overview of all the reviews would be in the box with a few paragraphs highlighting the major points from critics in the text. I don't understand why linking to buy.com is different from rollingstone.com -- they're both profiting off the link, yet we include them because they have information that we want to be available for the reader. I can understand your thoughts on getting rid of reviews from the box altogether, though I disagree, but if we're going to have them, we can't just pick and choose the three we like best, or the three that come from companies whose business practices we prefer or whatever. Tuf-Kat 16:11, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Your points are well taken. I suppose to me the difference between rollingstone.com is that they receive their revenues from banner ad placements on their freely available content, whereas buy.com receives their revenues from sales of products. As User:BCG pointed out, linking to buy.com is Wikipedia essentially endorsing one sales channel over another (say amazon.com or even yahoo! music). As Wikipedia is a pretty popular site on the Internet, that kind of preferential treatment doesn't seem insignificant to me.
Reviews just seem problematic on so many levels, but I don't think their use is going to go away. My position is to basically limit the source of reviews to those websites that are not a sales channel for the actual album. --Chevan 16:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
A sound policy which should extend to the All Music Guide, which is a sales channel that provides an overwhelmingly favorable set of "reviews" for the merchandise it is hawking rather describing in any sort of a detached fashion. Monicasdude 09:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Are there any other websites than Buy.com and Metacritic that have a large collection review summaries? If there isn't, linking them isn't preferential treatment. If we are going to abandon the review links because they get broken sometimes, why we have external links at all in Wikipedia? There is no difference.
Buy.com's excerpts are not their own creations unlike the reviews in Allmusic.com. Therefore Buy.com can only manipulate them either by choosing the most positive reviews, or picking the most favourable phrase out of some review and publishing it without a number of stars or a grade. We can get rid of the former bias by finding some other reviews. The later can be avoided by not trusting the mere quoted phrases from Buy.com. -Hapsiainen 14:34, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
My issue is not with the concept of external links, I brought it up only as another reason why reviews are problematic. I went back and reread User:BCG's original post and quite frankly I have to agree with him on all points. Adding reviews that are unlinked or link solely to the site's homepage is directly at odds with the requirement to cite our sources. This only exacerbates the fact that reviews are POV and not factual.
I see a review's value to a Wikipedia article as being a guidepost about how well an album was received and how that perception has stood the test of time. However, I believe it is a convenience and not extremely important when compared to the facts presented in an album's article, because a review is again subjective. Sales figures tell the real story.
My sole concern here is preventing Wikipedia from ending up becoming an unwitting marketing arm of online e-tailers. Online marketers are becoming very smart about how to sell products and this is one of the tactics to differentiate themselves on the web-marketplace. I'm sure I'm becoming redundant now but I believe that if we can't find a source of reviews that are not a sales channel then I think we should remove all reviews completely as I see their value-add being marginal. --Chevan 16:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Reviews are the most important part, IMO. Sales figures are irrelevant to many people -- the best albums barely sell at all! Unlinked or home-linked sources don't violate Wikipedia:Cite_sources anymore than using print sources that not everyone has access to. I've suggested before not using allmusic, since they virtually never say anything bad about anything, but we can't just stop using websites that try to sell stuff (note that I'd be fine with not using allmusic because of the poor quality of their site and reviews, and not because they sell stuff for profit). If a website has something useful, we should link to it; judging which websites to link to based on our opinions of their business practices is POV. Tuf-Kat 17:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
So it sounds like what we need is a source of reviews that is objective and ideally not a merchant. Deciding not to link to e-tailers is not making a frivolous judgement based on a certain business practice or model (it's not a bias). Wikipedia is a non-commercial endeavour and as such should avoid participating in commerce explicitly or implicitly. Although an album review from a commercial site is interesting it actually "dumbs down" the credibility of Wikipedia because the system essentially becomes a salesman for whatever merchant (allmusic in this case) we link to. As another matter of point, the style guides recommend not linking to merchants.
Also, when you say "the best albums barely sell at all" I'm not sure what you mean and in fact I feel like that is at the heart of the matter. What does "best" mean? If we're saying an album is critically acclaimed then that should be written in the copy about the album and use references to those sources. Linked reviews seem to be an ambiguous signpost on this highway of articles... I think we would be better served without them. Let's do it... "write". --Chevan 18:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
You read the style guide selectively. Notice "unless it applies via a "do" above." I don't understand what you mean by ambiguous signpost. I agree that the reviews in infobox add value remarkably, more than sales charts. Even if you don't get it, don't start removing them.
I appreciate that I can see which magazine writes what, not someone's idea of "general" opinion. People seldom share the same idea of what kind of reviews an album has received. They read different newspapers, remember unreliably etc. It must be really acclaimed newcomer or a well-known classic album, until people have the same impression. -Hapsiainen 19:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I was getting a bit flowery with my language.. sorry. What I meant by "ambiguous signpost" is that a critical review is one person or group's subjective take on the value of an album. Whereas sales numbers are a definite and concrete valuation on, at least, the popularity of an album, a review is just a kluge- somebody's opinion on the value of an article. Because of that, I really think people should just cite reviews in the body of the album copy.
You're right about the "do" portion of the style guide, but even then it's listed as "May be ok to add"... not exactly a mandate. Fundamentally, though, I'm solely concerned about maintaining the non-commercial integrity of Wikipedia. --Chevan 21:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
For those seeking a website which has multiple reviews of each album, but isn't commercially affiliated with any company - there's rateyourmusic.com. It doesn't have formal reviews or paid reviewers (users sign up for free to submit ratings and reviews), but it doesn't try to sell anything and the most popular albums have hundreds of reviews, cancelling out anomalies. --Jacj 19:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I've started to think more negatively about the Metacritic and Buy.com links in albumboxes, but I have a new, different reason. When people see such links, they may think that the link leads to the actual review. Then they follow it and become disappointed. Now I am thinking, could the Metacritic and Buy.com links be in the references section. When there would be a link to either of them, one would instead make a link to their anchors in the references. Still, I see a potential problem. People could remove Metacritic and Buy.com links as blatant advertising, unless they were properly informed. -Hapsiainen 21:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Dividing Side A/B Tracklistings

Should the tracklistings of albums which were originally released on vinyl or cassette tape be split halfway down the list to indicate which songs were on Side A/B? There are many records where the fact that a song ends Side A or begins Side B is a noteworthy aspect of the release - something which is often lost with newer CD versions. Burn the asylum 18:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I would say that if it is notable, mention it in the article. But I vote to not split up track listings for A/B sides. --Cholmes75 16:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I consider album sides to be an important aspect of the track listing. Album sides represent the way in which an original work of art was first released, and in many cases the juxtaposition of the side one/two split is as important as the track order. Abbey Road is an excellent example. And even if not specifically intended by the artist, the split was most certainly an integral part of the listening experience due to the effort required to manually flip the record, and the pause experienced in listening. In that way, the side one/two split can be considered along the same lines as acts of a play or opera. Of course, this juxtaposition has been largely lost in the CD age, including on vinyl albums that have been subsequently re-released on CD (although a number of CD-only albums make an explicit effort to divide the album into artificial "sides"). However, for albums released before the CD age, the inclusion of sides in a track listing is consistent with Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature — if a reader wants to merely find out a track listing, this can be gleaned easily from the album's Amazon listing, but the division of sides (an important historical and often creative component of the album) can be more obscure and is thus a valuable addition to an encyclopedic entry. --Bjhtn 04:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Albums listed for deletion at Articles for deletion

N/A

Centering Album names and such

Album Without Centering
Studio album by Artist

Forgive me if this has already been brought up, but I have been observing that there are inconsistencies in the centering of the album name and the "Album" by "Artist" below the album cover. Some have it centered, while others do not. Is there a way for these things to be automatically centered, because it would be a monumental task to go through the many albums that Wikipedia has and center them all, and I know the rule of thumb is not to use HTML? --Cumbiagermen 22:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Album redirect

Discussion is occurring at Talk: Album about Album redirecting to Album (music), at the moment it doesn't. --Commander Keane 18:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Moot. All the links are done now, and I plan to put this on my list to be sure new ones don't pop up. -- BD2412 talk 19:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute — opinions?

I've been trying to tidy articles on albums and singles, working through them in a sort of semi-random, follow-the-links sort of way. I frequently meet with aggression and belligerence from the articles' "owners", but I'm currently involved in one dispute that has wider implications. I've been tidying the Beach Boys' album-articles, and BGC is mass-reverting all my changes (as "vandalous"). The edits involved are mainly in the infoboxes, including unlinking seasons and months, removing duplicate links (such as multiply linked years), and converting hyphens to m-dashes, all in line with the MoS. None of that's controversial — but he's also adding to some of the articles' infobox-chronologies the covers of the various releases (see, for example, [14]). I can't find this anywhere (it's not in this article, for example), and I don't like it (it's fiddly, and adds nothing useful except additional uses of "fair use" images, which we should surely be keeping to a minimum), but is it in fact an official or semi-official part of the WikiProject? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The addition of album cover pictures in the chronology is MOST helpful in that it gives the dissenting page surfer another way to recognize an album they may be searching for, not knowing the title but the image. They're also very small and are not obstructive at all. They also add to the quality of the pages. Furthermore, all Beatles pages are laid out that way [15] - by someone else - as are other band articles, and as "album infobox 2", clearly if the template exists it must be valid. So I know I'm not the only one who feels that this is a beneficial addition to the album infoboxes. Perhaps THIS page hasn't been updated to incorporate this new format... There is no logical reason to not have them, and "I don't like it" on Mel's part is a poor excuse to delete my work when no consensus has been reached yet. That, to me, is the work of a power trip admin. Wikipedia is an objective forum, not one that caters to personal tastes. Other users should get to decide before someone - who clearly feels they have a monopoly on those pages - engages in ruthless deletions simply because they "don't like it". BGC 13:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mel. I just don't see what the album covers add. The template's existence is not proof that it is valid, because anyone can make a template just as easily as they can make an article page. Putting the album covers in the box is legally dodgy under fair use and doesn't help anyone find anything -- I can't imagine anyone would be unable to remember the name of an album but still remember the album cover clearly enough to recognize it in a tiny thumbnail. All it does is make the box bigger and the page take longer to load, even for me with broadband and undoubtedly even more for people with dial-up. Tuf-Kat 16:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm on dialup, and the diference in load times can be significant sometimes. It's the fair-use problem that most concerns me, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Two reasons to keep the images:

  • because images are cool; and
  • because Mel is on dial-up

--Anittas 23:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Album_infobox_2

Template:Album_infobox_2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Album_infobox_2. Thank you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Requesting opinions on style

I know I've mentioned this before, but no one responed. So, I'm asking again, I've a suggestion about amending the times listed in the tracklist in this format:

  1. (01:23) "Song Title" (John Doe)
  2. (12:34) "Song Title 2" (Jane Doe)

I've come across (and started to use it myself) on some album articles using this proposed format. So be the comments in favour or not, I'd appreciate it if anyone here can give some opinions about this style. Regards, Andylkl (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the song title more important than its length? So I am against your proposal. -Hapsiainen 12:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Imho, both should be equally important, but the proposal is also based on cutting down clutter and simplifying tracklists. User:6 provided some good points on this idea (see here). Btw, Placing the length before the title doesn't mean altering the importance of either one, where did that idea come from? --Andylkl (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
If you're concerned about the song lengths lining up properly, you could put them in a table. The song length doesn't look right coming before the title.
1. "Song Title" (John Doe) (1:23)
2. "Longer Song Title 2" (Jane Doe) (12:34)
But then again, that has that weird white background, and it would be a big hassle to type out for all track lists, probably. --DalkaenT/C 18:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
People read English text from left to right. According to your proposal, they would first face the track length before its name. But when people read track listings, they search songs more likely by names than by track lengths. Also, your proposal assumes that the user views Wikipedia pages with a font that has fixed number width. If the font isn't such, the impression of columns is lost. -Hapsiainen 20:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Title before length has been the standard form on album covers/tracklistings for about 50 years. There's no good reason for defying that convention. Monicasdude 23:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll note my agreement with both Hapsiainen and Monicasdude. Jkelly 23:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Just registering my agreement with Hapsiainen and Monicasdude (and so Jkelly). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback. :) --Andylkl (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is absurd to put the track times first. It is not the way things are done on album sleeves, for obvious reasons (the track length is a tiny detail that most music listeners are not especially interested in, unless a track is unusually long or short). --feline1 19:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Notability Criteria for Songs

I have added my suggestions on this matter on the Wikiproject ta=lk page. As I discuss, applicability of redirecting to albums in all cases is discussed. Capitalistroadster 09:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Remix albums

A question here, should remix albums be considered as compilation albums and be given the darkseagreen infobox colour or should there be another seperate colour for remix albums? --Andylkl (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Certainly an interesting question. Yeah, off-hand I think it would fall in "other compilations", so that would indeed be darkseagreen. Just from reading the remix albums article, it doesn't seem as if those albums are so commonplace as to have a pressing need for a seperate color/category. Liontamer 20:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Album infobox 2

The template Album infobox 2 has been up for a vote on deletion. But no consensus was reached, hence the template is still in use. I would like to see a discussion here about whether this template should be incorporated into this project.

The reason I created this template was that, after trying to air my thoughts here and not getting any response, I wanted to get it out to the pages so people could notice it and hopefully get a discussion started. It had to be done as a alternate template to Album infobox to not disrupt the use of the original. --Tokle 11:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I still think that the template should be deleted. It isn't fair use, and I have now time to give detailed reasoning.
From Copylaw: " Never copy more of a copyrighted work than is necessary to make your point understood. The more you borrow, the less likely it will be considered fair use." "Do not quote from a copyrighted work simply to "enliven" your text. Make certain you comment upon the material you borrow or can otherwise justify its use." "Being a non-profit educational institution does not let you off the hook. Even non-commercial users can be sued if the use exceeds the bounds of fair use." The two extra album covers in the template break these recommendations. The article that I am quoting was written by a lawyer, although I am not such. The copyright status can't be decided by voting in Wikipedia, because only the minority of people understands copyright properly. There are also other reasons not to use the template, but I think this is the pivotal one. -Hapsiainen 13:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The deletion debate is archived here. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I voted delete on that infobox because it just clutters up the infobox and secondly violates fair use IMHO. See Hapsiainen's comment. RedWolf 00:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I voted delete as well, and do not support its use for all the reasons mentioned. Tuf-Kat 04:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I put the template up for delete, for the reasons given by Hapsiainen. The result was (omitting very new Users, etc.) 20 to delete and about 12 to keep (about 62.5% to delete). The fair use issue, though, means that editors are justified in deleting the images when they see them, which leaves us in a difficult position: a valid template that can be validly deleted on copyright grounds. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It is true that the guidelines governing fair use are extremely diffuse, and they can be read differently by each lawyer, depending on the way he wants to angle it. I cannot claim to be a lawyer myself, and I see that this might be a borderline case. (All Music is doing something similar, though [16], with pictures as links to the album articles.)

That said, I don't think the TfP page was the best place to hold that discussion, I would rather have done it here. It seems like the most serious editors from this wikiproject are opposed to my chronology idea, which makes me inclined to join the opposition. --Tokle 15:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Because AllMusic is a merchant (partnered with Barnes&Noble), its use of the album images is presumably authorized by the label/copyright holder. Even if there were no effective authorization, the "fair use" claim of a merchant to use images of what it is selling rests on a basis that clearly can't apply to Wikipedia. Monicasdude 17:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this should be kept. It is quite clear that album art is fair use. The only gray area where this might violate Wikipedia policy on the topic is "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." I will agree with this out of principle, however, these album arts are already on wikipedia and are simply being used to redirect to the appropriate pages in a more visually pleasing and organized manner. I don't think this constitutes using "more" copyrighted material, we're just re-using the same material a few more times. I don't think this template is in infringement of fair use laws and principles, and I highly doubt anybody would be interested in bringing forth a fair-use lawsuit against a non-profit educational ressource which is, in essence, promoting the albums in question. --Comics 21:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see Template:Album cover. If we are going to use album cover images as decoration and navigation guides, that template needs to change. I strongly suggest that it first be discussed with Wikimedia's legal team first, however. Jkelly 22:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Template:Album cover currently states "It is believed that the use of [...] images of album or single covers solely to illustrate the album or single in question [...] qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law". I believe this covers using images as navigational aids (since the images are only being used to illustrate the album in the navigational area). I don't think Template:Album cover needs to be changed. -Locke Cole 15:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I have raised the question of changing policy and fair use rationale at Template talk:Albumcover, Wikipedia talk:Fair use and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use. Please feel free to add to the discussion there. Jkelly 18:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


with all due respect to y'all, this discussion is a sorry example of wikipedia at its worst: a blethering collection of fan-boys and internet hacks voicing unfounded opinions on a legal issue, when the vast majority of them have no legal training or qualifications whatsoever. Moreover the whole discussion is ultimately an arbitrary one of style (ie presentation/aesthetics) rather than to do with facts and accuracy, and the criterea being applied seem wholly arbitrary and often wildly out of step with common practice elsewhere in the world (eg the crazy idea to put track timings first before track names). Go get a proper legal opinion on the matter! --feline1 15:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
As a suppoter of this template, I find it helpful and appealing to the eye. As for all this "fair use" talk, I tend to agree with feline1 that no one appears to have a definitive answer on what is legal or not. It seems to fall down to personal preference, and personally I don't see where this infobox style offends. The artwork samples are small enough to not be obstructive in the infoboxes and yet just big enough to recognize for those who may be familiar with album artwork and not always the title. It also shows a further measure of care and respect for the album and, in particular, the artist(s) who created it. And Wikipedia is supposed to be user-friendly, and I think small artwork samples over the album titles are most useful for that reason. I can not see any other earthly reason why this template should not be used, other than it doesn't look "good" to the subjective editor - because that's what it really boils down to. I would rather we reach a decision ASAP, because the template's availability tells me that it is still valid and allowed on Wikipedia. Otherwise, it would have been deleted by now, no? BGC 00:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
And these comments should settle the question for any reasonable editor, since none of the justifications set forth here falls within the recognized categories of "fair use" under American law, no less the more restrictive criteria applied elsewhere. As the Copylaw page referenced by Hapsiainen above makes clear, "enlivening" one's own work by unauthorized use of copyrighted material is not fair use; "fair use" requires a more substantial relationship between the material used without permission and the use to which it is put. Monicasdude 01:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

While I have some sympathy for User:Feline1's point about "blather" when it comes to legal issues and the internet, I think that it is worth pointing out a common mistake about this, which I have made myself. The opinion of a member of the bar would, in this case, be of little help, because the one and only way for anything to be definitively proven "fair use" or not is to have the case go to trial. "Fair use" is a defense one may claim at a copyright infringement proceeding, not typically something one conflates with licenses to reproduce. Wikipedia's "proactive" use of this defense is unusual. Jkelly 20:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Discographies - do we have a style?

It would be nice to have an agreed style (or styles as may be necessary) for discographies. The List of discographies leads to a number of pages that suggest we're currently making it up as we gho along. Personally I like David Bowie discography but I'd understand that some bands attract people who desire more detail. --bodnotbod

The Manual of Style gives guidance on Standardized appendices, but we are lacking a guide like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) for bands (or any group of people, for that matter). Personally, I prefer simplicity. Jkelly 06:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Infobox colours

I changed the colour of the infobox on Music (Madonna album) recently (from cornflower blue to orange), but it was reverted with the edit summary: "(reverted colour, all madonna records are to have diffrent colours, passing to the cover)". Does anyone know what the status of this claim is? I've asked the editor responsible (Beautifulstranger), but I thought that I'd check here too. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Just from checking Madonna (1983 album), it seems that user, without discussion on that article's page, changed the colour on October 12 to gray when they updated the infobox to include a re-issue. While the infobox colours may be arbitrary, I don't think its in WP:ALBUM's best interests to start over with different colour scales for each individual artist. That way lies madness, or, at least, endless edit wars over hexadecimal colour preferences. I also noticed that the Maddonna album template has every single album cover on it. Jkelly 21:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

about the catalog numbers. I do add them on all the albums. It's my point of view, that they're appropriate. I think this info is helpful for those who is interested to find that album or to check if they have this edition already.

color, you know I've studied colours and paintings. And you know sometimes it's very difficult to pick a right combination of colors. And who decided that it should orange? you know that screaming color is very hard to combine with another. It looks awfull. It hurts my professional eye.

the worst thing of all it that you do this change with a single page of albums. They all are made with one concept, but you take one and make it you way so that you destroy it, it falls apart. all the pages (e.g. madonna albums) are made as one and you make "music" with you style, it looks tasteless, vulgar. why? I cannot comprehend it!

the next thing is that these MOS is a law here or a proposal? you act like it's a law. I think it should a proposal. It is called a FREE encyclopedia!!! What you do is you take freedom away. No step aside, it's not creative at all. It's dismotivating.

Beautifulstranger 21:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to start a fight, but this orange colour is so absolutely terrible, that this is the sole reason why I don't like writing album articles. Can we change it? I know it would be a tedious job to change the colour in every article, but I'm willing to do it, just to get rid of this awful orange colour. That nice light grey which is in the article for Madonna's 1983 album would be fine. Alensha 22:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


I think the right to choose the color should be free. there should be harmony with the picture. Could it be explained to the Philistines?

and the Madonna album template has every single album cover on it? is it also against the law? Beautifulstranger 22:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Beautifulstranger, please reconsider your conversational tone. One doesn't need to be a "Philistine" to hold the opinion that aesthetic concerns are secondary in the creation of an encyclopedia. Nor is there consensus that wikipedia should be an exercise in creativity. You are perfectly welcome to hold those views, and argue for them, but remember to assume good faith when others express different ones. As far as album covers on templates being "against the law", the matter is somewhat more complicated. Please see Fair use, Template:Fair use and Template:Album cover. Jkelly 22:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
then it should be better without albumbox colours at all. Beautifulstranger 09:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Why? The colors serve an organizational purpose. Just because it might not match some of the album artwork is almost completely beside the point. --FuriousFreddy 19:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The albumbox colours have certain meanings, so they should be uniform. The eternal colour switching would be another problem, if they could be used freely. The style issues are secondary, but you should still be able to discuss them and possibly change them. I have never liked the orange colour, either. It is harsh, it looked even more harsh with the old albumbox templates which had more colour areas. The other albumbox colours don't annoy me at all. I prefer silver to light grey, because isn't so boring. But grey is already for soundtrack albums. I also played with light pink albumboxes, but pink is provocative colour for other, symbolic reasons. (The giiiirl colour!) Then I find the Web colors article, and from there navajo white. I consider it a realistic alternative, it is also different enough from the other albumbox colours. Have people more ideas on this? - Hapsiainen 00:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
what meaning do they bring? it's already written on the pages a dozen of times whether it's an album or a compilation or something else. why should they colors have that meaning? if it's so, I'd make them better colorless. it's enough Beautifulstranger 09:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The color of the infobox doesn't just indicate that the subject of the article is an album; it indicates what type of album it is. Orange indicates a full-length album of original studio material. The other "album" colors designate EPs, live albums, compilations, tribute albums, and soundtracks. All of those are technically considered albums, and that information is not always as immediately apparent in the article text as it is made by the infobox. --keepsleeping say what 15:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it's time for some change, anything else but orange please. --Andylkl (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
After some thinking, I'm alright with any other colour, orange or not. Let's just keep it consistant. --Andylkl (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
yeah, orange is terrible. I agree. It's very difficult to pick a right combination of colors. And who decided that it should orange? you know that screaming color is very hard to combine with another. It looks awfull.Beautifulstranger 09:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
User:TUF-KAT apparently picked the colors, back in February of 2004. He proposed it, and the consensus accepted it. --FuriousFreddy 19:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Not many people followed the decisions of this project then. And no decision should be rigid and set to stone here. -Hapsiainen 19:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Can't we switch the colours and let studio albums be grey and soundtracks be a different color? The majority of the albums here are studio albums, it's not fair that they have the ugliest color :) The grey would be really nice. Or there are nice shades of blue and green, like powderblue, skyblue, lighblue, darkseagreen… These are light enough so we could use black text on them. (I wouldn't even have a problem with pink, though it would look funny in the article of metal albums :-D) Anyway, anything will be better than this orange. Alensha 14:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Have a look at the lists of albums in Wikipedia (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, #) before you decide whether it should be someone's task to edit each of those albums' infoboxes (as well as the soundtrack albums, if you wish to use that category's grey color) and replace each orange box with a "more harmonious" color. Whether the color is attractive to you personally or not, it is not there for decoration. --keepsleeping say what 15:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


To be blunt, the choice of info box colours is abitrary and probably goes completely over the head of the casual reader. But by all means, let us try to be consistent. --feline1 16:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If we do change colors, then i suggest that User:Alensha and User:Beautifulstranger edit every single article and change the color. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 16:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I know it's not there for decoration, but neither is it there to be so ugly that it scares people away :-) I know there are lots of album articles, but I'll replace the boxes in them. (Although other people are smart enough to use bots for tasks like this...) Alensha 18:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

...am I really the only person that doesn't have a problem with orange? But, of course, there must be consistency, and, as someone stated, the colors are not there for decorative purposes. --FuriousFreddy 19:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to take this time to point out that all of the infoboxes for Madonna's singles are also improperly formatted. And, from first glance, they contain significant amounts of POV and fancruft as well. This is like Mariah Carey all over again. I'd start editing, but real world responsibilities becon. --FuriousFreddy 21:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this discussion. Beautifulstranger has edited those articles, so it sounds like you are needling him/her. -Hapsiainen 19:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I apoligize. --FuriousFreddy 16:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with the orange color of the infoboxes. They aren't there for aesthetic value, they're there to symbolize what type of album it is. --DalkaenT/C 21:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what color we use, as long as we keep the same functionality/purpose/meaning beind them and the color is readable (that being said, we need to do something about the dark purple at Wikipedia: WikiProject Songs. --FuriousFreddy 00:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well fine, feel yourselves like kings here. Make your statements. I'm deleting my account and stop adding something good to that thing. It's not worth it. Because you are not ready to change, to improve. You've made your rules here. But without changes you won't go far. You will be on the same boat. Even rules are a subject to be changed. But you do not comprehend it. It always happens when Philistines have the power. Do it on your own. Bye. Be happy to dismotivate one more Wiki-fan. Ex-fan. Beautifulstranger 22:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go, but why should we change rules for just one person? --FuriousFreddy 00:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
For three persons. And there are people that are neutral to this. We have had other more drastic changes in the past. We changed from table albumboxes to template albumboxes. It required more editing than this. I am ready to change the template colour for a hundred albums this week. I have lots of boring, little edits in my edit history, so I can bear this. -19:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that Beautifulstranger was proposing using many, differing infobox colours so that they would pleasingly match the album art. As far as I know, she is the only one who was suggesting that course of action, so FuriousFreddy's comment was entirely accurate. In any case, I have no particular investment in the colour orange, and would be fine with someone attemption to achieve consensus on some other colour, but I would strongly prefer that the same someone could arrange for a bot to do the swapping, so that we don't have a variety of colours being used, thereby giving the impression that there is no standard. Jkelly 19:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't be as ardeous as the infobox conversions...or at least it doesn't have to be. The change is small enough where I'm sure a BOT could be run to do the task automatically. I'm sure someone who wrote one of those scripts could write one to change the the infoboxes that use the template if one of us asked them too. Remember, they would have to write one for that both infobox templates (unless we finally come to a consensus and delete the one with the unneeded album covers) and any article with the markup encoded into the artile (like the Madonna and the Mariah Carrey articles would have to be done manually--Weebot 05:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

So long as they can be changed reasonably and without being too much trouble, I have no opposition to changing the colors. --FuriousFreddy 16:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Does this mean that there's still some hope that the orange colour will be changed? :) I don't know anything about bots but if I can help in anything else, just drop me a line at my talk page. Alensha 17:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Discographies?

Also posted at Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout:

Can we get a consensus on discography formatting. The general standard way to do it in the past was to simply list the albums, the year of release ,and possibly a chart oposition or two. But now, we have articles like Mariah Carey albums discography and 50 Cent which seem intent on including album cover artwork, and multiple facts about the album. Such a system is image-heavy and slow loading ,and can also very quickly take over ap age for any act with more than four or five albums. It also only works if you find album cover artwork for each and every album (which may not always even exist). What should be done about this? --FuriousFreddy 20:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I just went over this at Talk:The White Stripes. Jkelly 00:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Putting it on the Project frontpage might be a good idea, though. Give it more of a stamp of approval.
Also, a minor suggestion: Sometime in the future they're might want to be an outline for artist pages (if that falls under the auspices of this Project) a la the article body for albums. I'm not sure if the breaking down of artists simply into their history is that great an idea, as it makes for lengthy articles and the bio tends short-change or assimilate other relevent information, like, say...how influential the artist/band is and where they fit into certain cultural trends. Just a thought.--Weebot 01:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
PS I found this, and it might help: Wikipedia:Filmographies and Discographies--Weebot 01:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Weebot, thanks for finding that. Jkelly 02:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The lack of discography guidelines in this WikiProject created a myriad of designs and formats for each article. My personal opinion is that if it doesn't impede the main article in any way (album covers are a different matter altogether), it's alright with me. I'd prefer having album covers on it if it's possible though, but consistency is the keyword. --Andylkl (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it was a lack, so much as having them buried somewhere in the FAQ. I updated the project page with the link now. In any case, I maintain that album covers in the discographies are a bad idea. Both because it encourages displays of layout skills that turn encyclopedia articles into marketing brochures and because of Fair use concerns (see Template:Fair use and Template:Album cover. Jkelly 07:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Including album covers become a problem when an act has more than, say, five albums to their name. You end up with long listy articles. I agree with the "marketing brochures" thing: it seems only fans format discographies that way, in tribute to their favorite musciians (something we're not supposed to be doing here). --FuriousFreddy 16:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I Might Be Wrong, among others

Just curious, what do we categorize Live EPs as in regards to their infobox color? EPs or Live albums?--Weebot 01:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess it could go either way, but I'd give them the "live" infobox — my reasoning being that since we assume "album" to mean "studio album" unless specified otherwise (with the "live" infobox), we should likewise assume "EP" to mean "studio EP" unless specified otherwise. --keepsleeping say what 01:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
alright, then..for clarity, would there be any objecttions to me chaning the style manual to say "Live albums" to "Live albums and EPs" for the color-coding?--Weebot 02:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Good point. And I wouldn't object at all if it read "Live albums and live EPs". Jkelly 02:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Madchester, do you have any objections to this?--Weebot 06:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do you consider I Might Be Wrong a live EP? It's 44 minutes (Pablo Honey is 42) and 8 tracks long, which more than qualifies for being a live album.—jiy (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
First, the time is wrong (I just fixed it). That time was carried over from the Amnesiac infobox, so Pablo Honey is still longer. Second, Radiohead releases large EPs anyway...My Iron Lung has the same amount of tracks, and Comlag is nearly as long as I Might Be Wrong (as a point of comparison, both Comlag and IMBW are longer than either Strokes album). Thirdly, it has been refered to as such by others. It's debatable, yes, but the scant track listing and Radiohead's history of releasing long EPs would square this away with those rather than as a full album, in my opinion.--Weebot 08:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
"I Might Be Wrong" was billed as an EP by the distribution company, it carried an EP pricetag. --Tokle 13:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Unreleased Sessions

Is there any policy about unreleased sessions? I've come across this issue a couple of times, and it might make sense to have some stance about this. In particular, I've come across this issue with Dave Matthews Band's Lillywhite Sessions and a panoply of Ryan Adams' albums (The Sweden Sessions, 48 Hours, Destroyer, and The Suicide Handbook). I'm sure there are more out there and there will certainly be more in the future (if any major artist abandons a session, it will surely make its way onto the Wikipedia).--Weebot 05:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →


Personnel and track numbers

I've always found it usefull to know not only who played on a record, but also the track number. Is there a consensus on how to add this info? I've seen a track by track listing, but I was thinking something like John Smith, drums (1, 5, 10) where the numbers are the tracks as they appear in the album info. Thanks, mike 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

From what WP:ALBUMS suggests (for guest rappers), it seems like it should appear in the Track Listing and look something like this:
1. "Complete Song Title"
  • Drums: Name of musician
2: "Complete Song Title"
3: "Complete Song Title"
  • Drums: Name of musician
And so on. -- Blodhevn (Talk), 16:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking that would take too much space (if the same drummer played onhalf the songs, and another on the other half). This is especially true on singer songwriter records, where there are a lot of studio musicians. mike 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


I've considered a newer naming convention for album specifics, I think you should have a list of the tracks, but then you should create a sub-section for the all the information. I don't know if I like the whole Personnel separation because they usually can be broken down into more concise settings.
At the moment, I use the following convention, which I've applied to Boyz II Men's Cooleyhighharmony (1991), but I'll probably have to tailor it some more.
  • Album Panel
  • Track List
    1. " Song Title "
    2. " (...) "
    3. " Song Title "
  • Album Information
    • Technical Information
This will be pretty open section for various releases, so if you have a UK, US, Japanese release, etc. you can stick the CD or LP information here.
  • Country Release (LP, CD) Example: US Release (CD)</i?
  • Recording Information: AAD, ADD, DDD (if available)
  • Catalogue Number
  • Copyright, Publishing, Manufacturing, Distribution Information (found directly on case or disc)


I'm still trying to determine how I'm going to write out track information exactly, like if I want to have "Written by A" or "Written by: A". Then there's the issue if I should put copyright information under each track or just have a separate Copyright Information for all information.
But here's the tentative information for that section.


  • Track Information
  1. " Song Title "
    • Written by:
    • Produced by:
    • Arranged by:
    • Miscellaneous Contributors:
    • Miscellaneous Track Notes (e.g., sampling information)
    • © Copyright Information
  2. " Song Title "
    • (...)
  • Production Information
    • Executive Producer
    • Miscellaneous Liner Notes (this usually entails album art people, recording location, and other staff)


I know that seems like a lot, but I'm still trying to tailor what I'm going to use for the album information section. I think we should give the most comprehensive track information, especially for those of us who love to tag our digital music collection. I spent a good while plugging that information in so programs like foobar2000 could read the info.
InnerCityBlues 04:15, 01 February 2006 (UTC)

Singles

Hi, please excuse me if I ask a question that's already been answered. What does one place in the "discussion" session of an article on a single? Some pages I've come across have the album template there, which is an idea I support, but many do not. And I don't want to go around adding the album template if it shouldn't be there...thanks! The-dissonance-reports 20:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Seasonal dates

I often come across articles listing albums / EPs as released in summer 1999 or fall 2001 etc etc. Aside from the fact that 'fall' is a US-specific word (as far as I know), it strikes me as an awfully ambiguous way to describe a date, given that the seasons are reversed depending on which hemisphere one happens to live in. I've been correcting dates written like this whenever I see them (either finding the precise date or, failing that, deleting it leaving just the year). I was wondering if this issue could be mentioned on the main project page, in the hope of steering people away from this practice? --Qirex 04:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Manual of Style, which I'd suggest is primary reading on the creation Wikipedia articles, certainly both above and before this project page. Jkelly 04:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't find a mention of it on Manual of style nor MOS (dates and numbers); are you talking about some other sub-page? I read through both of those entirely to make sure I didn't miss it (although I didn't look there before posting my question, which I should have done). --Qirex 06:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
You're right. I just checked myself. I am either mis-remembering or it has been removed. Jkelly 01:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
How about this then? A brief paragraph under the 'Style' heading of this project page, or under the 'Albums, bands, and songs' heading at Project Music (or both?):
"Do not describe uncertain dates by using the season name, eg "released in winter, 1995". This can be ambiguous as northern- and southern-hemisphere seasons occur at opposite times of the year. Instead, use the most accurate date possible, such as "February 1995" or "early 1995", if a more accurate date cannot be verified."
I don't really know how these things should be worded; I think it looks okay, but I encourage anyone to suggest changes or to write the paragraph for me :) --Qirex 04:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that no one has raised any objections/other suggestions, I'm going to go ahead and add the paragraph in. --Qirex 15:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

length of album?

A lot of times I have trouble finding the length of the song. I usually find each track length and then I add them up. Are there sites that have the album length so I don't have to use my poor math skills? :) I've found emusic has them, but their music collection is not very big. I got two more questions... where do you guys find the producer of the album? i have trouble finding it. also, should demos have infoboxes? Gflores 06:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the album length, if you have spreadsheet software (eg Excel), I'm pretty sure you could just enter all the track times into a column (write =TIME(HH:MM:SS) eg =TIME(0:3:28) - syntax may vary) then make a fomula at the bottom, something like =sum(a1:a12), and format all cells to show as time. Note that the only spreadsheet software I have is a copy of MS Works which is approx 11 years old, but the same or similar thing should work in other speadsheet software. This method is a bit time consuming, but accurate. --Qirex 07:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
All Music sometimes lists the length. They also usually have the producers. Other than that, it's usually in the booklet. --Fritz S. 10:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
All Music is frequently wrong with regards to track listings, track times, album times and labels, especially with older or more obscure releases Slicing 11:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.freedb.org/ is very useful. Flowerparty■ 14:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Lew19 Pop the CD into iTunes, if you own it.

Winamp will also give you the time on CDs or MP3 album playlists.--み使い Mitsukai 18:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

infobox2?

I noticed on some album pages there are covers of the next/previous album in the chronology. example: Blackacidevil. Is it recommended to start doing this from now on? What is the code for it?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/archive_4#Album_infobox_2 Jkelly 18:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
It's certainly not "recommended," as there's no consensus for its use and significant opposition, particularly on "fair use" grounds. Monicasdude 19:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Interesting... so why do some users continue to use them if there's such a debate around them?
Because there was a vote for deletion on the template and it failed. Therefore it's still free to use. I don't know about recommended, but it's fair game. Where it says "infobox" when editing an album box, just add "2" to it. I'd simply follow any of the hundreds of album articles that uses it to create you own if you wish. BGC 21:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not. Changing from albumbox 1 to albumbox 2 is against the project recommendations, and doing it repeatedly borders vandalism. Also according to albumbox 2 deletion vote, 16 users wanted keep it and 20 delete it. I excluded IPs and newly created accounts from count, as it is usually done in Wikipedia votes. This means that you have no grounds pushing albumbox 2 to articles. Hapsiainen 10:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't see where you get the idea that it "borders [on] vandalism". It adds value to the articles that are converted from infobox1 to infobox2 (at least when more is done than simply replacing "1" with "2", e.g. - actually taking the time to include album covers). -Locke Cole 10:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I personally like infobox 2 (but I don't think its deletion is the topic of debate). I am confused though by the conflicting statements as to whether it's okay to use it. It seems common sense to me that if it is against project recommendations, it should be deleted, and that since it's not (and already survived nomination relatively recently), it's okay to use. But where does it say that infobox 2 is against recommendations? There is a distinction to be made between an idea being recommended against and an idea not recommended (ie, just the absense of recommendation). The debate for deletion is here, incase anyone wants to read over it (I wish I could add my vote). --Qirex 11:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
If the template contravenes Fair Use copyright law, then votes on wikipedia have no jurisdiction or validity over it whatsoever. It shouldn't be used. Some wiki users unfounded opinions make no difference. There's no more to be said.--feline1 11:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK Wikipedia is ran by consensus (with exceptions such as where Jimbo weighs in). Right now the consensus seem to think infobox2 is fine. If there were fair-use concerns, surely they should have been brought up when it was proposed for deletion. If they weren't (or were refuted or not convincing enough), then that leaves me with the impression that the consensus supports the template and that it should be used wherever it is practicle. -Locke Cole 11:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia might be run by consensus, but lawsuits against wikipedia would be run according to US Law (if that's where wikipedia is hosted). Believe it or not, US Law was not formulated by a few fanboys and computer nerds having "votes" with about 30 participants. The defence that "but Jimmy, age 17 and a half, High School student from Ohio, said Infobox2 was cool!" is not gonna stand up in court /rollseyes/--feline1 12:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Just like the argument that "Bobby" who has no stated qualifications whatsoever shouldn't be able to come along and arbitrarily say something isn't fair-use. *rolleyes* In the absence of an absolute authority on the subject, consensus is what we've got. I'm sorry you don't quite understand that... -Locke Cole 12:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with my understanding. It is you who can't seem to appreciate the difference between purely internal wikipedia affairs, and those where it has to interface with the outside legal world. This is the latter case, and what we would require is a consensus of external legal opinion, not a consensus of wiki users.--feline1 13:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate it just fine, but I also appreciate that so far nobodies presented a legal argument other than their opinion on the laws right now. In the absense of a legal authority, consensus is all we have. Or are you suggesting we simply avoid fair-use images altogether since clearly we can't get a legal opinion on every case? Why is just this usage of fair-use drawing your ire while all the other images floating around in articles don't seem to bother you? -Locke Cole 15:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
You have the logic of the situation bass ackwards! We KNOW the law exists, we KNOW that copyright subsists in the images we are using - it is therefore, in the eyes of the law, beholden upon WIKIPEDIA to actively seek legal advice as to whether its actions fall within Fair Use! You cannot instead say 'well none of us could make up our minds, and we're none of us legally competant to make a decision in the first place either anyways, so we just thought we'd plough on ahead regardless'. 'Get Real', in fact.--feline1 16:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Look, maybe you don't understand fair-use, but it's often very subjective and each instance of fair-use needs to be handled differently. You can't just say "no fair-use images in a template" because there's simply no legal basis for that assertion (or if there is, it hasn't been asserted to me, and I'd happily read up on something if I was simply given some proof that this isn't just someone spouting off legalese to get things done their way). IMO the onus is on the people trying to stop the usage of this template to prove that it's usage violates fair-use. Otherwise Wikipedia will never get anything done if everything has to be scrutinized legally before being tried.. -Locke Cole 16:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
There's consensus that albumbox 1 is appropriate to use on Wikipedia. The best that can be said about infobox 2 is that there's no consensus that it's appropriate to use, that in discussion more editors have opposed than supported its use, and that its use contravenes several broader guidelines supported by consensus. And Jimbo Wales has weighed in on the more general issue recently, calling on editors to avoid the unnecessary insertion of images claimed as "fair use." Monicasdude 13:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
albumbox 1 is irrelevant. And I disagree about your view on albumbox 2-- the fact that it faced a deletion attempt and survived tells me that the consensus is that it's OK for use as a replacement to albumbox 1. If it were in violation of the guidelines and rules I don't see how it could have survived. Just about the only thing we seem to agree on is that if Jimbo were to weigh in, his word would decide it. But for the moment, I don't believe it's unnecessary, the images are functionally useful as a navigation aid. But that's just my opinion: equal in status to yours and feline1's. -Locke Cole 13:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
"If it were in violation of the guidelines and rules I don't see how it could have survived." - your premise here is entirely false. You are assuming that wikiusers never make mistakes (why would we ever need to edit anything then?!) and that all competant people always vote on every issue put forward (which, if could count the numbers of votes versus the numbers of wikiusers, is clearly nonsense).--feline1 13:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm assuming that the consensus system in place is working, and that a majority of wiki users believe album infobox2 is within Wikipedia's guidelines or else they wouldn't have accepted it. It is you who seem to be trying to buck the system here and impose your own opinion over the opinions of those who reached said consensus. -Locke Cole 15:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
You have to get more than a majority of votes to be allowed to delete a template. For deleting an article the proportion is two-thirds, for becoming an admin the threshold is 75-80 %. I'm not sure what the threshold is for templates, but it can't be anything less. Like I already said, the majority wanted to delete the template, but there wasn't enough of them to have it deleted. The non-fair use rationale is now in the discussion archive 4, I think that the discussion was moved there too early. But here is a link to it. "Never copy more of a copyrighted work than is necessary to make your point understood. The more you borrow, the less likely it will be considered fair use." "Do not quote from a copyrighted work simply to "enliven" your text. Make certain you comment upon the material you borrow or can otherwise justify its use." "Being a non-profit educational institution does not let you off the hook. Even non-commercial users can be sued if the use exceeds the bounds of fair use."-Hapsiainen 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The majority? It was 19 votes to 19. Dead even. BGC 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Only if you count sockpuppets and votes which didn't comply with the voting guidelines on the TfD page. Monicasdude 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Yup. And they're valid. BGC 03:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have posted a lengthy summary of the situation and thoughts on how to move forward at Template talk:Album infobox 2. Jkelly 21:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

question

I just noticed this... The example infobox on this wikiproject page is different than the templated infobox shown. As you can see... it doesn't make a difference in terms of content, but the layout is different. Does it not matter? I think the layout should be consistent all throughout. What do you guys think? Gflores 21:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

{{Album infobox | <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
| Name = 
| Type = 
| Artist = 

{{Album infobox |
  Name        = Dirt |
  Type        = [[Album (music)|Album]] |
  Artist      = [[Alice in Chains]] |
If you feel inspired to move the example's line-breaks over to the left, I can't see any reason why you shouldn't do so. Jkelly 22:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I coincidently just noticed the same thing, and I changed it thinking it was no big deal, esp since I think it is easier to understand for those less familiar. I missed the fact that there was a question here about it; my watchlist just said 'question'. If anyone feels that it is better the other way, with the "|" at the end of each line, feel free to change it back. --Qirex 22:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ziggy example needs to be replaced

That example was added all the way back in 2002, and while it may have been suitable then, standards of quality have changed. (1) It suffers from excessive wikilinking, (2) it mostly reads like a list, (3) the language is flamboyant. I think it should be replaced or simply removed. Smile is the only featured article that is about an album, so we may be able to draw from it. —jiy (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Switching it to something else would be fine with me. Tuf-Kat 04:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me too. --Qirex 04:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

MoS-conflicts in example infobox

In another of those, "why didn't I notice that before?" moments, I realised that in the example infobox, there are links to October, as well as 1990 etc when not part of an entire date thing (ie, not as part of October 15, 1992). In the Manual of Style it states that these kinds of date links should not be used. Anyone mind if I remove the linking? --Qirex 04:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Longform videos

Should longform music videos, such as The Band's The Last Waltz or the Talking Heads' Stop Making Sense, be considered within the scope of WP:ALBUM? I ask because I made some edits recently to Live in Chicago (Jeff Buckley) and thought it would be really useful to have an album-info type infobox, but found that one didn't seem to exist. So, I put it to you: should longform music videos be included in the definition of "albums" and given their own infobox and category, or should they continue to exist in the nebulous unstandardized space between music and film? --keepsleep 05:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

another question

What's the recommended way of adding the time? Should it be xx min xx s or mm:ss? From what I've seen, most are using the former. Does it even matter? Gflores 04:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This wound up being discussed pretty thoroughly a while ago at Template talk:Album infobox. The consensus was to use mm:ss. Many templates have yet to be updated. Jkelly 04:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I see... Maybe this should be emphasized more somehow, b/c just looking at a few of the infoboxes recently created or converted, most are xx min xx s. If we're going to be updating all to mm:ss, then we probably shouldn't be creating them incorrectly, don't you agree? Gflores 04:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Recent creations should be following the instructions at the project page (or the template page, for that matter). You might want to direct anybody you have noticed creating new ones with the deprecated system to the conversation at Template talk:Album infobox Jkelly 04:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed change to Chronology section

Parts proposed to be removed are striked out, and the sentence proposed to be added is in green:

The chronology section should link to the previous album on the left and the next album on the right. (Only studio albums, usually excluding lives, compilations, singles and EPs.)

  • For first albums the left box (the "Last album=" field) should be left blank, or with a " n/a " or with a " [ ".
  • For latest albums, the right box (the "Next album=" field) should be left blank, or with a " . . . ".
  • For final albums, the right box (the "Next album=" field) should be left blank, or with a " ] ".

As per Wikipedia's date style guidelines, do not link to years within the chronology section.

Rationale:

  • It is not intuitively obvious that "[" and "]" indicate the final or first album. In fact, it might look as if the editor accidentally messed up their wikicode (as in forgetting the second bracket in a wikilink). Additionally, this convention doesn't have widespread usage, with a blank being preferred.
  • "N/A" stands for either "not applicable" or "not available", neither of which I think is appropriate to indicate to "the band didn't have an album before this one". I think using a blank is a better convention.
  • From the MoS, "simple years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there's a strong reason for doing so." There is no strong reason to link to years within the chronology section.

—jiy (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

All of this is what I've been doing anyway, for the same reasons, so I support this proposal. Oh, but one thing, why do you suggest the use of "..." for latest albums? --Qirex 01:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Qirex. It's a good change. Jkelly 02:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree for the most part. However, I'm not sure that we should be excluding EPs and Live albums. What do others think? --Gflores 02:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
To clarify, the ". . ." and "Only studio albums..." parts are on the page as it stands now. I only propose the specific changes which I have now marked in strikeout and green. I chose not to remove ". . ." because it didn't seem to harm anything, but personally I prefer a blank. —jiy (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Cheers for the clarification. I would also prefer a blank to "..." and if no-one objects, I suggest we remove it since we're making changes. --Qirex 04:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
To respond to Gflores' question, I think we should definately include EPs, and lives (although I feel less strongly about lives), probably not compilations. However, probably, the more simple the rule, the better. --Qirex 04:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed with simplifying the chronology by including EPs, lives, etc, like Gflores suggested. I'd also like to see one or two examples of chronology templates that use blanks rather than any type of specific notation for first/last. I'm not particularly familiar with mere blanks being used that way, though frankly I'm more familiar with things like political officeholder timelines. Liontamer 18:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the wording of the sentence; the "do not" wording seems too strong for a set of guidelines. Remember the Wikiproject is a suggested guide, and the MOS itself states that "Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules." I've changed the wording a bit and substituted the term, "recommends" instead. --Madchester 04:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

With regard to Live, Comp and EPs - I would suggest that live albums and compilations should definitely be included in the chronology. What's the point of omitting them? People don't automatically discount these as non-albums, even when they contain little or no new material. There is often something of interest with such releases to make writing an article worthwhile. Their shape, size, length, sleeve art and reviews make them just like any other album. They're almost always included within the discography sections of album articles, amongst the normal album releases, not segregated. I totally don't get why they should be omitted.
As for EPs, well it's a judgement call - they are classed as (or grouped with) 12" singles in some cases, and classed as mini-albums and grouped with albums in others. The problem is, some EPs may have 6 or 8 tracks whereas some have 2 or 3 and are still called EPs... If something's called an EP, regardless of content, it is an EP. Before finding this wikiproject, I thought the standard was to have two seperate chronologies, one for albums and one for EPs, and personally I think this is the way to go - albums (of any type) in one timeline and if people want chronology links on EPs or singles then they use a seperate timeline. Perhaps with "Album Chronology" and "Non-album Chronology" headers or somesuch. Gram 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with Gram's chronology suggestions. Plus EP's, compilations and live albums also have chronology boxes. If the box previous releases point to studio albums, then someone clicks on the studio album and no longer has acces to EP's... surfing the chronology box. I hope you get the picture. Post suggestions on my talk page (if you have any). User:Death2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.137.186 (talk • contribs) + forgot to log in just adding my comment that I said this. Please post comments on (talk).
Agree to keep Lives and EPs and (sigh) Comps (forced expiration due to thinking of bands with more comps than actual studio albums especialy after they break up); they are part of the "life" of the artist or band. --Fantailfan 11:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Mixtapes

For purposes of this encyclopedia, do mixtapes count as albums? For the uninitiated, mixtapes are unofficial underground releases, usually featuring hip hop music, R&B, reggae, etc, which are hand-made and distributed through the underground scene without the use of a major label (see http://www.hiphopspot.com/index.php for a mixtape retail site). Most mixtapes are used to promote material that is either available on actual studio releases or will be at some future date. I nominated Fuck Death Row, a Snoop Dogg mixtape and/or bootleg, on AfD becasue I only get two or three relevant Google hits. --FuriousFreddy 05:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • They might have a place on the article about the band/group but I don't think, as a general rule, they deserve a separate article. RedWolf 06:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is any black and white answer; as far as I know it comes down to notablility. For example, there is an article about The Beatles bootlegs, because the topic is notable, but the only bootlegs that have articles are those which were later officially released, and these pages are shared with the respective official release. Presumably, those that weren't officially released aren't considered notable enough. --Qirex 07:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm going to nominate a series of Snoop Dogg mixtapes for deletion, and see what happens. --FuriousFreddy 13:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Non-standard infoboxes

I noticed User:Noboyo has been changing some articles' album infoboxes to a non-standard type that has additional fields (executive producers, album certification, chart position) and also changed the infobox color to a color that matches the album cover. The articles in question are the following:

I think something similar was done to the Madonna albums a while back. Teklund 09:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • A lot of those albums hadn't had infoboxes to begin with, so I gave them all templated ones and left a message about WP:ALBUM on the user's talk page. --User:Keepsleeping 16:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Current collaborations

Is this WikiProject ever going to complete its collaboration on The Beatles Revolver? --Hollow Wilerding 14:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point. It's been the current collaboration for over a year now.—jiy (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dubious Professional Reviews

The regard the guidelines tell us we should all have for professional reviews does not take into account:

1. The appalling standard of album reviews often found in all leading organs of the music and national press. This has frequently happened because:

a) These organs allow hugely unqualified individuals to write them with little or no expertise, musical, literary or otherwise.

b) Many reviewers didn't like the artist they reviewed nor their work.

c) Some reviewers produced their views under the influence of hallucenagenic drugs.

2. As a consequence of "1." above, thousands of professional reviews since the origin of rock/pop music are of no use whatsoever to readers of Wikipedia and further, will actually be harmful; yet we as writers are supposed to use them.

I feel strongly that many Wik writers/editors will be better placed to write informed opinions and analyses of rock and pop artists and their albums than many of these "so-called" professionals and should be encouraged to avoid leaning heavily upon their work.

(though as a writer not currently working for the national press, 'I would say that, wouldn't I?' - however, this does not invalidate the points made above.

Thoss 00:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

While I may not disagree with the sentiment, please see Wikipedia:No original research, which is pretty much non-negotiable. Jkelly 01:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the O.R rule excludes this anyway, but one other issue to bear in mind is that when fans etc write reviews, it is invariably baised, and the album seems to always recieves either the lowest score available or the highest. Just look at the misleading and often ridiculous reviews at sites such as rateyourmusic.com --Qirex 02:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
This is why we should try to link to many reviews from each album's article. People can read the reviews for themselves and decide what they accept and what they ignore. Rhobite 02:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Album stub template

The image in this template used to be a black vinyl looking thing, and a little while ago it was changed to a CD with a little musical note, and now it has been reverted back. There has been next-to-no discussion on this. If anyone is interested, please go to Template talk:Album-stub and add your thoughts. --Qirex 02:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

A perennial debate is afoot at the Village Pump (Policy and Technical versions) about whether or not to eliminate images from stub templates. From the perspective of this particular template, do you believe that the image associated with it is dispensible; in other words, do you believe that eliminating the image would negatively impact the message of or delivery of that message by the stub template? Thanks for your opionions. Courtland 13:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed this a while ago. It's probably too late now, but my opinion on the inclusion of images in stubs is that none of them are, strictly speaking, necessary, but generally they look pretty. So, perhaps better to eliminate, if this is required for technical reasons. But, if this is done, I do think that it should be uniform among all stubs. --Qirex 13:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Tribute album background color?

I've noticed a few cases where the background color of a tribute album has been changed in various articles, presumably due to someone uniformed of the Albums project not liking the color. Personally, I don't like the admittedly effeminate purple color, which I believe is the reason I've seen people change it. If consensus is there, could we change it from plum to something a bit more decent (List of colors), for example lemon (#FDE910), saffron (#F4C430) or vermillion (#FF4D00)? Those seem to be different enough from the other album-type colors. Liontamer 18:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've looked again at the colors I suggested/tested, but they seem a bit too bright. Tan (#D2B48C) seems to work very well as a subdued color, doesn't closely look like any of the other color categories, and can be simply inputed as "tan" in the color area of the template (rather than hex code). Liontamer 19:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
EPs salmon
Original studio albums orange
Live albums and live EPs darkturquoise
Greatest hits, box sets and other compilations darkseagreen
Cover and tribute albums tan
Soundtracks gainsboro
Television theme songs chocolate

Opinions? Liontamer 16:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind purple. I'm not sure about tan, as I think I'd prefer to use a more "colourful" colour. How about pear or lime or corn? What are other people's thoughts? --Qirex 03:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think corn might be nice, but I don't have any strong feelings about any of them, including the current purple. Perhaps the purple is problematic; it seems to be rendering as lavender for Liontamer... Jkelly 04:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It my opinion, the feathers are kind of out of the pillow on this issue, and it will be very time-consuming to go back and change so many albums colors just because one color appears "effeminate." This especially seems unnecessarily fastidious considering that there are sooooo many album articles that don't even meet basic requirements - or have an infoboxes at all. There's no evidence that the colors are getting changed because they are effeminate anyway. All that time and effort could go into changing them, and some infobox colors will (likely) get changed again occasionally, since the real problem is that some users haven't noticed that they are color-coded.--Esprit15d 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "fair use" image

I just removed the album cover in our example template set-up. I would really, really like it if someone knew of an album cover that is licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain, because I think that the "Nocover.gif" doesn't do justice to the template. Unfortunately, though, Wikipedia:Fair use policy disallows it. Any ideas? Jkelly 03:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have two possible ideas, but I don't know if either is any good. Someone could make a mock-up album cover with the name of a non-existant band. It wouldn't be hard, and I could do it if you want, but not for a few weeks until my good computer with photoshop etc returns from being borrowed. The other possibility is just using some image from wikimedia commons, but it probably won't look much like an album cover. Still, would be probably be better than nocover.gif. --Qirex 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I have a couple of friends who are in the business of making album covers, but none of the bands involved would pass WP:MUSIC. If someone would like to be bold and put in a Commons image temporarily, I'd encourage them in it. 04:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's an appropriately licensed mockup; even though it uses a real artist's name, I think it's so self-evidently a spoof that there'd be no problem (except with my sense of humor) [[17]] Of course, if you like it and want to use it, you'll have to change the text in the sample infobox . . . Monicasdude 04:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we can recruit User:Fastfission to draw a mockup similiar to his fabulous Image:Fair use icon - Movie poster.png, Image:Fair use icon - Book.png, etc. —jiy (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

New template for soundtrack albums

I created a new template, Template:Album infobox soundtrack, and have outlined the whys and hows on the talk page, along with a question about how it should be. Please comment if you have a problem with it / don't like it / do like it / think it should be deleted / have suggestions / etc. --Qirex 12:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Chronology issues and others

What's the protocol for dealing with legitimately issued albums that don't sequence naturally, often because they show up from artists' original labels after their contracts have expired and they've signed elsewhere. Right now, for example, the Van Morrison chronology and discography omit the 1974 LP "TB Sheets," which included a significant amount of new material. The Grateful Dead discography and chronology miss "Vintage Dead," which was released in 1970 but predates the band's first studio album. There are lots of other examples out there. The chronology section doesn't address whether albums should be listed in release order or recording order; the practice seems to be release order. For artists in the pop/rock mainstream, there usually isn't much difference, but if/when the project turns some serious attention to major jazz musicians, there'll be a lot more variance.
And while I'm here, I'm noticing that there's not a lot of consistency in albumboxes as to whether albums initially issued on LP (but not CD) should be termed "albums" or "LPs". I would think the more format-specific tag would be a better choice; it's a bit more informational, and, as more historical articles are written about earlier musical releases, more specific format information will quite often be appropriate. Monicasdude 03:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree about the LP/Album issue. I think the generic "Album" term should be used instead of the specific format of the release. New albums are often released in different formats simulaneously — should we then clutter the infobox with something like "LP/CD/DVD-A"? Old Beatles albums may have been released as LPs originally, but does that mean we simply ignore their subsequent reissues on CD? The generic "Album" avoids any of these slight POV issues of favoring one format over another in the infobox. It is informative to note that an album was originally released on LP, but that can be done in the article body. —jiy (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm just way uneducated about that era of music, but I never really equated 'LP' with 'vinyl'; I just thought of 'LP' as 'long play', synoymous with 'album'. So, I guess it makes little difference to me which term is used, except for issues of consistency etc. With regards to the first point, I think that whatever system is logical for each artist should be used. Mostly, the release date should be used. But where it's appropriate, such as in the above examples presented, the recording date should be used. I don't see a great need for rigid, unworkable rules. --Qirex 10:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

List of notable albums

Think that all of the really important albums have already been covered? You might be surprised what is missing. I compiled a List of notable albums (critically acclaimed or top selling) as part of the Missing encyclopedic articles wikiproject. The goal is to create blue links for the each of the albums and the artists. Thanks!--Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Neat WikiProject there! Was hoping if the article can be alphabetically split for easier editing. --Andylkl (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Nice work. After a quick scan, a lot of the redlinks can be turned into redirects, as they are just alternate capitalization of articles that we do have. A number of others are Greatest Hits albums, about which there is often little to say, although those can also become redirects if it seems at all likely that someone will search on them. There may be "false positives" as well, since the article that an alum title on the list is linking to is not necessarily going to be an article about that album. Jkelly 18:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I will try to implement your suggestions to make it a little easier to work with, though any help you can provide pruning the list of valid blues (there is coverage of the album in wikipedia) would be great! You are right about the false positives too, 1999 goes to the year not the album. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I broke the list into 6 separate pages with about 500 per page. I hope that makes it easier. I would break it down further, but I prefer larger lists on a fewer amount of pages, though I will change if other people who decide to work on the list prefer it the other way. About greatest hits...I disagree about not having enough to say, much of the same information is still useful. Who compiled it, what years of compilation, new songs if any and reviews exist for most if not all compilations. There are many critically acclaimed and best selling compilations like Greatest Hits (Billy Joel albums), The Great Twenty-Eight and Legend (album) --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Should we be removing all the albums that are complete (after checking that the link actually points to the album and not something else)? I also fixed a few available albums which were red links b/c of some alternate spelling (the -> The). Gflores
Yes please remove them from the list. If you are interested you can also create a redirect for the redlink. While there are some bad reformats on my part, "Dave (Band) Matthews" that no one would type, someone out there thinks that the albums is named/spelled a particular way. But you don't have to do so if you aren't interested. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You may want to check the progress that this project has made. Most of the lists have been pruned and false positives identified. A great deal of the work has been done by Gflores, so props to him. While there is still work to be done much of the work has been categorized: article creation, need infoboxes or and be disambiguated. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Several inappropriate Coldplay article reverts

This is a copy of the message left on Madchester's Talk page by me, on account of (IMHO) improper reverts of my edits that only preserve outdated Album/Song project style guidelines and superfluous internal linking. While my language was strong, this is not meant as any type of smear or harrassment, but rather to bring to attention to instances where reverts to proper edits are being done to the detriment of the project. The opinions of anyone very familiar with the MoS guidelines on internal linking as well as the subtlely changing style guidelines of WP:Albums would be appreciated. - Liontamer 20:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I just saw you (Madchester) rollback all of the Manual of Style and WP:Album style fixes I did for Coldplay's singles, EPs and albums, thanks to the Song infobox template not being updated both properly and in conjuction with the edits to the Album infobox. It seems obvious to me that you selectively endorse the revisions to the Manual of Style or the WP:Albums style guide (e.g. bolding article titles in artists' chronologies), as your reverts (intentionally misrepresented in your edit summaries as "copyedits") to various article edits go against the current WikiProject Albums style and the MoS guidelines in terms of undoing En dashes, mm:ss album lengths, and proper track listing style, as well as propogating piping years to "XXXX in music", low added-value links to years and dates as well as duplicate Wikilinks in articles and templates for years, dates, bandnames, release titles, etc.. I'm being BOLD and editing the Song infobox template soon to be more like the Album infobox, as it should be. You should be reasonable enough to understand that the WP:Album standard is meant to be consistantly applied to WP:Songs, regardless of whether anyone has actually updated the Songs infobox template in due course. It's improper that you feel it necessary to revert completely legitimate edits (generally without properly stating the reasons for revert no less) because you feel territorial about various Coldplay articles, which is against guidelines when people are making edits that are both in good faith, and legitimate alongside the style guides. While I don't take it personally, don't intend on getting into an edit war and I'm sure you can rebutt for yourself, I will be stating these issues in the Songs & Albums projects Talk pages in order to clarify that your reverts are misguided and impeding these projects. Please adapt to currently-in-use style guidelines for WP:Albums like most other users have in order for these projects to continue moving forward. - Liontamer 19:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Once again, please note that WP:ALBUMS, "is only a guide and you should feel free to personalize an article as you see fit." Likewise, the Manual of Style indicates that ""Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity."
The great thing about Wikipedia is that its guidelines give users the range and flexibility to improve articles as they see fit. If you look around at song articles like "Lyla" or "Paranoid Android" or album articles like Don't Believe the Truth, Think Tank, they're great examples of articles that use the existing guidelines as the base template, but expanding on it in ways that editors see to be useful.
Remember according to the MoS, "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." --Madchester 21:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest that another great thing about Wikipedia is editing in collaboration. WikiProjects exist in part as guidelines for what consensus is without every editor having to weigh in on every individual article. WP:ALBUM represents what consensus is about some elements of articles about albums. The same applies to the WP:MOS. If a number of editors hold that some WP guideline is restricting the improvement of an article, that is a reasonable time to invoke "It's only a guideline". If, as it appears here, two editors are disagreeing over style, the person who is editing against the MoS and the relevant WikiProject is not boldly applying WP:IAR so much as they are individually editing against consensus. If you disagree with a guideline, argue for changing it and gain consensus, as people do all the time. Don't simply ignore it, as this predictably leads to disputes. Jkelly 21:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if WP:IAR should be referenced in this situation. The articles I pointed out ("Lyla", "Paranoid Android" , etc.) have never been edited on my part. That format style is being used by numerous editors other than myself. The editors of those articles used the existing project guidelines as the cake batter, but they then added their own "fillings, ingredients, and personal touches" to suit that individual article. And they baked some good cakes, I may add. I still curious to know why I've been singled out when I'm just following stylistic formats used in consensus by many editors. :-) --Madchester 16:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
No one else is discussing or implying the editing of an article's context, merely formatting/presentation to suit current WP:Album/MoS style. These are not "fillings, ingredients, and personal touches" I have been editing. I haven't been changing any text or information on these albums. I don't see why anyone would revert (hypothetical) changes like not internal linking Chris Martin three different times in one article, or the year 2005 five different times. That's like if you reverted edits I made for Infobox conversions, with you stating that I shouldn't touch them because those were made under old guidelines and the articles themselves are well-written.
I can't specifically speak for Jkelly, but I believe he's correct when he assesses that you're simply editing/reverting to individual preference rather than any consensus-based reasoning, which is basically trolling the articles you created IMHO. I think most people looking into my recent Coldplay contributions and seeing the nature of my edits would support them as not overstepping any bounds. I just think you're too cavalier in dismissing the adoption of current style guidelines, which you are not using. Editing for project style/Wiki guidelines shouldn't be taboo to you. - Liontamer 18:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem with "consensus" is that it tends to reflect the attitudes of the editors working on the project that particular day or week. For example, when ths star images for reviews were introduced around May? or June?, editors working back then agreed on its inclusion. I was among one of them. Now a few months later, a different group of editors is discussing that it's unsuitable and should be removed ASAP. Yet, if they invited the original proponents of the plan back into the talk, I'm sure most of them would be against that decision.
Unless you can survey the opinions of all regular contributors to the project, "consensus" won't necessarily reflect common opinion, just the editors who happened to be browsing the Talk page that particular day. --Madchester 04:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Following the conventions of the Manual of Style, which is a much broader and more regulated/discussed area of Wikipedia, is more than adequate consensus. I disagree with your citation of the removal of star images as if it's a "short-term" consensus, as no consensus on removing them was ever reached or even implied by others in the debate. The point being addressed the most readily after the initial voices for removal is actually how to make the star ratings even more visible. - Liontamer 14:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Liontamer. The Album WikiProject specifically states not to link years in the chronology section in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Linking the years is simply superfluous. As you said, these are only 'guides'. However, regardless of the fact that other editors choose to follow a different course, the instructions on the project page should be followed unless there is a strong reason not to. --Gflores Talk 00:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Liontamer, Gflores, et al. My experience, though, has been that Madchester is prepared to argue his case until he's losing the argument, when he stops taking part and carries on reverting, often with no edit summaries or other explanation (see, for example, User talk:Madchester#Shiver (Coldplay single and [18]).
His argument here seems to be that, when editors get together to discuss an issue and reach consensus, so long as enough individual editors act against that consensus they've de facto created their own consensus, which overrules the first. That's not only poor reasoning, it's against what Wikipedia means by "consensus". He would, of course, be among the first to squeal if he found the same reasoning applied against his personal preferences. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Ditto here. The style is quite clear in this regard, and no good reason is given for why it is being ignored. Fagstein 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Extended Copy Protection Info

I have added a section on Extended Copy Protection to albums identified by the EFF as containing the controversial feature. Given that this has been a hotly debated subject in the news and has spawned class action lawsuits against the record companies, it seemed eminently relevant to the albums singled out in particular. Here is the text I've pasted:

In November 2005, it was revealed that Sony was distributing albums with Extended Copy Protection, a controversial feature that automatically installed rootkit software on any Microsoft Windows machine upon insertion of the disc. In addition to preventing the CDs contents from being copied, it was also revealed that the software reported the users' listening habits back to Sony and also exposed the computer to malicious attacks that exploited insecure features of the rootkit software. Though Sony refused to release a list of the affected CDs, the Electronic Frontier Foundation identified ALBUM NAME as one of the discs with the invasive software.

I added this along with a link to the eff article.

Are You Affected By Sony-BMG's Rootkit? (November 9, 2005) from Electronic Frontier Foundation

Does this seem excessively long, pov, or irrelevant in someway to the album articles? My edit to Shine (Trey Anastasio album) was reverted as "completely unnecessary info", but my request for clarification on the album's talk page has gone unanswered as of yet. I thought it might be a good topic to put up to the WikiProject, to see if this information was relevant, or if there was a more appropriate way to note this info. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Busy here today. I'd suggest that it is neither POV nor irrelevant, but that, yes, it is a little long. Since there exists an article on this, um, "feature", I'd further suggest that a single-line summary, such as "ALBUM NAME was identified as being distributed with Sony's invasive Extended Copy Protection software{{ref|EFF}}, which installs itself on computers playing the compact disc." in the article's "Production history" section. The specific article in question is not very long, and I can imagine that User:Adam22z objected to half the article being taken up with this discussion. I write the above assuming that there is no substantial question about the EFF report. Jkelly 22:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I also think this is notable and not POV. However it is a little long and the sentence JKelly suggested propably is better (one might even consider using a template for this, similar to Template:copycontrol).
Also, November 2005 should not be linked according to Wiki's date formatting guidelines. --Fritz S. (Talk) 22:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on category conventions

If Category:Fooband albums and Category:Fooband singles exist (as per current guidelines), should they be parented by Category: Fooband or not? Please add to discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Any_consensus_on_categories?. --pfctdayelise 02:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Bootleg Albums?

What is wikipedia's policy on bootlegs having articles? Several already due such as A Skateboard Party. Bootlegs have existed for a while but soon after cd burners and printers were common many cd-r bootlegs came out which are certainly not noteworthy at all. However many original and unique pressed bootlegs have been released years ago. Most bootlegs usually have clones aswell. Blue Moon Records and a few other companies were big producers of such bootlegs until they got raided. Added them all would be horrid for band articles and the more articles needed for the bootlegs? Perhaps 1 page per band with all the more common bootlegs? Or just only allow their mention if necessary.

As a general rule of thumb, only mention a bootleg if the group itself put it out. And even then, don't give it an article unless it's a very very important recording of theirs. --FuriousFreddy 02:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
A bootleg released by a group sounds like an oxymoron... I'd choose notable performances for inclusion. I'd vote for Keep, if it was ever VFDed. --Madchester 06:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Some acts release unofficial albums that they don't want to release through the record company (I think Prince has done this, for example). --FuriousFreddy 01:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Graduation from stub-status

A constant debate within the stub sorting community focuses on the criteria for deciding when an article is not a stub any longer and the stub template can be removed. At present there are a couple of guidelines for this among them being article length and degree to which the article covers the topic area; however, the guidelines are sufficiently fuzzy (which is ok) that a wide range of interpretations emerges, sometimes resulting in elevated blood pressures.

I believe that topical WikiProjects have a role in the decision making process as to when an article in their topic area should be considered a stub article or not.

I suggest that this WikiProject address the stub criteria matter in the context of {{album-stub}} and any childdren of this stub type that might emerge (see WP:WSS/ST#Music for a listing of stub types in the music topic area). I would suggest the following checklist as a guide to stub sorters and editors in general; if all items are able to be checked off as "present", the article should no longer be considered a stub article. The main purpose of this guideline would be to help regain the purpose of the stub template as a call for editorial action, allowing editors to re-focus on those articles that do not meet the minimum guideline-suggest content for this article type; the Category:Album stubs contains about 3000 articles (15 pages) at present.

(Draft) Checklist of album-article contents for guidance as to whether an article should be labeled a stub or not

Thank you for considering this. I do not anticipate that implementation of these guidelines would lead to a dramatic reduction in the number of stubbed articles overnight, but I think there are definite advantages in coupling the aims of a topical WikiProject and the efforts of the stub sorting community.

Regards, Courtland 14:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Application of the guideline

Taking a look at Power in Numbers, the version shown looks like it would no longer be a stub; however, it has not been categorized according to genre, though the genre is present in the infobox. I have added the category (see version) but left the stub template present pending outcome of this discussion. Courtland 14:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • ... and here's where the guideline stumbles: the artist is already categorized by genre; therefore, genre-based categorization of the album is superfluous until such time as the artist turns to another genre. The superfluous category has been removed. Courtland 14:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Fourty Twenty almost-random stubs

Taking a look at fourty stubbed articles, here is the breakdown based on the proposed recommendation mentioned above, it looks like that a) the % of mis-classified articles is low and b) about 50% of the stubbed articles can graduate with only a little bit of work. Courtland 18:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC) updated Courtland 01:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

pass stub-graduation test (4 → 10%)

pass test except for ... (13 → 32.5%)

needs additional categorization
needs genre
needs genre and additional categorization

fail stub-graduation test (remainder → 57.5%): A Hard Road, A Life Less Plagued, A Little More Personal (Raw), A Little Soul in Your Heart, A Lot About Livin' (And a Little 'Bout Love), A Lot of Little Lies For the Sake of One Big Truth, A Lump of Coal, Fables & Dreams, First (album) (needs translation), From Wishes to Eternity, Girls' Night Out, Heart Food, I Phantom, Infame, Jester Race, Legs XI, Live Heroes, Lost & Found, Maldita Vecindad y los Hijos del Quinto Patio, Metallic K.O., Mothball Mint, Neat, Neat, Neat, No World Order

The number of wrongly stubbed album articles is pretty low because I went through all albums stubs (in April, I think) ago and removed the stub notices along some personal guidelines that pretty much match the ones you propose above. Noone seems to have objected then, even though one user did ask about it later. You can see this exchange (with more of my reasoning) on my talk page and in Grenavitar's archive. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought that maybe one or more people had done this, not only for this WikiProject but also for most of the other relatively active ones. Thanks for confirming my suspicion. My question then moves to one of whether there should be a communication between the general stub sorting community and this (as an example) WikiProject that refers non-WikiProject members to the specific "guidelines for graduation"? I've already received some mild push-back over this as being potentially unworkable due to the large number of stub types, but I think it is likely workable for some of the larger stub categories which have quite active associated WikiProjects. Thoughts? I could set down a few words that might appear on the WikiProject page and some more that might appear somewhere in the Stub Sorting realm if you think this would be a useful notion to pursue further. Courtland 01:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Images of stars in albumboxes

I think that we shouldn't use them. You have screw up your eyes to see whether the star is half yellow or completely white. (I have 1600x1200 screen.) The situation would improve, if there would be more contrast between white and another colour, but that isn't my only worry. The blind users and Lynx users can't see the stars, instead the get some mysterious text like Image:4hv out of 5.png. People practically never bother to write the alternative text to star images. And you understand more quickly how many stars an album got, when you see it as a number than when you start to count stars and half stars from an image. So let's remove the star images from the example albumboxes. -Hapsiainen 14:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The stars are also problematic since not all reviews have a 5-point rating system. Teklund 18:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Am I the only one that likes the stars? Personally, I've had little trouble distinguishing b/w a 4 and 4hv rating. I think main reason it's used is because All Music Guide employs a five star rating system (with a similar image). I think ultimately it will have to be removed though just for consistency. Gflores Talk 19:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I have been adding the alternate text to all the images as I edit the articles containing them (I concentrate on the artists I listen to though). I do agree that it can be hard to distinguish the ½ star. Perhaps a blue star would make it more legible? RedWolf 22:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the inclusion of ratings on albums really something encyclopedic? It is something quite subjective that might best be left to other sites to deal with perhaps. I would not want to see emerging discussions centering around whether an album should have one star or five battled out between fans of rival bands, nor would I want to see battles over whether one authority or another's star rating of an album should be considered authoritative and encyclopedic. Those matters just do not seem to be something that would contribute anything but frustration to readers and editors alike. Courtland 00:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It's for precisely the above reason that WP:ALBUM has clear guidelines that only professional reviews are to be used. As for the image issue, is there a way to encode the alt-text into the image itself? Jkelly 00:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, thank you. For reference by casual passersby (I'll self-class myself as one), the section on this appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Professional reviews. Courtland 01:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

We should really change that color to something stronger. --FuriousFreddy 01:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps we should contact the creator of the current star images? Gflores Talk 06:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I enjoy the stars! I always thought they were a great addition to the infobox when they were implemented in the spring or summer. Please don't remove them. --Madchester 04:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Now Slicing added the alt text to the recommended albumbox. The text "X out of 5 stars" is understandable. I forgot than I can hover the cursor over the stars, if I am uncertain of their number. I think I can tolerate the situation. But we still need star images with more contrast.
I forgot one point when I wrote about the stars: the screen space. The stars image takes more space than the (X/5) text. Is it too much inside an albumbox? You have the magazine name and possibly the date and the page in the same entry, so the star image more likely divides the entry in two lines. –Hapsiainen 18:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've created Template:Stars to automate the addition of the alt-text. Sample usage:

etc. Enjoy. - Lee (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Member Template

I created a template for wikiproject members to add to their user page. Template is here. Simply insert {{AlbumWikiProject-Member}}. Gflores Talk 08:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. For example the article Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band looks close to A-class to me. Are there any featured articles on albums? Can you suggest some A or decent B-class articles we might use? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 05:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Links in infobox chronology sections

As I've been cleaning up articles and conforming infobox to guidelines, I've been removing wikilinks from years in the chronology sections of infoboxes, in accordance with MOS guidelines. When they turn up in the same sections, I've also been removing wikilinks from the "US" and "UK" notations, when release histories vary across markets, assuming that the same principle would apply. I've noticed other editors doing the same thing, sometimes in other sections of infoboxes as well. But I can't turn up a precise style guideline on this point. Any comments (particularly on whether such links should be removed from other sections of the infobox, as when US and UK editions have different release dates)? Monicasdude 17:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to linking years, the links should be removed (as you do) in according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_formatting. As for US and UK, these usually should not appear in the infobox anyway (linked or unlinked), as infoboxes generally should only include the original release date in the infobox (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Details). --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
You're right, of course, about the original release point, but sometimes you get different editions released in different markets at the same time, or releases on different labels, as here [19]. And variations across markets in release history, as here [20]. I think the same principle about not wikilinking years in the chronology calls for not wikilinking the occasional US/UK notation, but would it apply in the main section of the box as well? Monicasdude 17:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Unified naming for cover art files

I just thought that having a standard convention for naming cover art files for albums would be a REALLY good idea, since it would allow people to find the cover art files without first finding the specific album name. Maybe we could use a bot or something to correct the current files also? Thanks, Alex 10:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Track lists for 'various artists' albums

This has probably been answered before, but I couldn't find it. Is there a standard for which comes first in album track lists, song title or artist? I've seen some people completely rotating tracklists from Song - Artist to Artist - Song. Obviously the Artists are much more likely to be linked than the songs - does this matter? Gram 11:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"'Song' - Artist (Songwriter1/Songwriter2)" is standard. --FuriousFreddy 18:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Convention for disambiguation albums

I've seen two styles for disambiguating similar named albums, could someone tell me which is the preferred style or come up with a straw poll to see which one is used.

Artist disambiguates title

Year disambiguates title

I personally prefer Artist disambiguation because the year can be ambiguous and a person may not know the year of release.

Thanks for clarifying. My apologies if this has already been dealt with elsewhere, I scanned though the voluminous talk pages and was not able to find anything. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a (sort of vague) style policy at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Album_titles_and_band_names: "Unless multiple albums of the same name exist (such as Down to Earth), they do not need to be disambiguated any further. For example, Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) is fine, but Insomniac (Green Day album) is unnecessary." I think the practice of using years to disambiguate probably originated with users who are less familiar with the naming conventions with albums but already had familiarity with the naming conventions of films, as these use years to disambiguate article titles. --Qirex 09:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for replying Qirex. There is another naming policy on the project page:
"For multiple albums with the same title, either use the artist name or the year of release to distinguish the different albums, i.e. Down to Earth (Rainbow album) & Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album), or Everything Must Go (1996 album) & Everything Must Go (2003 album)."
In the articles I've seen, there seems to be more artist disambiguation rather than year disambiguation. I strongly believe that we should use one type of disambiguation, not both, unless with odd exceptions where the same artist release two separate albums with the same name (Weezer). I would greatly appreciate any other insight from other project members. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree on using artist disambiguation for the aforementioned reasons. Gflores Talk 20:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Funny that i am now reading this talk page with exactly the same question on my mind. Support disambiguation by artist. Siebren 10:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been about 4 days since I posted my original comment and it looks like that there will not be any other comments from other persons involved with the project. I will change the language so that the only convention is the artist disambiguation. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing cover pictures

I suggest that a separate template is created for adding "no cover available"-image (currently Image:Nocover.gif) to album info boxes. Mainly for two reason:

  1. The articles could then be automaticly placed to a "cover missing"-category
  2. It makes changing the image easy (one place instead of many)

--Easyas12c 16:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You can go to the image's page and scroll down and there's a list of all the pages which are displaying that image. Of course, there are many pages which simply do not display anything, but it would be just as easy to add in nocover.gif as it is to add a category tag. I'm not quite sure I've answered your question though as I do not understand what you mean by creating "a seperate template [..] for adding "nocover available"-image ..." --Qirex 09:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
What we could do is replace the call to the cover parameter with
{{Switch|{{{Cover|}}}
        |case:=Nocover.gif
        |default={{{Cover}}}}}
That would cause Nocover.gif to be used if the cover parameter is left blank or undefined. - Lee (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh is this what Easyas12c meant? It's a very good idea, and I heartily support changing the album infobox to include this, and also Template:Album infobox 2. --Qirex 12:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if that's what he meant, either, but if we encourage people to just leave the parameter blank instead of directly specifying Nocover.gif, then it would make changing the image easier, should the need arise. - Lee (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't we just use
{{{Cover|Nocover.gif}}}
to achieve the same result? —Slicing (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
That would only work if the parameter is left undefined (i.e. removed completely). The code I posted works also for the case where the parameter is simply left blank. Given the current climate, though, it's probably not a good idea. - Lee (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Album

As you might have noticed, this template was recently protected, because it appeared in a list of high-risk templates at WP:HRT. As of 5 November, the template is used on 6559 pages. Although being used exclusively on talk pages makes it less expensive than some other templates, I would encourage you to reduce the frequency of edits to the page by linking to the to-do list rather than including it in the template. --bainer (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Prepared to change "current collaboration" standing

I'm afraid to say that The Beatles and their number-one album for Revolver has spent enough time yielding the "current collaboration" standing. More than one year is plenty, and seeing how it has been even longer than that, a change is required. A fresh album article with little work completed is in desperate need of enhancing. Okay, perhaps not desperate. Does this proposal sound fair? I do believe so. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Issue with inactivity of the featured album project

I have noticed that Revolver (The Beatles, 1966 release) has been the featured album project for quite some time now. This would please me if the article had been enhancing — however, this does not appear to be the case. Judging by the number of edits that have been made in the history, it seems as though a collaboration on the article had never really commenced. The current five-hundredth edit was edited on the date of August 22, 2002; had a collaboration been occurring, I am almost certain that the five-hundredth edit would not have taken place three and a half years ago. My proposal is simple: change the standards of the featured album project. The inactivity taking place in the article—also evident by the past fifty edits that were made (the fiftieth being made on September 20, 2005)—has left a dead branch for other album articles that could have been significantly improved within that time period. It disappoints me so. The album project must be changed or even removed from Wikipedia if its inactivity is as great as it currently stands.

See also: I have placed this message on the Featured Albums Project page as well.

—Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The Gwen Stefani album Love. Angel. Music. Baby.—a mainstream album for once—has become the new current collaboration. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Personnel: Cover artists

I found that there are two seperate articles - Cover art and Album cover. Which one should be used as standard for the sleeve artist (if listed) in the Personnel section? In the Means of Production article, I linked the musician's credits as follows:

[[Aim (musician)|Aim]] - [[Arrangement|Arranger]], [[Record producer|Producer]], [[Cover art|Sleeve Art]], [[Scratching]]

But on other articles I have seen links to Album cover instead. In addition, the article Album cover art is a redirect to Album cover, not Cover art... Gram 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Another type of album stub?

I think there should be a pop-album-stub for albums that don't necessarily in with rock, r&b, etc. (MistaTee 21:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

Technically, the procedure is to first propose new stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. I've made stubs in the past without following procedure and had no problems though, eg {{Punk-song-stub}}. --Qirex 03:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
A good idea, I think, though pop is less well-defined than many other genres. Technically, pop-album-stub was proposed at WP:WSS/P not long ago, with no objections, so you're free to create it. Please make WP:WSS aware of the new stub if you do, we're trying to help you with sorting.
Note that I've proposed at WP:WSS/P splitting rock album stubs by decade. Conscious 08:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Christmas album background color

Can there be a Christmas album background color, such as red or green, since Christmas albums usually are only played at Christmas anyway? Tunes 19:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Stars to text

It is rather ironic since I'm the one who made most of the stars in the album articles, but shouldn't we be using text instead of the images? Most of us thought it was a great idea when we first implemented it, but now that we think about it, although it may serve some visual purposes:

  • For some people, it's hard to distinguish between 1 and .5 stars (eye, monitor, etc.)
  • Without the captions, it's virtually unreadable for visually impaired.
  • Image bandwidth. It's much faster and uses less bandwidth without the unnecessary stars.
  • Generally, it's easier without them.

Yeah, consider this carefully. I realize it looks good on some articles, but it doesn't really have a good purpose... -- WB 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the usage of stars does have several problems, the biggest problem is for me is that the alt-text is usually left out leaving visually impaired a problem. I suggest that WP:Albums discourages the usage of stars. Nooby god 16:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we should run a replacement script. I'm currently replacing all the stars with text on the articles I'm editting, but without a bot, it would be pretty hard. We need some concensus before running it though. -- WB 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, mainly because not all reviews use the convenient 5 star scale. There isn't a reason why All Music ratings deserve to be represented visually but not, say, Pitchfork ratings (which use a 10 point decimal scale), other than the fact that images for them happen to be more feasible. The resurrected {{stars}} template is capable of using different scales, but there are problems with it: (1) it relies on CSS hacks (2) even if we are able to create a 10 star scale, for example, it would be way too large (3) the syntax is complicated. Overall, the stars images create an unneeded complication and issues of consistency.—jiy (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
We could get away with all of these problems if we used text instead of images. -- WB 00:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if we used (X/Y) or something simmilar all of the problems can be avoided, and with the bonus of using less bandwith. Nooby god 02:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
So how do we get started on this replacement plan? Is there a bot running free? -- WB 05:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I suggest, we first ask everyone else if they agree with this plan because wikipedia is ruled by a Consensus, and if everyone agrees we can put a Request for a bot. What do you think? Nooby_god | Talk 00:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Where should we ask? This place is so quiet. -- WB 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea on where to ask, but we could always run the bot and put in the edit summary 'see WP:ALBUMS/Reason_for_no_stars' or something like that. Nooby_god | Talk 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to start without a concensus? There are some very very star loving users here in Wikipedia. -- WB 01:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I think the stars are nice (only 5 star scale, I don't know of any source that uses stars for a scale of 10). But since most people prefer text, I don't mind. There should be a Template for deletion vote before making changes, I think that's the proper process. Gflores Talk 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
There's already a bot replacing the shortly active template with the text. My concern here is the ones with the raw image link. -- WB 03:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've messaged User:NetBot and has accepted the request to convert the stars to text. Gflores Talk 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I've set User:Tawkerbot to convert, I will start as soon as I recieve approval (3 days) Tawker 02:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Tawkerbot is presently chugging away at the replacements, it's running a 30s interval so it'll be a few hours. Tawker 09:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of talking away in private and then setting up a bot, do you not think it wiser (not to mention more courteous) to make some attempt to let other know what's going on? All I saw was a bot replacing stars with no explanation, the image in question being untagged. I've reverted quite a few already, but then stumbled across this. Don't be surprised if other editors are reverting the change too. I see that some editors have made thses points above; unfortunately they were ignored. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It would've been nice if this was brought to the attention of a wider audience before starting. Especially seeing as you've been debating this for a month and have only had input from five users, it's not exactly what I would call a majority consensus. I'm adding a modified Template for Deletion tag thingy to the stars to get the issue more attention. - MightyMoose22 13:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Scrap that idea, I don't know how to do it. I would suggest that someone who can do it... erm... does it, and adds a link pointing to here for discussion. - MightyMoose22 13:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have posted regarding this on the Village Pump here - I think we need a consensus before a bot does anything on the topic. Tawker 15:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Now That's What I Call Music!" - Notability and naming scheme for individual albums

NOTE: There is also further discussion on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/List#Unfiltered, though it probably makes sense to keep any further talk here, in one place. Fourohfour 13:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on compilation albums such as the "Now!" series?

My personal feelings are that whilst the "Now!" phenomenon is notable, the individual albums really aren't, being just compilations of chart hits at the time, with little to be said beyond that- and I thought Wikipedia was intended as more than a simple repository for lists/info available elsewhere.

The other question is disambiguating entries in the different "Now!" series. For example, the UK "Now 4" came out in 1984, and was a double cassette/LP featuring hits from that year. The US "Now 4" came out in 2000, and was a single CD reflecting US hits from that year; totally different, although the name is the same.

I moved some entries to a new name such as Now That's What I Call Music! 17 (U.S. series), but realise that I should perhaps have got a consensus before doing this.

Any thoughts?

Fourohfour 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to take this on, creating a single article about the series and merging, then redirecting, articles on the individual compilations strikes me as a fine way to go. We really don't need to be hosting the track lists for all of these albums, given that their track list is pretty much the only thing one can say about any of them. Jkelly 17:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
There is already an overall "Now That's What I Call Music!" article, as well as a separate List of Now That's What I Call Music! albums (having a separate list saves the main article from getting bloated and unreadable). Personally, I would support turning them all into redirects; however, since this is (a) pseudo-deletion, and (b) these are "requested" albums (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/List#Various), I would rather get some consensus on these and other compilation albums so it doesn't turn into a fruitless argument later on. Fourohfour 18:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I should have made clear that my comments on naming were intended for *if* we decide to keep the articles anyway.

Fourohfour 13:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If they're so requested then people can read about them individually in the main article. No content is being lost, its just amalgamation. Support.--Urthogie 13:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there is also a list of Now! albums supporting the main article. Fourohfour 13:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How frustrating! I began researching and adding these articles because they were in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/List topic, there described as "a list of album articles-to-be-written". I presumed this meant that the need for the articles (and, therefore, their place in the encyclopedia —particularly, their notability and naming scheme—had already been debated and determined). After all, that list has links that lead straight to the "edit" page for creating the new articles.

Apparently, that assumption was wrong. I'll butt-out, then, until the project can reach a decision about what it's asking contributors to provide. -- Mikeblas 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you on this topic, your opinion is as valid as anyone elses when it comes down to it, so I'd rather you didn't "butt-out" for that reason. I don't believe that the project has a monopoly on what should/shouldn't be added, although it's obviously a very good focus for such activity.

BTW, I can't find any discussion on it in the archive of discussions around the date that the Now! albums were added by fonzy. I've posted a message on Fonzy's page, but he (she?!) seems to be semi-dormant, so we might not get anything in the forseeable future. It looks to me like they've just been stuck in there by one user, but I may be wrong.

Fourohfour 16:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see "available elsewhere" as a valid argument. Everything on Wikipedia is to be available elsewhere, since Wikipedia is intended to contain no original research.
I should have kept the link; but I remember reading an article stating that (in essence) the Wikipedia philosophy was not simply to act as a repository for lists/stuff available elsewhere in that form. The "original research" does not preclude writing original *articles* which distill factual content from a number of sources but present it in an original manner. Quite the opposite; I may be wrong, but I would consider that the whole raison d'etre of Wikipedia. Otherwise we would simply end up with lists and isolated facts (since copying more than small parts of articles would be a copyright violation).
I'll admit I'm probably making too much of a deal of this whole "Now!" notability business. It's nowhere near as bad as having readable articles bloated out (and ruined) by inclusion of countless minor factoids and loss of structure over time. But that's a whole other issue... Fourohfour 11:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
There's far more crufty topics, even only considering only music-related contributions: articles on single, non-notable songs by a particular artist, for example. Because the notability and encyclopedic bars for contribution are so vague, I don't think citing any existing topic is a useful argument, either.
I don't see any problem listing the topics by the titles of the CDs. The CDs titles are usually subtly different between US and RoW editions.
"Usually subtlely different"? *All* the mainstream US "Now!" albums (1 to 20, IIRC) have the *exact* same name as (different) UK albums that came out 15 years previously. There are also at least *three* other "Now!" series now, meaning that for the lower numbers there are up to five albums with different content/covers/dates, but the exact same name. Fourohfour 11:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Even when they're not, all other topics on Wikipedia are discussed with a worldwide view under a single topic name.
They're not a "single topic". They're different albums released at different times that just happened to be given the same name. Fourohfour 11:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the discs deserve to be listed because they're individual releases on their own, and popular on their own right; contain well-known songs by notable artists; and most have made progress on Billboard charts, for example, and the sales of the albums count towards sales figures of the songs they contain.
Well, let's keep in mind that there are two distinct issues; whether the Now! albums warrant individual articles, and what the naming system should be if they do. I've said it before; but if they warrant individual articles, they shouldn't be lumped together because they coincidentally share a name with a different "Now!" album. Fourohfour 11:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
That said, I don't feel particularly passionate about it; as I mentioned above, I'm just satisfying requests for topics in the project. I'm just a volunteer and a hobbyist, so I don't want to sit around and argue things—I'd rather just get on with contributing what was requested by someone who has, as far as I know, already gone through that process.
I can't get much interest in this issue, and I'm not pushing for mass deletion/redirection unless that changes anyway. I'd previously considered putting one into AfD as a test case, as it's likely to get some attention; but I felt that may have been mistakenly interpreted as a hostile act (rather than attempt to get consensus), so I didn't. The articles are safe at present. Fourohfour 11:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
So I'll leave it to you (and whoever else wishes to take up the charge) at how the contributions are categorized, if they'll stay or not, and so on.
I don't intend making any serious contributions to the articles themselves, just ensuring that they're in the expected place. Fourohfour 11:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Debating this kind of thing isn't fun, so I'll go find something less disputable to play with. If the series stays, I can continue to contribute here; otherwise, I'll just abide by the decision here. -- Mikeblas 20:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think (hope?) we can agree that each "Now" album is an album in it's own right, so it's probably fair enough that they each retain a listing each. However, in terms of "notability" I would argue that it's the phenomenon as a whole that's notable, not the individual compilations. For me the key thing is consistency: if each album is to have a separate entry, the entries should be uniform across the whole collection (with the possible exception of the very first one in the series, and perhaps the first to be released on CD as opposed to other media). Waggers 20:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Usability question for foreign albums

I work with J-pop albums, whose titles are almost always in Japanese. These names have a romaji version, in example, Koibumi / good night (this is a single, but should work as example, and I didn't want to cross-post between WP:SONG and WP:ALBUM, and this page seems to be more active than WP:SONG). The real name for this single is 恋文 / good night. In the previous, current and next album sections of the template, when the real name is in Kanji, should it be written in romaji (Koibumi / good night), in kanji "as is" (恋文 / good night) or in both (恋文 / good night, line break, Koibumi / good night)? I have been using the romaji-only version, because I believe it is the clearer version for both those who are in touch with the subject and the casual reader, but I want to get a confirmation. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, especially since my browser isn't showing those kanji anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Remix albums background color

Question: are these considered Studio albums (and thus under the orange color) or other (and thus darksea green), or such? Just curious, as I'm creating a couple of them that are, and I'd like to know what the consensus is.--Mitsukai 20:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just wondering: how do readers even know that the background color is significant? -- Mikeblas 21:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Because someone took the time to argue about it. ^_^ Seriously, I don't know, other than for classification reasons. The color scheme is on the project and infobox pages, but I don't think anyone really knows (or cares, TBH) what the colors are for. I'm just trying to keep things in line with everything else. Personally, I'd propose a color for remix albums, since they seem to be on the increase as a definitive type of album.--Mitsukai 21:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I always label them as compilations; dark sea green. --FuriousFreddy 14:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

All Music Guide italicized or not?

I've noticed that the All Music Guide link in professional reviews field is italicized in many articles. Is there any reason to do so? Jogers 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, no. It's not a magazine of any kind, it's just a website. Websites shouldn't be italicized. Gflores Talk 22:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
But it is also a book, and was released as such before the website ever existed. Still (according to the Wikipedia article, anyway), AMG is first and foremost a music database, in which case it probably shouldn't be capitalized. Thebogusman 23:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be noted on the project's page? Seems there's a bit of confusion over this topic. Jogers 09:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Whenever I came upon a review I went for not italicized, as it isn't italicized in its article. (And for the reason given by Gflores) --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Citing liner notes

A standard format for citing liner notes has been added to the citation style guide: Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style#Liner_notes. Kaldari 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have some updating to do. Jkelly 20:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

iTunes Exclusive Releases

Anything that should be done different for iTunes exclusive releases? I'm editing Telescope Eyes E.P. and wondering if I should use the regular salmon for the infobox or something different. – gRegor 05:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

More specific stubs

I noticed on several albums I had edited that the stub was changed from {{rock-album-stub}} to a more specific {{2000s-rock-album-stub}} by the Stub Sorting Project, so I went ahead and added those to the list of stubs on our project page. The more specific the stub is the more helpful it will be, eh? -- gRegor 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Track listing formatting

What do you think about this way of track listing formatting [21] ? Should it be changed to conform the project's specificaton? Jogers 13:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the table is inappropriate (see When tables are inappropriate). --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Personnel"

I find this a very awkward and unmusical term and have been changing it at various articles to "credits" (didn't realise this was a standard). I actually assumed the person who had come up with personnel didn't speak english properly and had translated it out of a dictionary or something :) Anyone else agree? Is there a better term we could use? Stevage 19:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the use of the term, I just make three sections, Technical Information, Track Information, and Produciton Information. It gives you a chance to put in all the info from the CD's
-- InnerCityBlues 20:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "Personnel" should be changed to "Credits". What's the consensus on this issue? Does anyone have concerns if we changed the guidelines? -Chairman S. 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Are all albums, once verifiable, encyclopedic?

The WWW Music Database says it has 23,000 albums. Allmusic says it has 874,000 albums. Moreso, we're now gathering Category:Demo albums and Category:Unreleased albums. Do all of them deserve individual articles? --Perfecto 05:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope not (see also Now! discussion above). Wasn't there a guideline that said for bands with countless "Greatest Hits" and compilations, they weren't all notable?

I mean, there must be countless cheap and obscure ABBA compilations which are essentially just "a few hits and a fairly random selection of album tracks" with little of interest to be said about them. The "proper" albums and famous compilations (e.g. "Greatest Hits", "Greatest Hits Vol. 2") are notable; I don't think a German "Reader's Digest" compilation of their work from 1977 is. Fourohfour 15:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

One aspect of the issue (that many editors are unsatisfied with articles that can never grow beyond a track list and the mention of a couple of reviews), is that there is often no obvious place to merge such information. Jkelly 19:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To /dev/null?? I witness "verifiable yet nonnotable" articles sent to /dev/null in AfD all the time. --Perfecto 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking dates in chronology

Hi there. In the few album articles I've created, I've been linking the years in the chronology to [[Year in music]]. I've read WP:MOSDATE, so I understand the reasoning behind removing contextually neglible links to plain years, but in this case, linking to the year in music seems contextually relevant in the Chronology section of the infobox (it allows the reader to easily find out about the musical landscape when an album was released). I'd actually like to recommend that your project adopt it as a guideline, but I'm not much of a "joiner" so I'll leave the decision up to you all. Mike Dillon 08:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I would object. There are guidelines to avoid so-called "easter egg links" (links you have to hover to find out where they really lead), and piping "Year in X" links with just a year label is strongly discouraged. See Wikipedia:Piped link.--Fritz S. (Talk) 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Pitchfork/Rolling Stone lists

Has there been any prior discussion of creating categories or pages based on the various Rolling Stone/Pitchfork/... lists that are out there? I'm thinking of Rolling Stone's Top 500 Albums, and Pitchfork's Top 100 of the 70s/80s/90s lists. As precedent, I'd point to The 100, where a part of a similar list is included. While this article only includes 15/100 people, the distinction is mentioned on many of the lower-ranked peoples' pages (e.g. Leonhard Euler#Distinctions).

I would think that a category for something like the Rolling Stone Top 500 would probably be OK, since it wouldn't include the particular ordering, just a list of the albums. The drawback would be that with dozens of lists out there, the categories for some albums would get quite cluttered. An alternative would be some kind of standardized section for "Awards", much like there's a standardized way to include pop chart performance in album articles now. Some albums seem to have done this, e.g. Loveless, but not others, e.g. OK Computer, Daydream Nation, and Remain in Light. --Dantheox 00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The pages, if they exist, are mostly in the process of being deleted due to copyright issues. However, to improve the articles on the albums, it would be helpful to develop a standard format in which an album's position on these lists can be shown. This could be a part of the album infobox, or perhaps a separate template for sales (gold/platinum), chart positions, and rankings. --Michael Snow 06:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming albums

What about upcoming albums, do they deserve their own article before any official confirmation? Is there any guideline? In this specific case, I am referring to the new Tool (band) release, which is untitled, with no official release date yet and so forth. As the specifics start to emerge one by one, the rumor mill goes wild. The article Aldaraia refers to the upcoming album (which already got an AfD tag Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldaraia). What do you folks think would be reasonable to do? Any suggestions are appreciated.. --Johnnyw 18:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, if there is verifiable information about an upcoming album an article might be justified. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Split albums

Did a quick search and didn't see anything about this on the main page, but is there any special way to do split albums? Dysfunktion 01:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Judge by how much article you have to write, not by packaging. Jkelly 01:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Discographies

I can't find any guidelines or templates to help with the formatting of discographies. Are there any? If there are, a headsup note on my talk page would be appreciated, thanks. --kingboyk 15:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we came up with a tiny guide on discographies.. see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Discography. I'll also add a note on your talk page, just to make sure. --Johnnyw 21:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The link listed on the project page (Wikipedia:Filmographies and Discographies) redirects to Wikipedia:Filmographies which "is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest." I'd too be glad if there were any consensus on this. Or maybe we could come up with a new decent proposal? --Johnnyw 15:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, this isn't really written in stone, but on most articles it's simply
  • First album (year of release)
  • second album (year of release)
etc.
For more detailed discographies (with chart positions, etc.) there's the way the Gorillaz discography is done.
Anyway, in my opinion it doesn't really matter as much how the list is formatted, as long as it avoids being a gallery of album covers (which is unecessary use of fair use images). --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the answer. I'll add a bit of help about how to include albums in a discography on the project page.. --Johnnyw 18:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, why is the use of the sleeves an "unnecessary use of fair use images"?! Who decides what is is necessary and what isn't? It's either legally fair use or it isn't, and in my opinion a small low res image of the recording being listed in a discography is eminently fair use ("to illustrate the recording in question"). Furthermore, what artist is going to complain about the free publicity? In the presumed absence of any legal advice on this matter I'm going to modify the instructions. --kingboyk 14:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
There's already been a lengthy discussion about this when there was that second album infobox that used the covers in the chronology. Apart from the fair use issue, using the covers in a discography is unadvisable because users tend to click on the images expecting them to link to the album's article (when in fact they link to the image's description page). I don't think the project should encourage this. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

International track listings?

I haven't really seen this addressed in the project page or in the Talk archives. What is the best way to handle alternate track listings for international versions of an album? I don't want to be "Americentric" and assume that the US/Canada version is the "default" track listing and everything else is just a noted mention. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to get into in-depth tables of track listings for the myriad international versions of some albums. Is there a standard here? Aguerriero 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Colors/Compilations

In regards to infobox album colors, two things:

  1. What's the difference between the "sea green" compilation and the "red" compilation?
  2. Can we mute the red a little? It seems a bit stark.--み使い Mitsukai 02:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
darkseagreen should be used for compilations. —Slicing (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Track list template

So I created a template (here) for adding tracks to a track list using the format recommended on the project page. A user has indicated that he doesn't particularly care for it, or see a reason for it. I do realize it's not much easier than just doing the entry yourself (sans template), but this does standardize the format, and I'm hoping to add some additional elements, such as adding an icon to indicate that a clip is available, or lyrics, or what not (as a rough idea, you can see the list I did at Listen...). I originally had a link to it under the track list section on the project page but the user removed it for the given reasons, which is fine. I'm just curious now if anyone actually considers this of any value, or at least potential value. I'd appreciate discussion/comments so I can decide how much effort to put into the template. bmearns.....(talk) 21:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to not list it *as a convenience* for anyone who would prefer it, with advice to subst: it. Do start a discussion before adding bells and whistles, though! Jkelly 21:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the template. Good work. Gflores Talk 22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the advantage of using it? Everything it does can easily be accomplished using simple syntax. Jogers 22:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but isn't that the case with just about every template? This just makes sure that anyone using the template is using the same formatting. It's easy to accidently use a different format because of a typo, but it's harder to screw up a template. Plus, if the project ever decides to reccomend a different format for one reason or another, it can simply be implemented in the template, and anyone using it will automatically get the new formatting. It's basic encapsulation. Which brings up my question, what's the reason for recommending subst here, it's not clear to me. Thanks for the discussion. bmearns.....(talk) 23:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I would't agree that it's harder to screw up a template. Simple syntax is easier to deal with. Unexperienced users tend to make many mistakes in album infoboxes, for example. Implementing the template in every album article just in case we change the recommendations, if this is what you mean, doesn't make any sense to me. Jogers 23:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, as an example, adding extra spaces when you're filling in the template doesn't change the format, and you don't have to worry about new users remembering which is italicts and which is bold (for example), and other things like that. Of course it's still possible to mess of the template, but the results of such a mistake are usually more visible (e.g., because {{{title}}} will appear on the page). As far as using the templates in case the recommendation changes, I'm not really sure how that doesn't make sense. If people use the templates without the subst, then any changes we make to the template will automatically show up in the pages that use the template. But like I said, it depends on what the arguments are for using the subst, which I'm still not clear on. And at any rate, I've decided I like the template and will continue to work on it a little and use it on the pages I write. If there's no general consensus for it, then I don't see any reason to put it on the project pages. bmearns.....(talk) 14:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the format recommended on the project page using a numbered list (with #)? And I also agree that it is a pretty useless template, and should be subst'ed when used. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the recommended format uses a "numbered list", but doesn't actually mention anything about using the numbered list, i.e., #. My reasons for not using it in the templatewere because 1)Using it in the template, all the tracks ended up restarting the list, so they were all #1 and 2)If someone for whatever reasons wanted to put up a partial track list (e.g., they only new some of the tracks) then they would be improperly numbered using the #. Once again, I haven't heard the actual arguments for using subst. If there are good reasons I'd be more than happy to do it my self as well as to recommend it on the template page, but so far, I haven't heard ANY reasons. bmearns.....(talk) 15:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The reason it always restarted is probably because there was a linebreak, which can be easily avoided. And I doubt there are many articles with only partial track listings.
There's a whole bunch of reasons to use subst, see Wikipedia:Template substitution. I think the most important reason is that it will speed up the site, as it won't have to load the seperate template. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I now understand the purpose of the subst, and realize that especially for this template, where it is likely to be used many times on a single page, subst is particularly useful for server resources. I have made appropriate notes on the template page encouraging users to subst.
I've tried your suggesstion of removing linebreaks to use the numbered list, but have not had any success, I still get all 1's. If you would like you fix, I'd be very appriciative of it, I think you're right, partial track lists are unlikely and using a numbered list would be easier. bmearns, KSC(talk) 20:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I just tried to change the code to works with numbered list, but the problem is the line break between the different instances:
{{Track listing item
| number    =     5
| title     =     The Super Secret Track of Eris
| writers   =     Malaclypse The Younger, James Bojangles
| length    =     5:55
| on-line   =     **
}}
{{Track listing item
| number    =     6
| title     =     Accordian Harmony
| writers   =     unknown
| length    =     0:25
}}
If you write the following instead, it works.
{{Track listing item
| number    =     5
| title     =     The Super Secret Track of Eris
| writers   =     Malaclypse The Younger, James Bojangles
| length    =     5:55
| on-line   =     **
}}{{Track listing item
| number    =     6
| title     =     Accordian Harmony
| writers   =     unknown
| length    =     0:25
}}
--Fritz S. (Talk) 10:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

New Wikiproject: Musical Artists

I'm proposing a new wikiproject for articles regarding musical groups, individual musical artists, etc. If anyone has thoughts or comments on this, or if anyone can point out that I've missed an existing project for this purpose, please discuss it on my talk page. If you support the creation of this project, please add your name to the list here. The temporary pre-project page is here and is in desperate need of contributions from more experienced projecters. bmearns, KSC(talk) 20:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This project jas been officially started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians B.Mearns*, KSC 19:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just letting this project know

You guys were the only ones with anything on the talk page, so to give you a heads up: I moved Me First, by The Elected to Me First (Album) and set up Me First as a disambig between that page and Me First and the Gimme Gimmes. -AKMask 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but the naming guidelines suggest the 'a' in album should be lowercase, not uppercase. :) Gflores Talk 06:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Category:Albums by artist nationality seems pretty useful to me. I've just started to clean it up so the nationality subcategories contain the artist's albums categories rather than the invidual album articles. I believe this is the right way to arrange this so please correct me if I'm wrong. Jogers 12:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I hadn't noticed that category. It's looking great! I'll try to help a bit. Gflores Talk 21:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I've done letters X, Y, Z in Category:Albums by artist, but I see you're creating new categories that go there, so I'll wait a bit before I continue. :) Gflores Talk 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! I'm creating new subcategories of Category:Albums by artist to get the Category:Albums by artist nationality cleaned up. Some albums are directly in subcategories of Category:Albums by artist nationality but there are no proper subcategories of Category:Albums by artist for them, in which case I create them and place them in the proper subcategories of Category:Albums by artist nationality. So, what you started to do is complementing perfectly with what I'm doing and I see no reason why you would have to wait :-) Our joint effort can make the Category:Albums by artist nationality very useful. Perhaps, we could expand the recommendations on using categories on the Project's page? Jogers 14:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What to do about separate music and lyrics credits?

I'm working on a page for an album whose liner notes have separate writing credits for the music and the lyrics. How should this be addressed in the track listing? Say, for instance, track #1 has music by X and Y and lyrics by X and Z. Should the track be listed like this: 1. "Track 1" (X, Y, Z), or should the credits be listed after the track title in a different fashion? JJBunks 21:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I usually just combine them (like you suggested)... --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

colours

What colours should be used for demo / rehearsal releases? and bootlegs? Spearhead 22:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say use darkturquoise for now (since they are usually live recordings), until the matter about the admissablity/policy of bootlegs gets resolved.--Esprit15d 18:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Album total times

Is there a good resource to find total times of albums? It gets sickening after a while when you have to add the time of each song. Weatherman90 19:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Freedb Spearhead 19:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! You saved my brain from exploding :) --Weatherman90 03:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think sickening is the wrong word. "Mind-numblingly dull" is the correct one. — Fantailfan 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
There's also MusicBrainz. --Jacj 19:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RIAA Certification

Another Question - How can I find if an album received any certification, and if it did, what kind, (Platinum, Gold, 2x Platinum, etc.) Thanks! --Weatherman90 15:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.riaa.com/gp/database/default.asp - this only works for American data, though. Flowerparty■ 16:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Weatherman90 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
In addition, I have been indicating Gold, Platinum, Double Platinum, Triple Platnium, 4X Platinum, etc. - where should I start the #X? Any consensus? – Fantailfan 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Albums Userbox!

I made this nifty little number, If anyone wants to use it. It will also place Category:Wikiproject Albums Member on your page. Enjoy!

This user is a member of WikiProject Albums.





--Weatherman90 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. I can't say I'm a member, but I spend quite a bit of time here. But that userbox looks nice.--Esprit15d 13:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyone up for templating it?--み使い Mitsukai 13:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I will. {{User Album}}--Esprit15d 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It looks like there is already Template:User WP:ALBUM - is this to replace? --Fantailfan 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Redlinking

The rules say not to redlink to songs. That implies that it is okay to redlink to albums. Should we be doing that? Actively? Am I the only one who finds 60 red links out of 70 links on a list annoying?

Also, Do songs on discography lists require quotes? Freekee 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I answered the above question on his talk page. Weatherman90 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some small consensus for not making excessive amounts of redlinks. I've also seen a suggestion, that if too many of the list items are red, then maybe the list does not need to be made.
Freekee 05:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been redlinking musicians and albums bigtime on my contris. Part of the reason is to provide a interwikiurl if an article is created for the person or album. Opinions? Is there a tool for locating redlinks on your pages? -->Fantailfan 15:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
There is one good reason to create a redlink. That's so that when the page is finally created, the link will go active. Oops, one more: to prompt someone to create that page. The question that needs to be asked is whether the item in question really needs an article. Where I ran into this problem, was on a list of 79 compilation albums in a discography. I can't think of a reason why more than one of the records in question would ever need an article. Studio albums? Definitely. But not compilations, unless they had some particular significance, or at least a very high chart position.
Is there a tool for locating redlinks on your pages? Why, are you color blind? ;-) But seriously, I wouldn't worry about it. If you or anyone finds them, they can be fixed at that time. Besides, there are worse sins.
Freekee 19:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
For further info, I found the following at Wikipedia:Wikiproject music: You can link to normal studio albums as much as you want. Caveat: Unless there's extenuating circumstances, greatest hits and compilation albums don't need an article, so don't link to them unless the article already exists.

discussion at Template talk:Album infobox

There is an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Album infobox#Update about the proposed changes to the album infobox template. I thought that someone here might be interested. Jogers (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the Project's page to reflect the changes to the infobox. Jogers (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Professional reviews order in the infobox

Perhaps listing them alphabetically could by recommended? Jogers (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there is a lot of reviews in the infobox it makes sense to arrange them in some order, don't you agree? I've noticed that they are already ordered alphabetically in some articles. Jogers (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree and usually put them in alphabetical order (I actually thought that already was a guideline)... --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. I've updated the guideline and the infobox example. Jogers (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, anybody knows what's wrong with the link to the Q magazine review in the example infobox? Jogers (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the Q magazine website suggests that it does not host any reviews at the moment. In fact, the entire site seems very stripped-back. I'm taking the links down. –Unint 05:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Some links still work however [22]. For those which don't we can still link to the summary and rating on buy.com or metacritics. Jogers (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


"Current albums"

People have created Category:Current albums and Template:CurrentAlbums.

Does anyone else think this would be impossible to maintain? –Unint 03:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Any reasonably devoted follower of a band will update that band's entries and albums whenever any new information becomes available. As long as it's a category, and the inclusion can be controlled from the article, it shouldn't be a problem. Notability, on the other hand... Who needs to see a list of every current album available? What informational need does this serve?
Freekee 04:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, almsot every album ever produced is currently available somewhere. Who is to set an official expiration date for "current?" Dan, the CowMan 05:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The Template:CurrentAlbums and the corresponding category seem to be unnecessary. Here you can find the reasons to create the Template:Current which helped my to come to this conclusion. Jogers (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone put forth a purpose for the category? – Fantailfan 11:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I "created" the category, but really I created for two reasons (a) it is the album equivalent to the "current events" and "current singles" tags/categories that I didn't create. They alert the reader and editors that this article is in constant flux (for a limited time). (b) I encountered articles where the writers would add some notation like "I'm going to add more info as the album comes out" or "This album is still on the charts" and such notes clearly are not appropriate for the article, so I created this in order to address this issue. Perhaps it should be better titled, and I am certainly open to modification or input. But I felt I was plugging a need, and not really creating something new.--Esprit15d 12:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the Category:Current singles and the Template:CurrentSingles are unnecessary too? Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that many album and single articles ever are in constant flux. By the way, the only article that use the Template:CurrentAlbums now is Continuum (album) which could better be described as the future album rather than current. Jogers (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It does seem a bit vague. If it specifically explained that a 'current album' is one that is in the charts, or whatever, then I suppose it might be useful. But even then I'm not sure it adds significantly to the article. And we'd also have to decide whether "the charts" are the US and UK charts or whether they include other countries (Japan? Finland?). Flowerparty? 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
We are discussing something that should have been discussed before creating Category:Current singles and make it become a major trend. There are hundreds of articles using it without becoming confusing or making the category go bankrupt and unhandlable. It is a good reason and example to keep the new "album" one. The same criteria should be applied. And I also think it doesn't have to be restricted with so tight definition like US or UK charts. It's main purpose is not providing precise information but general one. "You can find it in the record stores under New releases section or see its video in fresh or in chart shows". That's all it has to say. I also think its intervale can be variated between 1 week and 1 year. See Be Without You as a good example for a long-running current single. and as I said the same for ALBUMS!! Lajbi 11:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that although many pages would be updated to take off current album an even larger amount wouldn't and the tag is unnecessary. - Patman2648 06:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hidden tracks

Is there a standard for adding hidden tracks to the track listing scheme? Skabat169 15:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably depends on the record. I don't know if you have a specific article in mind, but have a look through Category:Albums with hidden tracks if you want to see some examples. Flowerparty? 16:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I got what I was looking for. Basically, number it if it has a number, add a note to the track that the song is hidden on if it is such. Skabat169 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Pages still using Album infobox 2

Looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Album infobox 2, there are still something in the region of 780 pages using this template, which is now just a redirect to Template:Album infobox. Not a terribly large problem, admittedly (I only noticed when someone edited infobox 2 yesterday and it broke a load of pages), but a lot of these pages still have residual 'Last cover' and 'Next cover' parameters, which is only likely to confuse people. Do people think these should be converted, and if so is anyone willing to get a bot to fix them? Flowerparty? 16:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that last cover and next cover parameters can be confusing. Is a bot suitable to convert these infoboxes? If not I can do this using AWB. I usually convert them anyway when I spot them. Jogers (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
AWB is likely the best option for this. Dan, the CowMan 17:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking AWB might be a good option. Well, you're both welcome to go ahead and fix it :) Flowerparty? 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. Jogers (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Obsolete infoboxes

Template:Various artists album infobox and Template:Album infobox soundtrack are no good. Anybody else think that they should be deleted? Jogers (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait, Various artists survived your last TfD? Oh, here it is: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 2#Template:Various artists album infobox.
What Circeus decided is that no alternative was proposed. Meanwhile, the changes I've proposed to the album infobox to replace the functionality both these infoboxes are still up in the air, pending additional decisions (see Template talk:Album infobox#Spinoff infoboxes). I don't think we should start another TfD until the decisions are finalized and we know exactly what's going to replace these templates.
Thus far, the only people in the discussion have been me and Flowerparty, so the process has been somewhat slow. Someone else getting on this would be very helpful. (You wanted more automation in the infoboxes, didn't you? The current question pertains to that somewhat...) –Unint 00:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Rock sub-genre identification

Warning: cranky old guy screed. This is kind of a sore point with me - what is the difference between different kinds of rock music? What distinguishes rock'n'roll, rock, hard rock, prog rock, soft rock or metal or pre-punk or punk or post-punk or (First Cause help us) glam or emo or alternative that would merit genrefication?

To me, it's virtually all 4/4 time, verse/chorus/verse/bridge/verse/chorus and fade, guitar/bass/keyboard/drum/vocal, 50-100 beats per minute, 3-5 minutes, 1952-present.

Why classify all these types of music if their basic distinguishing characteristics are the same? For example, Ray Charles' "What I'd Say" is Rhythm & Blues , The Beatles "She's a Woman" is Rock and Roll, Sir Douglas Quintet's "She's About a Mover" is Garage Rock, and Big Star's "She's a Mover" is Plain Old Rock. But if you listen to them in sequence, you realize that the last three are a progression from "What I'd Say" - so are they all R&B? Should Ray Charles' estate sue?

What is the difference between Warren Zevon and Linda Ronstadt doing "Poor Poor Pitiful Me"? Is Alternative post-punk or Plain Old Rock? What is the point of hair-splitting if the basic characteristics are the same?

What is Grunge? Is it catching? Is there a cure?

Please discuss. -- Fantailfan 01:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you ask? -Freekee 17:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
When I edit an album, whenever appropriate I change subgenres of rock music (Alternative being the usual one, but, considering my taste, often Progressive or New Wave) to Rock (music) pipe Rock. Sometimes they are reverted - and since I don't want to indulge in edit wars, I leave them be. Perhaps this discussion doesn't belong here... every generation (these generations being about 5 years long) of rock fans seem to feel a need to distinguish their musical style in some way, and disparage the previous ones, when they are (often) matters of taste. Sub-genres such as pre-punk are also after-the-fact labels that further muddy the waters.
I think this approach can lead to criticism that it (rock music in whatever form) is an ephemeral and not valid and enduring form of musical art. I wish to emphasize the continuities and the commonalities, and it seems to me that splitting rock into sub-genres defeats that purpose. --Fantailfan 19:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I was going to just reply "who cares?" because, to me, it doesn't really matter - it's all rock - but then I decided I'd better get a context. I do try to avoid edit wars, but I think including such terms is helpful to an encyclopedic source - as long as the terms serve to illuminate, rather than muddy the waters. (For additional entertainment, see this.) If the term is fairly vague, it could still be used, but try to use it only descriptively, and not as a hard label. Like, fit it into a sentence describing the music rather than just say, "X is an X-rock band." Especially when genres overlap. But don't call them by their influences - only the end product. I don't think I explained this very clearly, but I hope it helps. And grunge is rock played by guys in flannel and torn jeans. ;-) -Freekee 02:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree there is a large percentage of "who cares?" in my mind as well. I get cheesed off about it every alternate Monday and Wednesday, or when the stars are aligned with Mars. Thank you. ...I have only one (torn) flannel shirt, I throw away all my jeans when they get too torn, but I'm afraid some Pearl Jam got stuck on and won't get out. ;-). --Fantailfan 11:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand the ambiguity of the sub-genres, most often with older music of 1990 or past its exceptionally easy to decide what genre and a good option is what allmusic.com guide says the genre is or generally most people can discern and fans especially. For newer music I find constant inconsistencies especially with the "emo" tag, too often with modern bands they share the genres of metal, alternative, punk, pop-punk and emo and there are users who support each tag and refuse to put certain tags on the page. Many users hate the association of emo and will take that genre out of any band. For these modern bands I don't have an idea of how to figure it out, on the Coheed and Cambria page I started a general consensus to see what everyone could agree on for a genre but the anarchy that followed and unconcensus proved that no one genre fit and many were extremely opposed to other genres so in the end I tried to give it the generic genre of "Alternative Rock" and even later "Rock" but a floodgate of fans ignored the consensus on the talk page and carried on the genre wars. In the end I say non-modern bands are easy to sub-genre but the modern day's fans and sleuths will create genre wars and there's no way of ending it. - Patman2648 06:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

en dashes

How do you normally insert en dashes? There are several ways it can be done but should we really encourage using HTML entities? Don't you agree that it makes the text in the edit box less readable? Jogers (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I always do & ndash ; and copy them. I suppose I'm used to it by now.–Fantailfan 16:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's just as easy as inserting it from the special character list below the edit box or anywhere else and then copy and pasting it. Edit the text below to see the difference in the code:
  • en dash as the HTML entity
  1. Track (Person1, Person2) – 5:55
  • en dash as the unicode character
  1. Track (Person1, Person2) – 5:55
What is less intuitive however is that the unicode en dash looks the same as a hyphen in the edit box (it's because the edit box use fixed font width):
  • hyphen
  1. Track (Person1 ,Person2) - 5:55
I couldn't figure it out at first so I thought that we could improve the guideline on the Project's page to make it easier to understand. I was also wondering if using HTML entity should be encouraged as it makes the code harder to read. My proposition is as follows:
"Use an en dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-) as a dividing horizontal punctuation mark (Note that they both look the same in the edit box). You can insert it from the special character list below the edit box (see Help:Special characters) or copy and paste it from here. You can also add it by writing &ndash; HTML entity to the edit box (like this "–") but this makes the code less readable. If you think that this is too difficult, you can still use a hyphen, and hope that someone is going to change it into a dash. This holds true both in "Track listing" and "Credits" sections. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)." Jogers (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
If nobody cares I'm going to change the guideline in a couple of weeks. Jogers (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Sheesh, after all those thousands of ndashes I've done. I guess I'll finally use AWB to change "my" pages. -- Fantailfan 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Notability of albums

Lets say an album is made by a band thats (just barely) notable, in this case Stepping on the Crowtche owf Your Americain Presidaint. Just because the band is notable, does that make their album notable? I've left a comment on their talk page but I'm not sure what the consensus on album notability is. Peace, --Urthogie 12:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen at least one article nominated for deletion for that reason before (can't remember what it was called), and it was kept on the grounds, "If you don't think the band are notable, nominate their article for deletion." There seems little argument against that - it would be a double standard to delete such articles. Flowerparty☀ 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Oddly, it seems that anything with a track list will get an AfD-consensus to keep. Few, if any, editors object to merging articles, though. Often one can simply be WP:BOLD and do that. I have suggested the merge. Jkelly 16:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Genre Categories

Where are all these Genre categories going from albums. This bot activity is highly misguided! We might think that placing an album in an artist's category and then that category in a genre category is sufficient. However, that is only likely to be true if that artist stays within one genre. This is just not true of many, many music artists. You might say it is true of most! That is as may be, however sugnificant number it is not true of and this makes this policy of removal of genre catagories from albums most illogical and/or inconsistent. Thos point about category assignments in wikimedia is that they can by design be multi-dimensionsal, wh should make use of that facility not cripple it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone response to questions here or do people just set to changing everything without reference to others.! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like leave to a more experience wikkin.. 'specially since I don't use a bot... but... Category by artistname should put it into the "proper" genre category. The underlying assumption that artistes don't change genres should be examined. -- Fantailfan 11:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Mixtape albums

Shouldn't we start a new category under this name. I think the title speaks for itself. So many people upload mixtapes (the latest ones I found were at Chamillionaire's page and on DJ Muggs) so it is the least we can do instead of tagging with whatever is at hand is that we could gather them into one subcategory so they won't be confusing any more. Lajbi 16:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've started it. Tell me what you think, but note that there are way too many of them to fill the artcile enough as you can see by visiting this link Category:Mixtape albums. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 15:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

An invitation to all members of this project

WikiProject Arts
Announcing the creation of WikiProject Arts, an effort to create a collaboration between all arts projects and artistically-minded Wikipedians in order to improve arts coverage. If you think you can help, please join us!

HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 17:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Standardizing the way we do discographies in band articles

I've been working on album articles for a while now, and this might be one of the few things that kind of grate on me regarding how we list discographies in the band/artist articles. Right now, my typical standard is this:

  • Album Name (formats released) - Record label -Year of release

I'm not saying mine is the RIGHT way, mind you, but I use this because it provides enough basic information, looks cleaner than a table or the images, and typically mirrors the visual style of the rest of the article the discography is being inserted into.

Now, if we decided as a group that the images or tables were the way to go, then I'd continue using that, but I think having a standard to apply across the board would make for cleaner articles and easier additions. Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

1st random thoughts... chart position important? How about separate discography pages - Has there ever been consensus on whether they are important? Hmm. --Fantailfan 11:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I've always felt that the chart position info is a) thrown into the details of the article (i.e., "When R.E.M. released Monster, it debuted at #1 on the Billboard Charts." I've always hated how it can clog up discography sections, especially if it's charted well in dozens of countries. Not opposed to finding a way to add them, but not sure there's a need, either. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should really enforce a certain style proposal. There are various reasons why one or the other style is preferable in certain articles. Musicians performing electronic music might release 7", LPs, CDs, Remixses and whatsoever without most of them ever appearing in charts; pop musicians normally only release CDs and Singles but have a strong presence in charts... Fritz S. and me created a proposal (Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Discography) which contains some rough guidelines when creating discographies... Maybe we could just expand on this? --Johnnyw 12:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, my issue is that the proposal listed is pretty much "Well, you can do it this way, or this way, or this way." I'm just wondering if there's any desire for a consistent way to do it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point. I wouldn't mind if we had a recommended way how to do it, to make it easier for novice editors. Still, I'd elaborate a bit on other circumstances when a different approach might be useful, to give more experienced editors some extra information to base their decisions on. --Johnnyw 13:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I put the chart position into the album page and agree on not putting them on the band/musician page. Discography pages (I'm doing Elvis Costello discography) are different, and I think that when you have a discog page the band/musician discog should be clean. --Fantailfan 13:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Right, and so few artists, relatively speaking, will command a discography page that it makes sense to have it that way. I personally can't stand the use of images in band/artist pages, as an aside. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I've been lining up all the years on the left side. What's the general feeling on that practice? (With tables, it tends to be the default; without tables, though...) –Unint 00:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer a list to a table. Tables are both a barrier to brand-new editors and seem to inspire people sticking unfree images into them. Jkelly 00:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fantailfan that the discography in the article should be as simple as possible, when there is a more detailed discography subarticle. How about we propose two versions: A detailed one with tables with date of release, chart listings, label, etc. (which is probably rather large for many articles and could mostly be used in seperate discography subarticles; see Gorillaz discography or Blondie (band) for something similar to what I have in mind) and a simple list with just the title and year of release; for the main article. I also think we should discourage the use of images in discographies (WP:FUC states that "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." and "The material must contribute significantly to the article (...) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Appart from those fair use issues, I also think the images might confuse some readers, as they don't link to the album articles).
However I'm not entirely sure this even is the right WikiProject to discuss such guidelines, as this project is mostly concerned with album articles. Maybe we should bring this up at WikiProject Music or at the new WikiProject Musicians. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference between the musician and the music? -- Fantailfan
The Music project is more general and has more participants, while the Musicians project focuses on article's about artists in particular (it is however relatively new, with currently only a handful of members). --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
In fact, part of the goals of the Musicians project is to establish guidelines on articles about musicians. However, in recent memory only about three people have been working on anything related to the Musicians project, and none of that has been related to such guidelines. Discussion on the subject would be very welcome. –Unint 14:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I reckon the reccommended layout should be

  • date - Album title (optional notes)
  • date - Second album title (optional notes)
...as I have done at the Eric Clapton discography. As the dates are all the same length (4 digits), it makes everything line up nicely, as opposed to...
  • Album title - date (optional notes)
  • Second, slightly longer album title - date (optional notes)
...which looks sloppy to me. In most cases any other information, such as labels and formats, are largely irrelevent in my opinion, as long as they're on the album's page. If the label changes are particularly noteworthy they can have their own subsections, as with the different bands on the aforementioned Clapton discog. I'm all for simplicity, me. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 03:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Piped years in music

Why shouldn't we link years like [[2003 in music|2003]]? —Akrabbim 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Because WP:PIPE says that we should avoid easter egg links (i.e. links "that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on") and explicitly states that "year-in-x" links "should be labeled accordingly, and not with just the year." --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Good sources

I have been doing some work on a few bands' albums but have little to no luck in finding sources for them. I know that the best source would be the CD's themselves, but since I don't have the few I own with me at this time I can't use them as a source and I don't have the money to buy them to use as a source. Does anyone know of good websites that will give us all, or most of the information we seek for inforboxes and a basic album article?Will 20:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All Music Guide usually has the basics you need to fill out the infobox. --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
AMG as well as Amazon, if the band pages aren't helpful. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Album Covers

I was wondering what the best way to handle multiple album covers for a single album. I have seen a few albums that have been released with up to four different album covers without one any more common than others. Is there a way to put more than one cover in the infobox or should they be included somewhere in the body of the page? UnhandledException 07:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say if there is one variation you place it just below the Track Listing separator (see Armed Forces). If there are many, create a gallery (see Drive). For you each you should use a caption.
Thanks, since I only have one alternate I'll probably go with something like this. Lore, legend and hearsay has it that that there are four covers in all, but I have only found two in all my years of research and obsession. UnhandledException 05:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If the title -and- track listing -and- cover -and- release date- are different (okay, I've only seen it at Jesus of Cool) then I think two infoboxes are appropriate. --Fantailfan 12:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I personally hate the gallery that Drive has. Typically, I just throw a regular image below in the tracklisting, such as in Suburban Field Recordings: Volume One. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I get your point - it is visually incoherent. Your suggestion works well for one or perhaps two pictures, but what would you suggest for the placement of five covers? -- Fantailfan 14:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, how often does that come up? I know Velocity of Sound has three, but the article is only stub-sized currently, so expansion is possible. What would be good is if we had someone savvy enough to do an animated gif which could rotate through the album covers on the page, but that might be a bit much. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I've seen multiple album covers stacked vertically in the cover box itself; see How to Be a...Zillionaire!, for instance. However, this approach doesn't actually work without modifying a substituted copy of the infobox code, which is problematic by itself. –Unint 18:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought about that and played with it a little, but I just didn't feel comfortable with the idea of not using the infobox in its pure form in case it changed in the future.UnhandledException 05:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
True enough. BUT... I try to avoid animation—because people with low vision problems and seizure disorders would have problem with viewing the page;—so I would like something less flashy. After all, this is Wikipedia, one of the few sites on the Web that has no popups or bells and whistles.
I have also tried stacked pictures but that seems to be unaceptable. --Fantailfan 18:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that animated GIFs are inappropriate for such a situation. On a more fundamental level, everything on the page should be visible at the same time.
Are stacked pictures unacceptable in terms of infobox code or people's opinions? If it's editors speaking up, get them here! We really ought to have greater numbers of opinionated people to have a proper discussion... –Unint 21:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
How about a solution that works like the extra chronology on a split album as seen below? See Ferociously Stoned for my test-implementation. The one thing that I didn't like about the "stacked vertcally" approach (besides having to use a clone of the infobox) was that it put most of the useful information off the first screen, requiring you to scroll down (small point). Something like this might be a decent solution. It looks better than The Offspring (album), I think. UnhandledException 03:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
This is really an elegant solution, I think; now the Misc section has more than one use, and yes, the fact that the stacked covers crowded out the essential information was a problem. Even the caption is optionally editable. I intend to put this into use and add it to the guidelines when I get around to finishing the advanced usage documentation. –Unint 17:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, singles are a whole different issue due to the inherent nature of the multiple formats, plus how people are collecting whole galleries of international releases sometimes... In reality I might just be implementing this for entirely clear-cut cases to begin with. –Unint 17:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I like it too. This is what I accomplished with a couple of modifications to the Template:Extra album cover. It looks better than this, doesn't it? Jogers (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Establishing a Standard

I was unaware that there where previous efforts to acomidate multiple covers, but Jogers has informed me that apparently there are. I had went ahead and created my own template, Template:Dual Cover Album infobox, and have implimented it on a few albums; for example here, and here. After looking over a few of the other options, i honestly prefer my own, but regardless would be more that satisfied conforming to a standard; we can't just go around having 50 different templates on an album to album basis. Anyway, how do we go about doing this??

respectfully, jerkmonkee

Split albums

Is there a specific way to deal with split albums? By split album, I mean an album that features 2 artists, each doing half of the album. I've done a couple and went off of BYO Split Series, Vol. 3. Do we want to create a new color for split albums? Should it be referred to in the Infobox as Split album as opposed to just Album? –Joltman 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I did something similar just last week. I made separate pages for each disc: Let the War Against Music Begin and Because We Hate You, listed them as individual albums for the infobox, and made references to it being a split album in the respective band and album articles. Now, if it's something like Birds, Beasts, and Flowers, I'm pretty sure I screwed it up. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, we do have provisions for dual artist chronologies now:
{{Album infobox |
...
| Chronology  = Artist A
| Last album  = A1
| This album  = '''''AB2'''''
| Next album  = A3
| Misc        = {{Extra chronology
  | Artist     = Artist B
  | Background = orange
  | Last album = B1
  | This album = '''''AB2'''''
  | Next album = B3
  }}
}}
Just "Split album by (Artist A) / (Artist B)" in the type field should be enough, IMO. –Unint 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Heres a complete one - The Echoing Green / The W's Split EP Dan, the CowMan 17:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/This Is the Sea/archive1

Hi. I seem to have run out of tweaks to make to the article, so if other editors would check out the Peer Review above and offer feedback, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance. Jkelly 02:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cover songs in tracklist?

Is there an appropriate way to deal with a cover song in the tracklist? The thing about a cover is, it can go two ways as I see it. The writer could be the same as the artist, or it could be different. So here's how I'm thinking about dealing with them the different ways, tell me if I'm wrong (these are just theoretical examples)

  1. "New Rose" (Brian James)
  2. "Do You Really Want to Hurt Me?" (Culture Club)

Does that seem right? With the first one, the writer is a member of the band The Damned, but it seems like it should specifically say the artist that originally performed it. With the second one, Culture Club both wrote and performed the song.Joltman 16:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I would put the cover information in album or song information rather than the tracklisting. It clutters it up IMHO. --Fantailfan 16:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
After I posted, that thought came to my mind as well. I guess the only thing then would be if it's an album full of covers, should you list each one in the body? One example is The Spaghetti Incident? which currently has (originally performed by ...) in place of the actual writer. Would you have a paragraph dedicated to what is a cover by who then? Joltman 16:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say get off yer duff and find the original songs and get the credits. Good material for the article - why did the artiste cover the song? See Pin Ups, which I will modify soon to add to the songs section what Bowie covered, as an example of a covers album. "Originally performed by" is not a song credit. Is McCartney's 1996 non-bootleg release of his composition "Come and Get It" a cover of Badfinger's 1970 version?
p.s. I looked to see if you had contributed to The Spaghetti Incident? before saying "get off yer duff." -- Fantailfan 16:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It depends on the form of the tracklisting. You didn't give a specific example. Generally, the name in parentheses is the author of the song. Often, the performer is separated by a dash. At least that's the style that is familiar to me. The most important thing is to be clear about it. -Freekee 04:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Stars

Why should the rating of an album be (4/5) rather than ****-? Am I the only one that thinks the stars look better? RENTAFOR LET? röck 00:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The stars are problematic. This issue was raised several times (see the most recent discussion). Jogers (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
...which was continued at the Village Pump, but ultimately unresolved. In a quickie vote of the half dozen or so people who cared, it was tentatively decided to keep the stars but maybe redesign them to be more easily read (possibly black instead of yellow). It's a shame none of us thought to save the section before it was deleted. MightyMoose22 15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I would vote to get rid of the stars if it was now. Jogers (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd keep them. I think they give a more elegant look than simple numbers, but maybe that's just me. In any case, I think stars simply work better.--み使い Mitsukai 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't using stars depend on ratings out of 5, or at least some kind of numerical rating? For the sake of uniformity, I'd prefer for ratings to be given without stars, if at all. Tim Ivorson 16:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I only use the graphics for ratings out of 5; the letter grades, "honorable mention," etc.(Christgau) or decimal (!) out of 10 (Pitchfork) are silly. I don't even like +1/2 star systems (which most people use); it turns a 5 point system into a ten-point one, effectively. No stars sounds like not rated rather than unlistenable (e.g., Metal Machine Music) and 4 1/2 stars is good for those not-quite-perfect albums (e.g. Quadrophenia). I digress, however. I prefer stars (however they are presented) because ratings, for me, are like time - right now it's not 4:08 PM EDT, but "a little after 4." --Fantailfan 20:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
What I said last time round was that I think we should display the review results as they are displayed at the source, if it's shown (as with AMG) as Image:3hvof5.png we should use stars, if it's 4/5 (or 8.3, or B+) as text we should use text, et cetera. I disagree with regardlessly converting all reviews to text as much as I would with converting them all to stars. MightyMoose22 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
My position hasn't changed. Selectively representing some graphically and some textually is pointless. Having them all as text is the easiest and most uniform.—jiy (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I've used the PNGs constantly, up to the point where I started to consider visual accessibility. Were there ever specific concerns about that? (Or just having all the information in the article presentable in text form, I suppose.) –Unint 02:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
That was and is one of the main concerns, AFAIK. As far as inserting PNGs manually, blind users probably won't know the rating unless alt text is included with each star image, which complicates an already complicated syntax. The current template Template:Stars (automated method) seems to improve accessibility somewhat.—jiy (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with the argument that the review ratings should be displayed as they are displayed at the source. Does it mean that the "mics" should be used instead of stars or plain text to display the The Source (magazine) ratings? Jogers (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I think so. Last time I mentioned the use of hypothetical thumbs up/down icons and I still think we should respect the wishes of the magazine staff and use their system, even if they want to rate an album out of seventeen cucumbers. Sure it might be a bit awkward right now, but as soon as we have a system in place (with templates, a directory/gallery for ease finding the pictures & a detailed section on this page) I believe it can work effectively. MightyMoose22 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Imagine 10 links to reviews, each with its own rating system. It would horribly clutter the reviews section IMO. Jogers (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, but they also provide a quickly recognised focal point - i.e. if you want to know the Source rating, you know to just look for the mics and you've found it, otherwise you'd be searching for a text needle in the middle of a text haystack. Just glance back up at this converstion, you can't deny that the stars (and the strawberry) stand out, at least more than where people have written text ratings. Plus, about half of the ratings would be/are text based anyway, so the stars (or whatever) would/do break it up a bit. MightyMoose22 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Look at My Private Nation by Train and you get a good idea at how POV RS reviews are in the first place. At least AMG is consistent within the band/musician's career. --Fantailfan 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:KISS should be a guideline here. I like stars, but that's a personal preference. If it doesn't use stars, I use a numerical rating. The non-rated RS reviews, which you can read and judge (favorable/unfavorable) involve original research IMEHO. There is the template:stars which is marginally more readable, but as Jogers might say, isn't for the low-visioned, but I like it anyway. --Fantailfan 13:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a good ponit about RS, and they're also potentially POV. If a review mentions that half an album is good and the other half is bad, it's up to us to decide whether to class it as a favourable review or not. MightyMoose22 15:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
If the review says it's half bad, half good, it should be labeled "mixed". That's what the WP page says and I don't think there's too much risk of OR or POV in summarizing reviews that way. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, if it's 50/50, but what about 60/40, 70/30 or 80/20. It's up to the reader to decide when it stops being "mixed" and starts leaning one way or the other. MightyMoose22 01:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Warning: Heavy POV ahead Assuming the reviewer isn't (say) Christgau with his bias against unoriginality (however well-executed). Look, that's always the problem and while Christgau can get away with it (he is one person's POV) the reviews in AMG, Pitchfork and Stylus (which are the ones I use in my contris) are, to some degree, anonymous. Argh. I wish music reviews weren't, like so much of pop culture in the past twenty years, so self-referential (until I actually listened to Velvet Underground in 1987 I was unaware of their influence, relegating the talented (Bowie) and talentless (any number of off-key "artists") to the same level). end of rant --Fantailfan 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If anyone still cares, I've managed to rescue the older discussions and archive them (along with this one) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Stars, thanks to the genius of edit history pages. If you wish to continue this debate, please do so on that page. Thanks. MightyMoose22 10:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I wonder if we ever reach consensus on this. Jogers (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. From the looks of things, it seems doubtful, but at least we now have a direction in which to point people the next time the subject arises. MightyMoose22 12:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. Thanks for your effort. Jogers (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
To add my belated comment I've currently got a poor internet connection and the wretched things often don't load - leaving me to discover the rating by the image name. It doesn't add a great deal when they load - but when they don't it is a real pain.. Secretlondon 03:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Rate Your Music links

Many album articles link to Rate Your Music in professional reviews section. I'm pretty sure that these links shouldn't be there so if there were a strong consensus on this I would be pleased to remove them with AWB. Jogers (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Even if we ignored the fact that these aren't professional reviews, aren't these ratings a "moving target" anyway? Don't these ratings change as more and more people rate them? If so, there's no reason to even try to have these. I say tell 'em bye. UnhandledException 02:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed all of them for now. Nobody complained so far. Jogers (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Help me unstub!

What are the minimum requirements for a WikiProject Album to avoid stubbing? --Fantailfan 13:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you know where to find some general information about stubs (Wikipedia:Stub). There is no specific guideline on what is stub and what is not for album articles so I would just use the common sense. Jogers (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
My view on your project is that the articles will stay stubbed if they don't mention at least 4 points of the ones mentioned below, like:
  • the genre
  • how good it did on the charts
  • if the songs that are on the album originals or are they remixes or retake from sombody else
  • why was this album created (if possible)
  • who were the musicians (if known)
  • whereabouts of the recordings (where, when, who was the producer)
  • afterthoughts on the album (by the public)
  • re-releases, remixes of songs
  • where there other releases (American, European, Australian)
  • what were the shows or the events associated with the albums (tours, ...)
  • lists should be blended in the text (except for the listing of the CD/Tape/Vinyl)
  • ... (and much more)
Lincher 20:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Amazon.com links

I believe that using amazon.com or amazon.co.uk as a review source is a moving target and commercial bias that we should avoid. What d'y'all'think? <Fantailfan 14:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)<<

Depends on which ones you mean. The costumer reviews (with the five-point ranking) are not professional reviews and should be avoided (see Rate Your Music links above). However, I think the Editorial Reviews from Amazon are okay. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Tracking albums by number?

Anyone looked at Cat:Albums by number lately? There are now categories for up to the fourteenth album released by an artist. (A couple of months ago, there were only Cat:Debut albums, Cat:Second albums, and Cat:Final albums.)

Anyone think this is worthwhile? (I doubt it, just given the ambiguity of some people's release histories; not to mention the question of what we gain from this...) –Unint 01:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

just nonsense. Put them up for CFD, if you like Spearhead 08:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that these categories are useful. Jogers (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I dislike the proliferation of categories in general, articles which have too many categories, and especially categories which seem to serve no useful purpose. -Freekee 14:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Stubby articles

I was wondering if it wouldn't be better to create a forking project to put all the stubby articles that will never have encyclopaedic importance on WP, if not, then trying to created articles that already give more information that listing the tracks on the album which is what I normally see on album pages... see Dalida's albums for example. It would be nicer to have information on the album than to only know the tracks (which can be retrived on other websites easily). Lincher 20:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Track listings

I propose that we do something about revising the tracklistings guidelines to, in the cases of some albums, utilize tables. The current example works fine for albums where you have one band, with one producer (or production team), doing all of the tracks, but articles like It Was Written and Nastradamus show that change is needed (and also that the idea of using staggered bullets doesn't work well). --FuriousFreddy 11:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I really hate tables. They're often difficult to create, and look somewhat sloppy on a wikipage. Just my two cents. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
We could always use clear tables or reformmated ones. And I'd say that tables are a lot less sloppy than some of the discographies I've come across. Something needs to be done. What do you think of this one I did for The Temptations with a Lot o' Soul? --FuriousFreddy 01:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the guidelines work fine for most albums and therefore should be kept pretty much as they are. Articles where the guidelines don't fit should just ignore these rules. I also agree with Jeff; and tables are also confusing for unfamiliar editors.

And regarding your examples, both It Was Written and Nastradamus don't really follow the current guidelines as featured artists should be listed in bullet lists just like samples; I would suggest the same for producers (maybe we could make a tiny change to the guidelines, to that effect)--Fritz S. (Talk) 09:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fritz Saalfeld. Bulleted lists work better than tables. Jogers (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree; I don't find the bulleted lists method clean or easy to read (which is my whole point for bringing this up in the first place). Let me give it a try, though, to see if I can prove myself wrong.--FuriousFreddy 00:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I revised Nastradamus as per the WikiProject. I still feel like a table would be cleaner, and that we shouldn't limit the articles for the sake of inexperienced editors (tables are easy enough to learn). --FuriousFreddy 00:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that tables aren't too hard to learn but perhaps the more important advantage of using bulleted lists in such situations is their consistency with the current standard. Jogers (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The point of this discussion is to question that standard, not to blindly follow it. As I explained, it has its limitations. --FuriousFreddy 01:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess you're right. I like lists but it's a matter of taste to a certain extent. After I thought about this for a while I realized that tables can be more functional in some situations. It's good that you've pointed this out. Jogers (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think bullet lists are the better choice for almost all articles. In most articles, having tables would just make them unnecessarily complicated, as quite often there aren't so many different people working on the individual tracks. But as I said before, for some articles it might be useful to ignore the rules and use tables instead (see Illmatic for example). However, I don't think it is necessary to change to guidelines for that, as most articles work fine without tables. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who did the table at Illmatic; the reason being that, for it and about 80% of all modern hip-hop and R&B albums, the table makes for a significantly better presentation. These types of albums almost always have "so many different people" working on the original tracks; this WikiProject was obviously designed from a rock-centric view. I think updating the guidlines to accomodate for any album which includes more than four producers or a plethora of sampled/interpolated sources is very neccessary. --FuriousFreddy 01:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm more of a fan of lists myself, both aesthetically and for ease of use. But surely we need to accomodate sensible adaptions made by the actual editors working on particular album articles. Table presentation is just going to make more sense for some information, and I wouldn't support any kind of serious discouragement of it when it is the more elegant choice. Jkelly 03:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
How about we keep the current guidelines, and add a second one that uses tables, which can be used for those albums where a more complex track listing is required? --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Jogers (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
How about something like this:
Using a table is also acceptable in more complicated situations (see Illmatic for example). Jogers (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think "recommended" would be better than "also acceptable"... --Fritz S. (Talk) 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

album colour thingy and Exactshit

Can someone have a look at Exactshit and tell what colour it is meant to be? It is a bootleg CD, released by Hexstatic. --Midnighttonight 10:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's a life recording, you can use darkturquoise for now but setting up a seperate color for bootlegs may be a good idea... Jogers (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If it's released by the artist, it's not a bootleg recording. If tracks were unauthorised recordings, which the band took and released, if would be an "official bootleg," which would simply be considered a live record. I'd expect entries on actual bootlegs to be very rare. -Freekee 03:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
released by the artist under a pseudoym? It sounds like a studio recording. --Midnighttonight 22:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Midnighttonite says it best, Live album would be the best choice, its technically live and there won't be enough bootleg albums to deserve their own color. - Patman2648 07:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Rating but no review?

I have seen some albums on All Music Guide where a rating is given (X out of 5 stars) but no actual review is there. Should this be dealt with the same as any other review, or should it be dealt with differently? Joltman 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I remove such links from album infobox when I spot them. Jogers (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

What do you think about adding few words about the capitalization of titles in English at Project's page? Style section would be an appropriate place to add such information IMO. Jogers (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like it wouldn't be a bad idea, but what would be said? Does the info exist in the WP:MoS anywhere? There are rules about which words to capitalize, but here, we should use what the artist used. Look how many albums specify lower case. And what about when the lower case is only a visual/font thing, and not the way the title is used in general? Or is there a difference, and how would we know? -Freekee 02:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not to follow the MusicBrainz standards?
Also: I'd follow those standards for every track, not caring of how it's written on the record. --Gika 11:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the standard capitalization rules should be used in most cases. The WikiProject Music says:
In titles of songs or albums, unless it is unique, the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that:
  1. Are the first word in the title
  2. Are not conjunctions (and, but, or, nor), prepositions (to, over, through), articles (an, a, the), or the "to" in infinitives.
We could expand this a little bit. Also, linking to MusicBrainz capitalization guideline might be useful especially because they have such guidelines for other languages here (thanks to Gika!). Here are some other links: [23] [24] Jogers (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I work with some japanese albums and singles, and sometimes they are spelt completely in uppercase. However, it is not uncommon to see a page being moved from there to a capitalized version. What should be done in these cases? -- ReyBrujo 22:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This is no good. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names. Jogers (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... will have to take a break from my Dragonlance editing to check my watchlist (I am guessing there are over 300 articles about oriental albums and singles, although I notice you are already worming your way through the mess :-)). What does the unless it is unique mean in the naming convention? Also, when the name of the album is in a foreign language, should the previous/current/next album of the infobox use the japanese name or the romaji (english representation)? In example, in Hiiragi (I know it is a single, but it was the first example that came to mind), the real name is 柊. Should the current album be '''Hiiragi''' or '''柊''' (and in the next case, ''[[Hiiragi]]'' or ''[[Hiiragi|柊]]''? Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are some bands which names are "officially" lowercased (like a-ha, I guess). Sometimes an idiosyncratic capitalization or spelling is just noted in the first paragraph of the article (see Smile (Brian Wilson album)). These discussions [25] [26] [27] may also be helpful. And about the names in chronology section of the infobox... I find it reasonable to use the English representation in the first place and perhaps put the original name in brackets when appropriate (like "Hiiragi" (柊)). I'll try to help a bit with the mess. Jogers (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) shows a precedent for naming album articles with proper capitalization, rather than the style the artist prefers. -Freekee 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Various Artists

What's the format for track listings for various artists albums? I have just about finished doing all of the "Now That's What I Call Music (U.K. Series)" albums, and see that the format used for the pre-existing articles doesn't match the generic format. Should it be:

"Title" (Artist) – MM:SS

or

"Title" – Artist – MM:SS

--- Jbattersby 16:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The current guideline doesn't specify it. The first method is the same as the songwriters are attributed and may be confusing. Any thoughts? By the way, please note that songs should be placed in "quotation marks" not italicized. Jogers (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I used Artist: "Song" (Composer) – mm:ss (see here) on the albums I did, but I would be glad to change them if we can all reach a non-ambiguous consensus. I agree that the artist in parentheses is not the way to go. UnhandledException 21:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
How about the bulleted list like:
  1. "Title" (Composers) – mm:ss
    • performed by Artist
Jogers (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
My first reaction was cumbersome, but not altogether bad. The more I look at it, the more I think it is viable. Any other suggestions would be welcome, too. UnhandledException 14:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Look at my article on The Big Chill (album)... example in three formats:
  1. "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" (performed by Marvin Gaye, 1968) (Whitfield/Strong) – 5:03
  1. "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" (Whitfield/Strong) – 5:03
  1. Marvin Gaye: "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" (Whitfield/Strong) – 5:03
I added the year because of the nature of the collection. --Fantailfan 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
My preference would be for:
  1. Marvin Gaye (1968): "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" (Whitfield/Strong) – 5:03
I think that including the text "performed by" is excessive.
--- Jbattersby 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
After stubbing one out for myself, the performed by looks kind of strange once you repeat this 12 times or so for each track on the album. UnhandledException 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Just reformatted The Big Chill (album) along jbattersby's lines.--Fantailfan 13:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is one more possible format I've noticed in some article:
Performer – "Title" (Composers) – mm:ss
Jogers (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reviews for different releases?

I just cleaned up Ramones (album) and when I was going through it, I noticed All Music has reviews for both the original album and the Rhino Records expanded release. The way I dealt with this was in the Reviews section I put Rhino Records Expanded Release: and put the applicable review under that. Does that seem OK, or is there a better way to deal with it? Joltman 14:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. We definitely don't want a new article, just to cover a few bonus tracks. If there is any significance to the release or the additions, it might warrant its own section header, but otherwise, the article looks good. -Freekee 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
How about something like this?
or just:
It looks better to me. Jogers (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The bottom section with "expanded release" looks better, but definitely no new page. - Patman2648 07:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A single with the same name as a song, italicize or quotes?

When a single is mentioned, as in a cd-single or a 7", where the name is a song nameis the title supposed to be italicized or surrounded by quotes? Off the top of my head, Dropkick Murphys released a single for the song "Walk Away". So, if the single is mentioned, is it Walk Away single or "Walk Away" single? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joltman (talk • contribs) .

  • I prefer "Walk Away," as my mind automatically associates the itals with albums. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm suprised to discover that neither the WikiProject Albums nor the WikiProject Songs specify explicitly that singles should be placed in quotation marks. Jogers (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If I was writing about it, I would use italics when referring to the single/release, and quotes when referring to the song itself. But I wouldn't get into an edit war over it. -Freekee 03:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I find this approach a little bit strange. The general rule is that Italics are generally used for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)). So, it's quite obvious for me that singles should be placed in quotation marks. It's unambiguous and consistent with the current guideline at WikiProject Songs. Jogers (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • But a while single may be short in comparison to an album, it still may contain several of the shorter works. In other words, a single may contain, three, five or even seven songs. If those songs are enquoted, shouldn't you italicize the longer work that contains those shorter works? And since the Wikiproject:Songs doesn't specify that singles are to be treated the same as songs, I think it's rather ambiguous. I would say that the singles in quotes is much more common that singles in italics. I'd also add that if you do singles in italics you'd have to switch back and forth in an article, which can be awkward. But I believe it's technically correct. -Freekee 05:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I think it's reasonable to recommend using quotes for singles in general. The WikiProject Songs doesn't state this explicitly but all the examples on the Project's page use double quotation marks. Jogers (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with Jogers. While it isn't stated in any guidelines, using quotation marks for singles is how it is done on pretty much every article. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll go along with that, even though "because everybody else does it" is a poor reason to. I mean, I don't see how a 40 minutes single with seven songs is any different than a 45 minute LP with five songs. -Freekee 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The longstanding guidelines are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music:

Albums are italicized and songs are in quotes (i.e. The Beatles' song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" comes from their 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band). Operas, symphonies and other pieces of classical music are also italicized.

It probably wouldn't hurt to have the formatting issues either repeated on the Songs and Albums pages, or linked prominently to the guidelines at Wikiproject Music. — Catherine\talk 01:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Importance?

One of the albums I have worked on recently got flagged with an importance template stating that the importance of the article needs to be justified. Granted, there is nothing particularly groundbreaking about this album other than it is the last one released before the band's fame went nationwide, but that would be true of many albums in the albums project. I am working on some significant research, scouring old sites on archive.org for information that has been all but lost with time regarding this band, and I hope to be able to contribute more information as I have time to devote to this. I have printouts of pages 2-inches thick that I have been going through and highlighting on flights or any other place I have mind-numbing time to kill. The thing that got me involved in the albums project to begin with, is I felt that there was merit to having a non-commercial repository of albums. That way if I referred somebody to a particular album for some reason, I'd send them here rather than Amazon or some party with a corporate interest in the link. How should this flag be handled? The article in question is Kids on the Street. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UnhandledException (talk • contribs) . 18:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Kids on the Street article looks fine to me. It's a studio album by a notable band and this makes it significant enough, in my opinion. I would just remove the tag and notify Backburner001. Jogers (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Using the type field in the infobox

How about recommending a more consistent scheme for using this field? Do you think it's reasonable to use descriptions specific to release format like LP or CD as in many articles? I find it rather ambiguous. Also, wouldn't it be more informative to say "studio album" instead of just "album" for better contrast with compilation albums, live albums and so on? Jogers (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Album is the default and should always indicates studio album. If it is live, a sooundtrack or a comp, etc., it should always a different color as well as type. Since most recordings since 1968 or so have been available on CD since 1990 (with more than a few notable exceptions) differentiating by media type seems silly. --Fantailfan 14:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Such descriptions are quite common. I was wondering if something like:
Do not use descriptions specific to release format such as LP, CD or MC.
could be added to the guideline (in the details section)? Jogers (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think so. The medium is not the message in this respect. --Fantailfan 14:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Song with a term in it - link it?

When I was cleaning up CVA (album), it had terms in a song linked, which is something I've seen done in other articles. For example, a song called "Atticus Finch" was linked to the Atticus Finch article even though the article doesn't mention the song. Also, a song called "Less Deicide, More Minor Threat..." had Deicide and Minor Threat linked in the song name. Am I correct that links like this should be kept out of the song title, and, as I did in said article, put a link under 'See also' if it seems relevent? Joltman 13:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I link it when the reference is necessary for understanding the title. To point out the obvious, most popular songs' titles are either taken from the lyrics or (especially in the case of instrumentals) seemingly arbitrary, so I like adding a little 'flavor' when the source isn't obvious. But then I am not an administrator, just a contributer. --Fantailfan 14:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess my thing is, as my example above, if you see "Atticus Finch" aren't you going to assume that it's a link about the song? If I saw "Less Deicide, More Minor Threat..." I think it's a little more obvious, but to me it still seems out of place, so that's why I was asking here. Joltman 15:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you on this one. Individual terms for context like the Minor Threat one? Yes. If it's something like Atticus Finch, I might make a note of it in the description or a parenthetical in the tracklisting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't like to vary the linespacing of the track listing... but you got me thinking about it, so I think I will change the ones I've done so that it's in the body of the article rather than a paranthetical. --Fantailfan 16:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
well, I was thinking along the lines of, say, "4. "Clint Eastwood" (references Hollywood actor Clint Eastwood)" rather than a new line item. I prefer adding it to the body because a) most album articles are short, and can use the expansion, and b) it looks cleaner. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that this sort of context-linking is a lot less likely to lead to surprised readers if it is done in article text. Jkelly 16:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

labels vs. publishing labels

is there any chance the infobox templates can be altered to incorporate an optional "publishing label(s)" line? Otherwise we're left with what we've got at Arctic Monkeys... which I suppose isn't too bad but a new infobox parameter would be easier. Image:Armsofengland.png DJR COME ON ENGLAND! (Talk) 16:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the infobox is all that awkward, but that article has serious Wikipedia:Fair use issues. Jkelly 16:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, JK, you had me confused... the article has serious WP:FU issues, not the multiple issuing/imprint thing... Hostess has a record label in Japan? And I thought they just did Twinkies. You also have indie label releases re-released by a major, reissues done after the most recent spate of M&A's, plus the Rhino-WEA connection. I think "additional label" parameters would be good. --Fantailfan 16:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use at Arctic Monkeys

Where exactly are these fair use issues? Everything used has correct licensing information, sourced and used in context... where's the problem? Image:Armsofengland.png DJR COME ON ENGLAND! (Talk) 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:FUC numbers three and ten. There's no indication that the images tagged as "promotional" are from a press kit, or who the copyright holder really is, and all but one unfree image could be removed without losing anything encyclopedic from the article. I'm not about to go delete them or anything, but you might want to think about fixing that up. Jkelly 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted, though I should point out that there are no free images in existence that are available to use. But I agree that two promotional images isn't really necessary. Image:Armsofengland.png DJR COME ON ENGLAND! (Talk) 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are 'to be announced' albums put in discographies?

I found that a user just did that, but it seems to be quite unnecessary for me... — Zee 00:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not, so long as it's just a simple, basic entry. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 03:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also agree that seems fair, the page will be created anyway why not start it early. - Patman2648 06:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
If it is referenced, then I don't see why not. DJR (Talk) 09:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The key point here is "will be created anyway". People always jump the gun on these, even if the title hasn't been announced yet — see the sorts of tools created just for this purpose. –Unint 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. ''Zee'' 03:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Music videos

I've had a look around the WikiProjects and this seems like the best place to ask, as they're kind of like visual albums. How should music videos (as in video tapes, not promotional clips) be handled? Many bands have released many videos over the years, whether they be live concert footage or "greatest hits" type promo vid compilations, especially since the invention of the DVD. I think they should have their own infobox colour and be mentioned on this page. As it stands, the majority of ones I've seen whilst researching this train of thought don't have an infobox at all, with the exception of those included as part of a CD/DVD package such as Animals Should Not Try to Act Like People, which are labelled as if 'twere only a CD. Any thoughts? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 03:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You can always use {{DVD infobox}}; we could certainly stand to get more mileage out of it. (Actually, that makes it invalid for VHS and all those other formats. That's a problem.) –Unint 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Why not using the standard {{Album infobox}} template with the "type" field specified as "video album" or something? A separate color of the infobox may also be a good idea. The other problem is what color should be used in such split releases like Animals Should Not Try to Act Like People or Magical Mystery Tour. Jogers (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of using the Album box, I just wondered what the colours should be. I guess we could just use the standard "live" and "compilation" colours, but maybe it'll be an idea to give them their own. As for split releases, there are three kinds from what I can tell. There's the CD/DVD packages like Animals..., those released completely seperately (and therefore have seperate articles) like Magical Mystery Tour (album) (film), and those that are just different versions of the same thing, like Royal Albert Hall London May 2-3-5-6 2005. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 18:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ordinals in chronologies

Are ordinals (1st, 2nd, 3rd, ...) in album chronologies in the infobox encouraged, allowed, discouraged or disallowed? See for example X&Y. --PEJL 20:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen this anywhere else. I don't think this is necessary. Jogers (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

AWB edits

I listed the "find and replace" settings I use with AutoWikiBrowser at User:Jogers/AWB and wrote short descriptions of what I intended them to do. I've already applied some of these changes to few articles about albums. I'd like to go through all the articles using the {{album infobox}} eventually so if you have any idea how these settings could be improved please let me know. Jogers (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →


Track by track analysis

What are people's thoughts about albums being laid out track by track on seperate pages? I've just become aware (no pun intended) of this happening with The Who's Tommy. It seems a bit excessive to me, especially as it's mostly pages like It's A Boy (The Who). Surely these should be included on the album's page, if at all. At the very most they should be edited into one the songs or the plot of Tommy article, nes pas? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 12:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe a 30 second track wasn't the best example, so how about Acid Queen or Eyesight to the Blind (The Hawker). Either way, there's really not much to say about most of these tracks, other than "it was in Tommy and it's about something-or-other".MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 12:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree - the only tracks that should have their own pages are those released as singles (and even then it should only be for famous singles), or tracks that have enough contextual importance to justify its own article. Anything else should just be put into the album's article. DJR (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the example you give should be prodded IMHO - they have no enclopaedic value and their infoboxes just contain the album's information. I've done the same thing with A Certain Romance. Wield the axe! DJR (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but how about less obviously pointless pages like the Pink Floyd ones (i.e. all those linked at Wish You Were Here (album)#Track listing or Animals (album)#Track listing etc etc ad nauseum). I'm not sure about these as they are fairly long articles, but again it's mostly just "this is what the lyrics are about" and pointless (though not uninteresting) trivia. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 13:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree. However, should you prod the pages, you may encounter opposition from those who are proprietary about 'their' pages despite the uselessness (sorry, I meant lack of encylopedic value) of long analyses of three minute songs. Fantailfan 14:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah prod them all. By "tracks that have enough contextual importance to justify its own article", I mean tracks which have explained the relevant history for that song (e.g. "Beat It"), information regarding their multi-platinum status (e.g. "Crazy") or the significance of the song in catapulting a band to overnight fame (e.g. "I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor"). Lyrics can be analysed if relevant to controversy/acclaim of the song (e.g. "Stan"). Stuff that just analyses lyrics without wider context should be prodded, regardless how in depth the analysis is. DJR (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Please just merge and leave a redirect in these cases. Redirects are cheap, and there's really no compelling reason to get rid of the edit history. If there is a good content, move it into the album article. Jkelly 16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Angels and Airwaves' album We Don't Need to Whisper also might need some merging as almost every song from that album has its own articles, and most of them could even be considered copyvios from Kerrang... --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
While I have absolutely no problem with all songs having articles, I think the working standard tends to be songs released as singles, with exceptions for songs that have value beyond a stub or that have some sort of third party reference that discusses it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that's the consensus, more or less. --Fantailfan 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Also keep in mind the existence of whole-album navigational templates, like {{Dsotm}} and {{ReiseReise}}. (The latter actually links to a number of redirect pages that all point back to the album itself.) –Unint 21:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Anything that's not a single or a song that's heavily important in historical context should be confined to the album articlew. --FuriousFreddy 03:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've turned all the tracks from Tommy, A Quick One and Who's Next into redirects to the album page. I've not done Quadrophenia yet, as the track pages already had merge tags on them, but Who Are You was full of redlinks, so I just stopped them before they started. I left the singles as they were, though. I've left it at The Who for the moment, as I'm not sure I'm ready to take on the monster that is Pink Floyd just yet, let alone the rest of the world. I'll see how much flack I get first. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 09:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Did same for Quadrophenia except for the actual singles.--Fantailfan 10:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I now added merge tags to half the non-single tracks of Angels and Airwaves' We Don't Need to Whisper and listed the other half at possibly copyright violations (because they consisted only/mostly of text copied from Kerrang). --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
People all over the world,
Join in!
Stop the cruft thing,
The cruft thing. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 13:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Original album scheme inquiry.

The orange used for the original album entries is rather discomforting. Are there any objections to picking a shade of blue or something else which is easier on the eyes? --Folajimi 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah -- you'd have to update thousands of pages to make the change. —Slicing (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
True, but I am assuming that it is possible to submit an automation request; it would be rather inconvenient to manually implement such a change. Folajimi 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I find current colors rather ugly and I wouldn't mind toning them down a bit. Is this possible to manipulate colors in the code of the {{album infobox}} template? Or maybe just orange border would be enough? Jogers (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, this was discussed before. Jogers (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Thousands upon thousands... 23,041 uses of this template right now (and counting!). It is very possible to put the colors into the template itself. However, this would require meta-template, which we aren't supposed to use (WP:AUM). We could use different templates (e.g. {{Studio album infobox}} and {{Live album infobox}}, but I don't think that's too practical. I think we just have to suck it up and stick with what we've got. Maybe pick some colors that we want to stick with, and run a bot to change them all. tiZom(2¢) 22:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The last thing we want to do is end up changing all the colours only to come across angry objectors, so if there is to be a change, it'd have to receive undisputable consensus. At that stage, a bot (or several) would definitely have to be used... i dread to think how many man-hours would be wasted doing in manually. DJR (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the colors matter as much as the reason for changing them. If we're discussing issues with low-vision readers, or colors that are seizure-inducing--I'm not making a joke--then there is good reason for changing them. --Fantailfan 23:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is more than just a matter of aesthetics; the current hue used for 'original albums' makes it rather difficult for me to read the text. --Folajimi 01:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I can read it just fine. Perhaps your computer monitor is oversaturated? (I kid.) Reguardless, there's no good reason to implement a color change (even the bot-work would be frought with problems), unless orange infoboxes become illegal or something. (There's already enough of a problem with people not following the color-use rules; I've seen far to many gangsta rap albums uploaded with dark grey boxes, so that they can look more....gangsta, I guess. Anyways.) The color isn't there for decoration, and trust me, it could have been a lot worse, like pure cyan or Technicolor red. --FuriousFreddy 03:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I can read it just fine, too. I also have normal vision and brain activity and use flat-panel displays. My wife has temporal lobe epilepsy. Popup windows, flashing web pages and inappropriate color choices and contrasts (not even so obvious ones as yellow text on purple background) can induce seizures. So, I am sensitive to these issues on her behalf, if not my own. --Fantailfan 12:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the more useful question would be "why do we even have a colour scheme?" I'd question what we gain from distinguishing records in the way we do. The reason so many newbies don't grasp that studio lp's must be orange and live recordings must be turquoise is presumably because there is nothing immediately telling them that we have this scheme in place, and there is certainly no intuitive connection between the colours and their meanings. I assumed the colours were just random when I first turned up, in fact, and chose a nice pink colour for my first infobox. You have to wonder, if our editors can't tell what the colours mean then what chance do our readers have? Flowerparty☀ 04:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of providing a background color property, set some default values like song/single, live album, compilation album, etc. It would even allow the template itself to give a category to the article. -- ReyBrujo 04:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
How does that address the issue at hand? --Folajimi 02:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The colours would be coded in the template instead of the article. That way, if later it is decided to have the colour changed, you would change it in the template, effectively updating all the articles at once. Also, it is much more obvious for someone new to the infobox to add a type = studio album, type = single or type = compilation album than having to manually assign the background color. -- ReyBrujo 02:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
How easy will it be to make such a template? --Folajimi 02:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I would say pretty trivial. I have been collaborating in Template:DL character, where the class determines the infobox background color (and which was based in older templates like the Template:SW character). Note that a consensus must be first reached, since this is a heavily used template. -- ReyBrujo 02:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course! Personally, I support this alternative; the sooner its adoption can be proposed, the better. --Folajimi 02:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great but note that the "type" field is used not only for simple descriptions like "live album" or "compilation album" but also for more complicated ones like "soundtrack to film by artist" or "tribute album to artist1 by artist2". If we were about making such a change, the issues discussed here would have to be resolved differently. By the way, the {{album infobox}} shouldn't be used for songs and singles. They have their own infoboxes (see WikiProject Songs). Jogers (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like {{Qif}} territory... when all is said and done, will this template be user-friendly at all? --Folajimi 12:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No, no Qif, but m:ParserFunctions, just like the ones using right now. And I used single as an example because it was late and was the first thing to come to my mind ;-) It is possible to leave a "default" option. In example, the type parameter would accept "album", "live album", "compilation album", etc. If any of these predetermined types is used, the infobox would get a specified background color (hardcoded in the template). If none of these is specified, the type would show whatever the user has written there (in example, "one time tribute album" to give a nonsense example would appear as type even though we have never considered it) and would use a default color (in example, the "album" color, or we could setup a "unknown" color for these cases, maybe an ugly one to "subliminally" force people to choose a correct type instead of a hand-made one). Once the changes are done, a bot could replace the background color with the new type parameter based on the current background color and/or the album type, and once that is done, it would be a matter of determining which colors are the best considering people with different eyesight difficulties. I can create a template at my sandbox, if people is still thinking it may be too hard. As for the issues discussed in the archive, we can create a list of all the topics that have been left behind with the current infobox, and see if we can implement them now. Note that the proposed album infobox is basically the old one, merging the background and type parameters in a only field, so if the previous infobox did not cover it, the proposed one won't cover them as well. -- ReyBrujo 14:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Your suggested demonstration is an excellent idea. Could you please provide a link to your sandbox? --Folajimi 15:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
User:ReyBrujo/Sandbox, note that I haven't yet done anything, after having lunch I will make the proposed changes in there. -- ReyBrujo 15:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
ReyBrujo << (Speed of light). All in due time, of course. --Folajimi 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't as trivial as I hoped (last words anyone?). To prevent having to copy the switch four times (one every time the background color was needed), I put the switch in a new template User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox. In a second auxiliar template (User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox2), I added another switch to automatically wikilink the type to the correct article. When the user sets the Type property to EP, the first auxiliar template will return salmon and the second auxiliar will return EP. The main problem I am having now is that, seemly, nested templates tend to break in different ways (the test cases in the auxiliar templates should show that), which end affecting the infobox. I will be needing some more time to review why the template is broken. -- ReyBrujo 18:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is working now. I have noticed some other templates would need to be modified (like Template:Extra chronology and Template:Extra album cover (by the way, shouldn't that one be protected too?). They will all use one of the auxiliar templates (the one that determines the colour based on the type). Feel free to test at my sandbox at will. I have documented the auxiliar templates, and added unit cases in case anyone is worried about breaking them. -- ReyBrujo 21:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The {{Extra chronology}} template is protected because it's used in the code of the {{Album infobox}} and it's therefore a high use template. There is no need to proctect the {{Extra album cover}} template. Jogers (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the template at User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox2 the 'soundtrack' wikilink is used for the 'television theme' template. Is this intentional? --Folajimi 01:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, at first I linked to Film soundtrack, however I realized it was a circular reference. [28] I have changed the template to point to Film score instead of Soundtrack, as it seems is the right option. [29] However, the main focus is the ability to both give several different types the user can choose from that all point to the same article (in example, greatest hits and compilation album both point to Compilation album, however the user sees the text he wanted to, even though it is pointing to another page), or to directly replace several types with a "standard" definition (in example, the user could choose greatest hits or compilation album as album type, however both would display Compilation album in the infobox). -- ReyBrujo 02:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice catch. Too bad I'm busy at the moment to fix that; Film score != Soundtrack. See Trespass (soundtrack) and Trespass (film score). Conflating the two is a great disservice. I hope that your work will help address the matter. --Folajimi 02:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of what Flowerparty mentioned earlier, would it be possible to include a legend within the template? It should be just conspicuous enough to be noticed, but not to the point of being obnoxious. --Folajimi 16:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. We can even use the auxiliar template instead of hardcoding the colors as it is currently done to get the reference table update automagically everytime a color is changed in the template. -- ReyBrujo 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
See here for the same table as with the WikiProject but using the template instead of the hardcoded values. -- ReyBrujo 17:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This seems very nice and useful. Jogers (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts about the infobox changes proposal

Well, I have mixed feelings but I must admit that this is somewhat interesting concept. It would require making changes to a large number of articles but this may actually be worthwhile and I'm not thinking only about the possibility of changing the colors. A more important advantage of this proposal is cleaning up the mess and making the usage of the infobox more intuitive. Many articles use non-standard type descriptions and wrong colors. Of course, the issue of wrong colors would automatically be resolved. Moreover, the template could automatically place the articles with non-standard "types" in some maintenance category so we can fix them manually. But like I said before, the "type" field is also used for stuff like "soundtrack to film by artist" etc which is intentional and correct because there is no other way to make such a description without using a separate template (I encourage you to read this discussion carefully). The issue of such non-standard descriptions would have to be resolved differently. I have two ideas for how it could be done.

  1. Instead of choosing an ugly color for "default", the color would be specified manually in non-standard cases (by keeping the "background" parameter which would override the values choosed by the template itself).
  2. Creating a new parameter which would work like this:
    • type = soundtrack / tribute album
    • new parameter = to film / to artist1
    • artist = artist1 / artist2
which would produce: Soundtrack to film by artist1 / Tribute album to artist1 by artist2 Jogers (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the changes proposal, and I like Jogers' sub-proposal. Defs needs the green light - will solve a lot of problems if implemented. DJR (T) (WC) 22:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
My original proposal of having a ugly color to enforce selecting the correct type was, indirectly, to encourage people to report the non-standard extensions to the project so that they could be added to the infobox. However, since the Type parameter accepts "non-standard" types, adding the Background property back wouldn't really hurt. I would suggest creating a bot that would check once per week every album infobox and report non standard types and associated background colors, to determine when a non-standard is important enough (or there are too many similar non-standard types) to be added to the standard types.
The first alternative is easy to implement. The second needs some polishing, as it adds more complexity to the parser (aka, I am not sure how to achieve that). I think it may need to be used as:
* type = {{array|1=soundtrack|2=tribute album}}
* new parameter = {{array|1=to ''film''|2=to artist1}}
* artist = {{array|1=artist1|2=artist2}}
or using a "longtype" variable along with an new template:
longtype = {{array
  | 1={{album longtype | type=soundtrack | new parameter = to ''film'' | artist = artist1}}
  | 2={{album longtype | type=tribute album | new parameter = to artist1 | artist = artist2}}
}}
I am just speculating here, I haven't seen this kind of templates yet. Sorry for the lack of indent in the test samples, I prefer having them this way than in a single line. -- ReyBrujo
Oh, you seemingly misunderstood me. These are two separate examples:
  • type = soundtrack
  • longtype = to film
  • artist = artist1
which produce: Soundtrack to film by artist1
  • type = tribute album
  • longtype = to artist1
  • artist = artist2
which produce: Tribute album to artist1 by artist2
This I guess is easy to implement, right? Sorry for the confusion. Jogers (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes, that is easy to do. I thought you wanted both at the same time, that would have made things a bit more complex. -- ReyBrujo 11:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Tried to come with a better name than longtype, but couldn't. I have implemented the parameter and added two examples from the Spinoff infoboxes. The first one shows its usage without Artist (Soundtrack to Forrest Gump), the second with Artist (Album to The Next Best Thing by Madonna). To really match the current Madonna infobox the Background parameter must be implemented. -- ReyBrujo 11:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Not anymore :-) "Soundtrack by Madonna" is actually better than just "Album by Madonna". I'm just wondering whether repeating the name of the film is necessary in this case. Jogers (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it may be a good idea to implement the background parameter too, at least temporarily. No bot will be able to change all the pages using the {{Album infobox}} template at once. If we just replaced the current album infobox with the code from your sandbox all of these pages would end up with pink infoboxes for several days. If we implemented the overriding background parameter these pages would remain the same until a bot remove the background parameter and replace linked descriptions in the type field like "Album" with plain ones like "Album". This way implementing the proposed changes to the template would be transparent. By the way, if we are about to update all the pages anyway don't you agree that "Studio album" say more about the type than just "Album"? Jogers (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I have added the background parameter back. As you can see in the sandbox, I have painted Madonna' soundtrack in yellow by specifying the yellow background twice, in the main template, and in the extra cover (which I added to test the parameter in the Extra album cover template). Background color overrides everything, if it is not defined the type is used to find the background color.
As for the type field, feel free to add new types to User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox and User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox2. I believe the test cases should be moved from those two pages into the User:ReyBrujo/Sandbox template, so that at anytime anyone checking the album infobox will be able to spot possible errors in both auxiliar templates. I still don't like that you need the same switch repeated in both templates, it may be easy to add a new type (like "Laser disc") in one and forgetting to add it into the other. As for the type visualization, there are two options: different types that create the same wikilink with a different text (like greatest hits generating [[Compilation album|Greatest hits]] and compilation album generating [[Compilation album]]) or standarizing them (like greatest hits generating [[Compilation album]] directly). Or, if you want to be more strict, not allowing greatest hits as type, only compilation album. I think the first alternative is better (the user may go WTF? with the second, and the third may not be too newbie friendly). -- ReyBrujo 15:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... Why not link greatest hits just to greatest hits? :-) Jogers (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • oops* :-) I guess most of the types will have their own wikilinks. -- ReyBrujo 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Greatest Hits type, I would like to steer people away from that classification. It's really a subtype of compilations. I would like to see greatest hits generate [[Compilation album]] directly. That would cause only momentary confusion. Either that, or disallow greatest hits, but I'd give it about four days before someone added it to the template. -Freekee 05:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I don't like it very much too. I wouldn't mind disallowing the "greatest hits" type. Jogers (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Type" field possible values

Well, but what about Animals Should Not Try to Act Like People and Magical Mystery Tour? Any idea how to standardize them? Jogers (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The former is an EP, that is bundled with multimedia content on a different storage medium; this is similar to "multimedia album" CDs, which have additional content available on the disc. The latter should be split up; there is some serious conflation going on in the article. From what I gather the LP was not bundled with the Double EP; in fact, they were released invidivually on different continents. Folajimi 12:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Whilst that's technically true, Animals Should Not Try to Act Like People should be thought of as a DVD before it is as an EP, as it was explicitly advertised upon release as "the first ever DVD with a bonus CD", as opposed to the norm of it being other way around. Anyway, the point Jogers was making (I think) was that we need (a) standard(s) for visual music releases, preferably without the need of mentioning the medium (VHS or DVD), as this is quite often interchangable. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess we're coming back to the unfinished discussion I have just archived :-) Jogers (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought that was your intention. :) MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No worries, it partially was :-) This issue has to be resolved if we are about to standarize the "type" field ultimately. Is video album a proper term for this kind of release? Is anybody willing to write an article about it? Are we going to use a separate color? Jogers (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Usually, I support hashing out these issues before we proceed, but I think there is no end to the possible variations (see 'Trespass' above). How will these issues affect the work being done by ReyBrujo? In other words, can these issues be addressed with minimal effort after the new template is created? --Folajimi 14:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I split this discussion into a separate section. It may be a good idea to sort this out if we are serious about implementing these changes to the template. Jogers (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it should be sorted before the template "goes live", or at least very shortly after. As for video album, I'm not sure. It may just be an English (as in England) thing, but the word video is very strongly connected with video cassettes for me, as in DVDs, laserdiscs and videos. But I can't think of an alternative, so I'll just put it down to me being too picky. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 14:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If I read the information correctly, the "Animals..." release IS an EP; it could have been on any storage media. If that is the case, the concept of a "DVD bundled with an CD" is little more than a marketing gimmick, and only conflates the issue at hand.

The recording ought to be considered an EP, and treated as such — regardless of the horse it rode in on. --Folajimi 15:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The CD part was a new EP. The DVD part is a career-spanning retrospective compilation. It all depends on which bit you consider to be more important, with the other bit being supplementary to it. It was advertised with the compilation DVD bit as the main feature and the EP as a bonus, which is backed up by the fact that on the packaging and in the article the DVD's track listing gets top billing over the CD's. But this is largely speculative and not at all helpful, and we can come back to it later if we so wish. The issue at the moment is about video albums themselves. Let's change the example to Greatest Video Hits 1, as it's straightforward enough. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I have just added the "Animals..." infobox at the sandbox. As you can see, the Type parameter will echo whatever it is written there if it is not a "magic word" it can recognize. In fact, the only modification I did was changing the template from the standard to the Sandbox one, which probes the new template passes the compatibility test with this specific album. We should focus on whether that kind of type (instead of having two infoboxes, one for EP and another for DVD, or to have an extra field for extra types) is accepted or should be considered exceptional. -- ReyBrujo 15:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Will it do the same for film scores? --Folajimi 16:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. We just need to change the film theme back to the generic soundtrack, and create a new film score type. -- ReyBrujo 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that the difference between a soundtrack and a score should be clear, I can't help thinking that having seperate colours for TV soundtrack, film soundtrack and film score seems a bit excessive. There have been a few films that had the score released as the soundtrack, part two or something, and John Williams' Star Wars sores are always called original motion picture soundtracks, as seen on the album covers in their own articles. Furthermore, where does that leave things like Labyrinth, where it's half Bowie soundtrack and half Trevor Jones score? Just something to think about. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 11:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that the same color should be used for all kind of soundtracks and film scores. What about this chocolate "Television theme songs"? Jogers (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I reckon that should be scrapped. We should just use one all-encompassing colour for use by all three types, and just differentiate them by the text displayed in the infobox field. If that makes sense. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 13:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense to me. Jogers (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
No complaints here. Folajimi 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
No problems here as well. We could even create a "super type" like (in example) "Television and film related albums", which may tag albums as needing an album type cleanup, so that others could change the type to a more specific one (soundtrack, television theme songs, film score, etc). -- ReyBrujo 17:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the point. Jogers (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Just in case someone knows the album can be broadly defined in those terms, but is unsure about which one, just like categorizing something in Category:Albums because the user does not know about the subcategories. -- ReyBrujo 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You mean just as a temporary placeholder until someone more experienced comes along and changes it? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I doubt whether such a specific "super type" would be very useful. I'd prefer it if we recommend to leave the "type" just as "album" in case the editor is not sure about which one to choose so the article would be placed in Category:Infoboxes with non-standard values. Jogers (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
But how about allowing some more specific "soundtrack" values like "film soundtrack", "video game soundtrack" etc? It this case it might be reasonable to categorize articles using the plain "soundtrack" value. I guess it would be more straightforward. Jogers (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, the All Music Guide considers GHV-1 to be a compilation... Folajimi 16:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Right. So, the ¥1,000,000 question is should we just display video albums as if they were audio - just call them "compilations" and "live albums" and use the standard colours, or should we give them their own colours and terms - i.e. "compilation/live video album" coloured purple or something, and if so, what should those terms and colours be? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
ReyBrujo suggested that we wait until later. Perhaps we should start picking the different tones/hues we like right now, and just assign them later? Folajimi 16:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather get this sorted soon, as I originally brought it up ten days ago, but there's no reason why it should interfere with the template or anything else. It can just happily sit back slightly as a secondary issue. That being said, in order to properly choose the tones/hues we like, we should decide how many we need to have. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 17:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suggest discussing everything first. The old infobox has been around for some time, won't hurt it to be a week or two more around. We can, at the same time, listen to suggestions for colour so that both topics can be finished in about the same time. If the proposed infobox maintains backwards compatibility, whenever it is ready, if we have the colours ready, both changes could actually happen as fast as a bot would be able to run. -- ReyBrujo 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah exactly - the new template will make it quite easy to change colours all in one go whenever necessary, so we can definitely keep the colours discussion pending while the new template is implemented. As I said earlier, this colours discussion is likely to be the final decision on the matter for a good few years at least, so it is very important than incontrovertable consensus is reached between all relevant parties. Given the number of pages that use the template, it's outcome has the potential to spark many people into mindless compaints. DJR (T) (WC) 17:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on previous discussions, I have modified the template. Now everytime a non-standard type is used, the article is included in Category:Articles about albums with infoboxes using non-standard type parameter value. Note that because User:ReyBrujo/Sandbox is both the template and the example, when viewing you won't be able to see the category (as it is using includeonly tags). To test, you will have to edit and preview the page, or go to an album like Animals Should Not Try to Act Like People, edit it, replace Album infobox with User:ReyBrujo/Sandbox and preview it. Hopefully MediaWiki caches results :-) -- ReyBrujo 03:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems it was a cache issue, I purged Wikipedia cache and now the page is categorized correctly. Also, I have expanded the unit testing in the auxiliar templates, so don't worry about breaking the template :-) -- ReyBrujo 04:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Great. Any idea for better name of the category? Jogers (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
How about just Category:Infoboxes with non-standard values? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 08:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Or even Category:Non-standard album infoboxes? DJR (T) (WC) 00:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This is simple and clear. What about the category description? It must say that it's a maintenance category and link to the project's page. Jogers (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's the easy part. As you said, we know what it has to say, and it can be edited numerous times to get the wording right, if needs be. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 11:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is remix album going to be a possible "type" value? Should it have a separate color? Jogers (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been suggested to use the compilation color for them [30]. Jogers (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, remix could be a possible type. I am one of those who think it is better to have many types than few, as it is much easier to merge types than splitting them. As for the color, I don't have problems with that; at least for now I can't foresee any problem. -- ReyBrujo 16:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Seperate type, shared colour, methinks. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What about Category:Mixtape albums? Jogers (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there an article about types of albums? In example, for the {{DL character}} template, I defined the classes based on the existing character classes plus the most important prestiges classes in the campaign setting. If there is a similar list about albums, we could defined from there which ones to pick. -- ReyBrujo 20:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of such an article. Jogers (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a tribute album a kind of compilation? Shouldn't they use the same color? Jogers (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. Tribute albums are half-way between compilations and cover albums. I'd say leave it as is for now, but I really don't care if it's changed, because it does make sense. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 15:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually cover albums could use the same color as well, don't you agree? Jogers (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
They could, but I think that a band covering an entire album (such as Dub Side of the Moon or Petra Haden Sings: The Who Sell Out) or covers recorded with the express intention of being part of an album (such as Pin Ups) have very few elements of a compilation about them. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 15:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I see. It was just an idea that popped up in my head. I don't mind keeping it the way it is now. Jogers (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Spectra nominations

ReyBrujo, could you make room in your sandbox for spectrum nominations? Or, should that discussion be tabled until the template is done? Folajimi 00:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ehem... what? :-) Sorry, I don't really know a lot about music terms, only about lyrics and melodies that make me feel good :-) -- ReyBrujo 03:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no. I was refering to the range of hues/tones that will be used for the template. e.g. Green for 'Original', Yellow for 'Compilations', etc. Folajimi 03:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you were referring to spectrum as a music term "_" Anyways, you can begin checking colours by modifying the ones listed inside the switch at User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox. Note that, since you are modifying the template, you will have to save the template before the changes can be seen. I have expanded the self unit testing, so if you change a colour, the check will probably fail; don't worry, just test around and remember to revert to the last page that did not break the test. If needed, a new page could be created to test colour pairs. -- ReyBrujo 04:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about colors yet? I must be the only one who likes the orange for albums. It's bold and has the second greatest contrast of any of the colors. I do find "salmon" to be ugly, and would appreciate a change. Will there be a color for an unspecified album type? I think there should be. I also favor a bad color, which would prompt a change. I suggest a somewhat dark shade of gray. That way it's not ugly or seizure inducing, but it's obvious that something is not right. There should probably be instructions nearby, though. The current template shows gainsboro as for both default and soundtracks. Whatever colors we choose, these two should be different from each other. -Freekee 05:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you are not the only one with an affinity for the use of Orange. Yes, it may be bold, but it is also rather brash. It is the reason I steer clear of using it when creating album articles.
That said, the decision about the spectrum which will be used has been tabled until the template itself is complete. You may also want to checkout the section on "Straw poll about the proposed infobox changes" located below. Folajimi 20:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Album length

I suggest creating a new field for the length in the album infobox. While keeping length, maybe adding hours, minutes and seconds so that people could add the values directly, and have some template magic to convert them in mm:ss format. Or, creating an auxiliar template to do that (in example, {{album length|hours=1|minutes=30|seconds=30}}, which would generate 90:30, while at the same time allowing {{album length|minutes=90|seconds=30}}. I have noticed people prefer writing 1:30:30, 1h 30 min 30 sec instead of 90:30, and maybe having those fields or templates will allow them to write the length in a "human readable" form, while allowing us to change the format with little interaction by just changing the template/s. -- ReyBrujo 20:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is necessary. Using this field is pretty straightforward and I would prefer it to fix incorrect description in the code itself rather than manipulating the way they are displayed. Jogers (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with the 1:30:30 format? I checked the project page and there isn't a standard of any sort mentioned for declaring times. I know that I personally record the lengths in the format I mentioned. It might be worth standardizing the proper format of course... If there's already a universal preferred format for "lengths of time" please point me to it. (Though now that I think of it, movies are generally listed as being 110 mins long, not 1 hour, 50 minutes) ~ Gertlex 15:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
When in doubt or without a solid reference, I usually check the template to search for hints. The example shows a mm:ss format (77:19, in that example). Also, as you say, movies are given in that format. -- ReyBrujo 16:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Spectra selection, Take #2

If the template far enough along to be rolled out, I suggest that the next course of action should be spectra selection for the legends. That is, unless there is an outstanding issue to be tended to... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like there are no objections. Does anybody have any suggestions? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 17:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Do future albums get infoboxes?

— Prodigenous Zee - 00:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For reference, check Cat:Upcoming albums — and what I find there is that it is generally done. You'd be hard-pressed, again, to stop people doing it, and the page is going to be continuously updated anyway, as {{Future album}} attests.
(Oh, and people will generally tell you to always put some text under your headers.) –Unint 01:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I see, thanks. But won't that create some confusion? For example the "released" section, it makes the album look like it's already been released when it hasn't. (ok, I'll put some text in the future) — Prodigenous Zee - 01:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Track listing display issues

A few common issues I want to work out:

  • Can we standarize how to display songs that start partway through a track, or multiple songs as part of the same track? This is an issue with:
    • progressive rock albums: e.g. Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence;
    • more experimental electronic albums, which kind of run in the same spirit: e.g. Dead Cities (album);
    • and albums with hidden tracks that aren't their own separate track (many).
    • And a special case: what if a CD contains a length of music between two tracks in the track index (i.e. an extended section with a negative track time)?
  • Should one-off guest vocalists be credited among "credits" or under individual songs (which I got the idea of from the main project page)? e.g. Chimera (album).
  • How do we format enhanced/multimedia sections on CDs? What about multiple non-song items that need to be listed?
  • If an album has different selections of additional songs on releases in different regions, how do we list these? As new lists, starting from 1 (even though they're not track 1 on the album)? As lists starting from a higher number (even though list formatting doesn't work that way)? As prose altogether?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unint (talk • contribs) .

Hopefully these answers will help:

  • Any track with more than one song is usually handled as a medley. If the same person wrote all the songs, list the medley all in one line like this:
  • I ususally place the quotation marks around each song, rather than around the entire medley, unless the two songs are often associated with each ther (e.g. "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In").
  • Sometimes, medleys have special names, as yours does. In that case, list it like this:
    • Dance to the Medley: "Music is Alive"/"Dance In"/"Music Lover" (Sylvester Stewart) - 12:12
  • If you have different composer on each song in the medley, use sub-bullets (this is the way it is done at [Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence]]).
  • For hidden tracks, list the songs in the "medley" style, and use footnotes to denote a hidden track.
  • List the track time as the song actually plays, not as the time encoded on the CD (which should solve the case of negative time)
  • List one-off guest vocalists either with the tracks or in credits, noting which track(s) they were on.
  • I don't think it's neccessary to list what's included on an enhanced CD. A sentence or tow of prose included in the article body should suffice.
  • The tracklisting on the article should be that in the album's primary region of release. Any songs which do not appear on that version should be listed in a section titled "Tracks included on international versions" or something similar. Don't include tracklistings for each country, because you'll end up with a listy article--FuriousFreddy 03:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Rerelease Albums

What colour are albums which contain (a) new track(s), but also contain ones from another album, but the new album has a completely new name, and artwork etc.? The album I'm trying to sort is My Number One (album), which contains some songs from an older album; does it count as compilation? -Рэдхот 08:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If the reissued material equals or outweighs the new material, list it as a compilation and color it darkseagreen. Otherwise, keep it as you've got it. --FuriousFreddy 03:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
That's what I guessed. Thanks! -Рэдхот 15:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Foreign language albums

We get quite a number of these at the translation desk, asking for a translation of the song titles. I am not quite sure how much sense that makes. As a specific example, what should be done with this? Is an article of this form (track list plus one sentence) even worth including? I'd be grateful about any comments, Kusma (討論) 02:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Chinese have a kind of "romaji" translation? I work with some japanese albums and artists, and we always try to use japanese, romaji and english. Without a way for a casual user to understand at least the meaning of the songs, it is of little use, even if the song is notable. This is a personal opinion, though. -- ReyBrujo 02:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
In that specific case, while the titles could be transliterated, that is not likely going to help much (does it help you if I tell you that 生命天使 is pronounced "shengming tianshi"?) Actually, the titles in Mandarin and those in Cantonese should be transliterated using different methods (yuck). Translation of somg titles like these without seeing the lyrics can easily produce nonsense, so I don't really want to do it although I can guess what most of the titles mean. Kusma (討論) 02:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I assume that a casual reader may know either the translation or the pronounciation of the album, not the Chinese name, in example, after listening it from the radio. Chinese names (much like Japanese) are not useful, as we can't expect users to know how to write it down. So, we need to give them the other two options left: translation and pronounciation, either with IPA or some other mechanism. In example, T.A.T.u. has album names in Russian, but they (usually) redirect to their english translation. -- ReyBrujo 03:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the translation won't be of much use unless the English translation is in common usage — i.e. findable via Google and so on. If there's no English market for something at all, that could be a problem. –Unint 03:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are only studio albums put in the chronology section?

Where does that leave the live albums? — Prodigenous Zee - 11:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I usually include live albums. But now there's the option of additional chronology sections in infoboxes, you can put in three chronologies if you want to, one only for studio albums, one including live albums and one including compilations. If you really want to, that is. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 12:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Me too. But this one time I realized that someone had changed the next album in an infobox from a live album to a studio album, I quickly went to check this page and it said that only studio albums should be put in chronologies. Also the extra chronolgy would only be too much work. It would be much easier to just put live albums in chronologies. — Prodigenous Zee - 12:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not that hard, just go here, copy/paste the code, match up the colour and write something like Live album in the artist field. I've done it on a bunch of singles already, Boys Don't Cry (song) for example. In fact, it probably took longer for me to write this than it does to do it. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 12:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I see, but how would that work in articles on studio albums? I just don't get it... — Prodigenous Zee - 05:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe that wasn't the best example, what with the extra cover complicating things. Have a look at End of the World (The Cure song), and whereas that chronology is split to show the next European single & next American single, you can do it to show next (or previous) studio album and next (or previous) live album instead. If you're still a bit confused, let me know of a page you're particularly thinking of and I'll show you what I mean. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
As of now I don't really have an example. But once again if there is an additional chronoly box, what would go into the middle of the section (this album)? — Prodigenous Zee - 09:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. I've knocked up a quick hypothetical example at User:MightyMoose22/meh to try and show you what I mean. I'm assuming nobody has a problem with listing studio albums on a live album's chronology. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 09:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm talking. Although it might be true that nobody will have a problem with it (even though I have), it's somewhat confusing for the less average user. What's really the problem with just mixing live albums and studio albums in the same chronology? — Prodigenous Zee - 10:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that the example used at User:MightyMoose22/meh is a bit confusing. The chronology should be easy to follow to the readers and this I'm afraid is not. I don't see much trouble with adding live albums to the chronologies and I guess that they are included in most articles because it's just more straightforward. Jogers (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, well like I said up there, I usually include live albums in the ordinary chronology. This was just a demonstration of the possibilities that extra chronologies present and the exploration alternative options. Straying somewhat off topic, but just showing what can be done if needs be. One thing I don't get though, Zee, is that you think live albums should be included in the studio chronology but you say you have a problem with studio albums appearing in a live album's infobox? Or am I misunderstanding? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 12:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounded a bit defensive didn't it? I didn't mean it to. Sorry. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 13:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I didn't realize that. I didn't not word my sentences properly. What I have a problem with is live albums not appearing in studio album chronolgies, I have no problems with studio albums in live album chronolgies (I said that before based on the example you gave). (Defensive? No. :) ) — Prodigenous Zee - 14:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, okay. So yeah, I think it'd be best to put live & studio albums in the same chronology and ignore most of this conversation. :) MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 10:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I've stated this, but it says on the project page that only studio albums should be included in discographies. Perharps a change to also include live albums in be acceptable? — Prodigenous Zee - 11:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
What about EPs and compilations? They are commonly included as well. Jogers (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Now, this is where it gets tricky. Where do you draw the line between EPs and singles? Some EPs have four tracks, some singles have six, maxi-singles can have as many as twelve, but they're still counted as singles. As for compilations, I don't know. I'd say not unless they've got more than a couple of new tracks on them, but having said that I'm happy with including all of Cream's because they were all released after the band split up, so they don't interfere with the "real" chronology, if you'll pardon the phrase. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 13:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's starting to get tricky. But due to the fact that I ususally only touch articles in connection with Iron Maiden, it won't be a problem to me. But I guess if you don't know you could just do the edit and refer them to the talk page, on the talk page talk about your situation. — Prodigenous Zee - 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Any one else? — Prodigenous Zee - 12:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I always put EPs, live and compilation albums in. Non-LP singles no. Singles will sometimes be challenged as NN if they didn't chart. --Fantailfan 13:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem with some Phish album chronology

I would like some input about a particular issue right now on some Phish album articles. 68.112.25.197 (talk · contribs) and Sectornine (talk · contribs) want to make the chronology section go by date of live shows instead of the date of release. For examples the articles involved see the following:

I have had it as going by release year as per guidelines (not policy, though) at Wikiproject: Albums#Discography. I would gladly take any expert commentary on this situation. Cheers! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be organized by release date, not by the recorded date. This applies for all albums. --FuriousFreddy 02:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Now the user is putting "recorded in 19XX" in the chronology field if it is a live album (ie. Phish: New Year's Eve 1995 - Live at Madison Square Garden)). I have only ever seen release dates put in the chronology field, but I was wondering if his edits should be revert back to just the release year. Thanks! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 19:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Extraction?

I noticed that many pages lack the time info for individual tracks even if they are readily available in other sites. Which I suspect is because the task is tedious for most. I'm just wondering if there is a way to extract track data from databases like MusicBrainz. -- Jared A. Hunt 06:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Album of demos classification?

I just added The '92 Demos, an album released by Local H in 1999 which was made out of a demo tape the band recorded in 1992. My question is, what album type does this get classified as? I put compilation album as it seemed closest, but I don't quite think that fits. Do we need another classification, or does everyone think compilation album is close enough? Joltman 14:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd say go with the compilation album category... It does seem to fit that better than the "Original Studio Album". It's easier to classify it as such, instead of going through the rigamarole of adding/agreeing on a standard color...Gertlex 23:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If none of those songs have been released on any other albums, I'd call it a studio release. If they show up elsewhere, then compilation is best. It looks like only a couple of them were rerecorded and released, so it's your call, I guess. -Freekee 03:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Notation for track lengths

What's the proper format for adding the length of a track on a music page? I've seen several...

  • [4:03]
  • (4:03)
  • Title of the Song — 4:03

(Note that the last uses a long dash)

Personally I like the first two best... Can I get some feedback and then a decision on which to use (and state such in the project article)? Gertlex 23:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • More often than not, I use the second option, with a long dash. From what I gather, you get to decide [with impunity]. Besides, if guidelines are ever set, the affected articles can always be modified... --Folajimi 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It does seem to be whim as to what is done (I like the suggested "— (4:03)", as that keeps the length separate from and subtitles that might be part of a song name (such as "Jam (Remix) — (3:01)"). I would hope for a guideline to be set sooner rather than later so that the edits I do make to album entries could be fewer and more comprehensive.Gertlex 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, doesn't it say here exactly how to do it? — Prodigenous Zee - 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Mea culpa; I stand corrected. --Folajimi 01:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I did see that part. I was simply uncertain because it fails to do more than happen to show the track length in the example and discuss the long dash. Presuming that none will object, I will clarify the bit that left me uncertain.
~ Gertlex 01:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What about something like (1:00) or [1:00]? That way it differentiates from the song name and IMO looks better than a simple dash. --blm07 18:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Italics are normally only used for titles, foreign words and emphasis. Also brackets around the timings seem an unnecessary additional devive if a spaced em dash is already being used. Keep it simple & elegant.

Straw poll about the proposed infobox changes

As not many editors are involved in the discussion about the proposed changes to the template I thought it may be a good idea to make a poll so we can find out what are the general feelings. Jogers (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For those who don't want to read the entire discussion at original album scheme inquiry section: This proposal is about to make the "background" field in the {{album infobox}} optional so the proper color would be chosen by the template itself. The user would only have to declare an unwikified, standardized "type" parameter. The articles with non-standard "type" parameter would be placed in a maintenance category in order to allow interested editors to clean them up. These changes would allow standardization of the "type" field usage and easy change to standard colors which received a lot of complaints since they were adopted. Almost no articles would be affected by the changes without a proper modification of the infobox code. An automated bot would have to modify most of the articles using the infobox.

Do you support or oppose the proposed changes?

Support

  1. Some more tweaks need to be made but I definitely support this concept. Jogers (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yep. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 12:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Concerns about retroactive application of the template can be implemented using bot request. Folajimi 12:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. --The official fantail of Wikipedia 15:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sounds good. ~ Gertlex 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Madder 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support all the way. Provides much needed functionality and can provide an easy resolution to colour disputes. DJR (T) (WC) 23:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Conditional support on two conditions: (1) We are actually able to efficiently change the colors of all obteenbillion uses of the album infobox, and (2) those colors at User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox are modified. They're all shades of green ,and therefore too similar. If we're going to go through all the (somewhat arbitrary) trouble of changing colors, we should come up with a genuinely better color scheme. --FuriousFreddy 00:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    We haven't really started discussing colours yet, so they're far from finalised. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 01:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    The beginning of the discussion is just above, so feel free to give your opinion about the colours. As for the massive, I am guessing we will do some tests before implementing a bot to change everything (in example, manually change 10-25 random albums each of us to see if we find unexpected behaviour, fix problems, try 10-25 random again, etc, until the test completely passes. I guess we can expand the bot a little to drop a note in the talk page (or just inside the article as a comment above the infobox) stating that the album infobox has been changed, and that any problem in visualization should be reported here (or in the template talk page) instead of reverting to the old album infobox. -- ReyBrujo 01:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, I welcome anything that gives flexibility and standardization. -- ReyBrujo 01:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. I had actually thought about this kind of thing before, but I never said anything :) Joltman 14:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. This is the same thing {{Infobox musical artist}} is using, right? –Unint 02:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, exactly. Jogers (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. I'm for anything that would centralize the presentation layer decisions and remove its meaning from an "at large" implementation. I just hope the non-standard types are within a reasonable order of magnitude. UnhandledException 05:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. This is the sort of thing that ParserFunctions were developed for (which means this won't require meta-templates, by the way). I think it'll make things better down the road. —TheMuuj Talk 02:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. I love the idea because I like how easy it would be to manage. I hate the implementation because I have sworn off meta-templates. You all can decide... tiZom(2¢) 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  1. You might also look at the way template:LUL line deals with colour.
  2. It may be possible (almost certainly) to change the template in such a way that the pages don't need to be changed. Rich Farmbrough 22:13 28 June 2006 (GMT).
    1. How could we use it?
    2. Do you have any specific suggestion? Jogers (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    I am guessing Rich Farmbrought meant that, by keeping parameter compatibility, it would be trivial to replace the old infobox with the new one, either moving the page or copying the latest stable version in place of the current {{album infobox}}. As for {{LUL line}}, you create one template for every line colour, and then use replacements. In example, by hinting at Waterloo & City Line as line, the template searches for Template:Waterloo & City Line colour, which contains the RGB colour of the line. I had thought about that, but decided that an array would be better (however, since array could only be accessed by index number, I used a switch which is quite similar to a map, which was what I wanted since the beginning). However, it is another method that can be used if the switch turns to be too slow. -- ReyBrujo 01:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    Exactly correct sir. Rich Farmbrough 22:35 29 July 2006 (GMT).
  3. If I understand correctly, a specified background color will override the color that's associated with the album type, is this correct? ie, if I put studio album, which would be orange, and put purple for the background color, it will be purple, right? Is this really necessary? Is there a valid reason to overwrite the standard color? I thought that was one of the problems we were having, where articles had an arbitrary color chosen instead of its type's standard. Joltman 14:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This is meant to be temporary. If we just replaced the current template code with the proposed one, most of the articles would have a non-standard type value (because most of them use wikified description such as "Compilation album" instead of just "Compilation album") and therefore all of them would end up with the same default color (gainsboro). A bot would have to remove the background parameter and unwikify the "type" description in order to allow the changes to work. Moreover, the overriding background parameter would allow to choose a color for non-standard types until we figure out how to deal with them. Jogers (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, I understand. For the non-standard type problem, could you make it so it only used the override color if it's a non-standard type, and not if it's a standard type? Joltman 16:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure but it's a good idea. Jogers (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

iTunes Originals

Hey folks; I'm not a member of your project, but I'd like to get your input/help on something. I'm working on a minor project. I started the iTunes Originals article to compile a list of all iTunes Originals albums; there previously were only 3 or 4 existing articles for specific iTunes Originals sessions by an artist, with various format names. I standardised those all.

An iTunes Originals release is a 20-35 release available exclusively on the iTunes Music Store (IMS) in the US, and sometimes in other countries. (and occasionally only available in other countries - like several Japanese bands on the Japanese store). The composition of the releases is: roughly half the tracks are spoken word (an interview type segment, but with no interviewer) in which the artist talks about their history, their music, and often the song that is about to be played next. The rest of the tracks are music. Some of the songs are existing album recordings from past albums, and the rest are exclusively recorded for the iTunes Originals. Each one also usually includes an intro track in which the artist speaks "iTunes Originals" - sometimes over a ditty they play (see Jack Johnson, Barenaked Ladies, Jars of Clay - all intros are pretty much listenable in entirety as previous in the IMS). Occasionally the IO's contain video as well - some prior release, some exclusive.

The point of my bringing this up is that I'd like to classify them, possibly in their own category ("itunes originals releases" for articles that are an actual itunes release like ITunes Originals - Death Cab for Cutie, or artists who have released itunes originals for the artist itself. I don't know how categories work really, but since the releases are starting to be tagged as "2005 albums" or something like that, I think it's prudent to make a distinction between this 25 track compilation with narration and a normal album. There are currently 33 such releases, and more coming all the time. perhaps there should be a sub-category under albums for iTunes Originals albums? or a seperate category. Maybe there should be an infobox type for it (like live albums, soundtracks, iTunes Originals...) I don't know; that's why I'm bringing it up to you. Maybe it's not important enough to warrent anything at all. I dunno. Discuss :) TheHYPO 04:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds like it definitely merits a category like "2005 albums" (they would be tagged both)... From what I've read, I wouldn't consider it unique enough to garner a whole separate infobox color. From your description, I'd call those albums compilations... that's what those Now! cds are classified as (I'm presuming you've heard of them). ~ Gertlex 04:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I know of the NOW! CDs; the difference is that each of these releases is by one artist, and they do include exlusive new recordings of (usually) old songs, though they also include old recordings. I would consider them compilations, though not of old recordings - just of old songs. That's why I think they might garner a category of their own (right now it's just the list that I linked to in the title of this section, that I made). Someone really needs to go through the four or five articles that exist for specific artists' ITO's (all linked on that page) and standardise them. Some consider the albums as 'album' (new albums) - most use the orange colour. Some also put them in the choronological release list of the artist and consider them "the fourth album by [artist]", while I personally think it's a secondary release. I'm mainly interested in the Barenaked Ladies session, whose article I just created. I believe it's a fair model for the article, but I don't have the time myself (or the knowledge of the artist) to edit other originals. I'm also not part of this project, so I don't know what standards to apply as well as some of you might. I know it may not garner it's own colour, though if the new 'type' system goes in, there could probably be an increased number of unique types with similar, but individual colours (such as a slightly different shade of green from compilation for iTunes Compilations, or a different shade for re-recorded compilations like Bon Jovi's latest hits record, or a different shade of teal for live albums that are acoustic, or live albums that are from one concert vs. compiled from various shows, etc... But that's a suggestions for another time. Right now I'm interested in standardizing and organizing the iTunes Originals! Thanks TheHYPO 05:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I had misread what you said (and hadn't followed links...) and got the impression that the iTunes Originals were compilations like the NOW! CDs. Whoops :) ~ Gertlex 17:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there should definitely be a category for this album type, and I shall create it now (as a subcategory of Category:Internet albums. --kingboyk 11:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Track Listing Format Suggestion

Per the project article, the standard for listing tracks is in the following format:

  1. "Graveyard Shift" (Jay Farrar / Jeff Tweedy / Mike Heidorn) – 4:43
  2. "That Year" (Farrar / Tweedy) – 2:59
  3. "Before I Break" (???) – 2:48

An alternative (besides not listing writers of songs) that I've seen used a couple times and that I think is more readable (outside the code at least) is the following:

  1. "Graveyard Shift" – 4:43
    (Jay Farrar / Jeff Tweedy / Mike Heidorn)
  2. "That Year" – 2:59
    (Farrar / Tweedy)
  3. "Before I Break" – 2:48
    (???)

Ultimately it takes up twice the vertical spacing, but like I said, I find it more readable... A third blend of the two:

  1. "Graveyard Shift" (Jay Farrar / Jeff Tweedy / Mike Heidorn) – 4:43
  2. "That Year" (Farrar / Tweedy) – 2:59
  3. "Before I Break" (???) – 2:48

I'm not exactly suggesting that this replace the current format, but maybe this could be added as a second acceptable format?
Comments? ~ Gertlex 04:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually really like how the third one looks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It's better to decide which formatting style is the best one than to allow different styles, methinks.
Also, The current standard at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Track listing is like this:
  1. "Graveyard Shift" (Jay Farrar, Jeff Tweedy, Mike Heidorn) – 4:43
instead of:
  1. "Graveyard Shift" (Jay Farrar / Jeff Tweedy / Mike Heidorn) – 4:43
Jogers (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Didn't notice that... I just copied that example from No Depression (album) and edited to show what I was talking about. (And seemingly very few album articles actually state who wrote each song) I mentioned multiple accepted formats to appeal to those who'd rather not edit every article already existing.
~ Gertlex 23:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the current guidelines are fine and don't need to be changed. Also, the project shouldn't support too many alternatives, as its guidelines are basically there to give album articles an uniform look. --Fritz S. (Talk) 23:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

YEAR in music vs. YEAR

Trying to track down the justification for this WikiProject's prohibition against the YEAR in music|YEAR type of link, all I could find was this (from Archive 6, I believe):

Why shouldn't we link years like 2003? —Akrabbim 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Because WP:PIPE says that we should avoid easter egg links (i.e. links "that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on") and explicitly states that "year-in-x" links "should be labeled accordingly, and not with just the year." --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would note that WP:PIPE is not WP policy but a "proposed" policy (as it says at the top), and when I look for the justification for its glancing reference to the "YEAR in x" question, I find no consensus but rather a series of heated debates, with no indication that any consensus had ever been reached. People clearly feel strongly on either side of the question, but it seems like the anti-piping faction has gotten its position semi-enshrined more or less by default.

My personal view is that YEAR links are fairly useless, and that "YEAR in x" links are somewhat less useless. I also feel like rewording articles to either contain the phrase "YEAR in music" or parenthetical invitations to "see YEAR in music" is an awkward solution to a non-problem. Nareek 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "year in music" links are even needed in most cases, unless the artist, album, etc. in question actually features prominently in that year's article. –Unint 04:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT Video game albums error / request

While doing a search for this company, I found that a lot of video game albums have "EverAnime" listed as the publisher. EverAnime is actually a heavy bootlegger of video game / anime soundtracks. There's a lot of information about them around the internet; this is a good start. If anyone wants to take up the job, try searching "EverAnime" and replacing all the album pages with correct publishing information. I'm going to go ahead and start the "EverAnime" article. Thanks.--Zeality 00:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I imagine WikiProject Computer and video games could probably have that done in no time. –Unint 04:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Double-stubbing

Hi all. I notice some inconsistency in how the by-decade and by-genre stub tags are being used: in a number of instances, someone adds {{2000s-rock-album-stub}} and {{metal-album-stub}}, and then someone deletes one of them, or else someone tags as {{1990s-rock-album-stub}}, and then someone else replaces this with {{christian-album-stub}}, say. It would be preferable, I think, to retain both where they're equally applicable -- that's especially true where some of these stub categories are becoming very large, and double-stubbing is often useful as an indication of how to re-split these, and for we AWB fans, makes the re-splitting itself easier. Alai 04:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also... There's a newly created stub type, Cat:2000s metal album stubs, which is already in danger of becoming quite large itself. I anyone has any bright ideas for further splitting this up (either by year, or by sub-genre, I imagine), or any of the other largish stub types, please chime in at WP:WSS/P. Alai 05:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Independent Record Labels

How are albums released under independent record labels handled? Is the Label field left blank, or should a piped link to independent record label page be added?
(eg:) Label | independent (or capitalized?) -- Heaven's Wrath   Talk  23:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a need to distinguish them? I have never considered giving them special consideration or typography. –Unint 05:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Credits"

I'm almost certainly alone here, but I don't think "Credits" is a great way to list people responsible for making a record. I know in a previous discussion on this that "Personnel" was roundly deemed unsuitable - why? It's a perfectly adequate term for listing the band members, particularly as production staff invariably have their own section, with the consequence that, after a bot went over an album article I wrote, it now has a "Credits" section, and a "Production" section. "Credits" is too general a term, and to my mind, only suitable for a film or a computer game.

I think it's a bit of a shame that all these articles need to be homogenised so severely, with the result that if you write an article and it doesn't comply 100%, it gets changed, often when the original version made perfect sense anyway. It doesn't really make one want to write any more. Bretonbanquet 21:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that might be relevant to all you homogenisers - is there any standard etiquette for the order in which band members are listed? I never really gave it much thought until I noticed someone had re-ordered the members of Fleetwood Mac on one album so that the first name on the list was just about the least important member the band ever had. Should we list them in order of joining the band (my preferred order), or alphabetical order (risks less important members being top of the list), or by instrument, with vocalists top and drummers last (seems grossly unfair, especially when the album is mostly instrumentals, for example). Bretonbanquet 21:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the bands article I have seen divide between current and former members, ordering current ones by instrument, and former ones by departing date. If you haven't yet, check this (third point) for some tips. -- ReyBrujo 22:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I hadn't seen that page. I was thinking also of band members' order on album pages - any further ideas? Bretonbanquet 22:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Since this WikiProject is a branch of the WikiProject Music, I would think guidelines stated for Music could very well apply in albums, as they haven't (apparently) been redefined. Maybe later some active member can give you further information. -- ReyBrujo 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to clarify that I'm not a bot :-) The mentioned discussion can be found here. I'm stopping to change "Personnel" to "Credits" with AWB until the issue is addressed. Jogers (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to call you a bot  :o) Bretonbanquet 18:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Stars

Well, this matter is controversial. I usually don't touch them but using them like this: [31] [32] doesn't make any sense to me. Any thoughts? Jogers (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. If people insist on using these, they really should only be used for 5-point scales. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep. 1 - NME don't use a 5-point scale, 2 - they don't use stars at all. Using a five star scale for them is entirely inaccurate, seemingly just for the sake of it. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 15:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
ooooooohh sorry --Childzy talk contribs 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. If they are to be allowed, they should only for those reviewers that do use stars. -- ReyBrujo 16:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of album infoboxes

The current infobox examples at project's page place pipe characters ("|") like this:

| Name        = 
| Type        =

instead of placing them at the end like this:

 Name        = |
 Type        = |

This is very good because infoboxes made this way are much less likely to get screwed up by inexperienced users who often don't know what is the pipe character for. However, many pages use the second format. I thought it may be a good idea to convert them while I'm going through album articles with AutoWikiBrowser (see User:Jogers/AWB). I couldn't figure out proper rexeges, though. Does anybody have an idea how to do this? I'm pretty sure that I've seen such edits somewhere. Thanks in advance. Jogers (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The dirty solution would be a regexp like s/(Name|Type)\s*=\s*([^\|]*)(\|\s*)$/ -> \| \1 = \2, but I am not sure how to rewrite that for AWB (as I use Vim for that kind of stuff). You will have to type very filed in the first () set, otherwise you may be replacing other places where the user was using = (or if you don't think they will be using it, you can just use ([^=]*). -- ReyBrujo 13:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It's almost the same as in AWB but it doesn't seem to work (the (\|\s*)$ part doesn't match). Jogers (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... that is strange. Maybe adding some optional spaces before it. Try removing the $, maybe it does not parses it (or maybe AWB is using it as a reserved variable like $1, and you need to escape it like \$). -- ReyBrujo 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Something like this: (\|)?\s*Name\s*=\s*([^\|]*)((\|)?\r\n) -> $1$4 Type = $2\r\n almost works. The only problem is that the pipe character may appear in the parameter value (e.g. Type = [[Album (music)|Album]]). In this case the regex doesn't match. Is this possible to make "[^...]" match everything except a certain string of characters instead of matching everything except characters inside the brackets? In other words, how to make a regex that would match everything except a certain word? That would help. Jogers (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You usually just add the word after the regexp, in example, if you want to match everything until the word Album, just put do something like (.*)Album. From what I see, $1$4 puts a pipe if it is at the beginning or at the end, so it is using a Visual Basic-like regexp (which does not really surprise me if .NET took that directly to keep compatibility). I will see if I can connect to work's computer to try some stuff out in VB. If not, on Monday I will check if the regexps behave similarly. -- ReyBrujo 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. This: (\|)? *Name\s*=\s*(.*)((\|)\s*\r\n) -> $1$4 Name = $2\r\n seems to work perfectly. However the "reviews" field is problematic because it often contains a newline. When I change to the singleline mode so "." matches all characters instead of all but newline it doesn't work anymore. Jogers (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know (at least in Visual Basic) "." matches all but newlines. It seems .NET behaves in a similar way if an option is not chosen before executing the regexp.[33] Try [.\n] for any character, if that option is off this should match every character. -- ReyBrujo 16:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It works almost perfectly now. I just had to add "?" to "(.*)" in the singleline mode in order to match as few characters as possible before "\|\r\n" like this: (\|)? *Name\s*=\s*(.*?)((\|)\s*\r\n) -> $1$4 Name = $2\r\n. Thank you for the assistance. Jogers (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Vocals/Singing/?

I've been trying to figure out where to point links for vocals in the credits for an album. According to WP:ALBUMS, instruments are linked to the page for that instrument, e.g., guitar. I'm most naturally inclined to call the vocals vocals. The thing is, however, that this word really points to singer. Personally I think the page linked to should be singing which corresponds more to the technical aspect of singing (or, the "instrument") rather than people who sing. I think that making this distinction would be similar to how links are pointed to guitar not guitarist or drum/drum kit and not drummer. Thoughts? —PrintHorizon 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Whilst it is less like pointing to guitarist or drummer, it is more like pointing to guitar playing or drumming, so either way it'll be inconsistent. Unless we change all of them to use a third form of disamigbuation, which could potentially jeopardise content for the sake of style. I dunno. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You have a point. I have noticed that the disambiguation page for "voice" has the following description for "singer": "…or vocals, a term used in music recording to signify that an artist has contributed vocals to a song or album." Since that is exactly what we are referring to on the album pages, I suppose using vocals|singer would be just fine. --PrintHorizon 12:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotes in track names?

What do I do for tracks with quotes that are in track names? Such as This is a track: "That Uses Quotes", this wouldn't look right with the current rule to use quotes on song names in track listings. --blm07

Standard American English usage requires single quotes. "No More 'I Love You's'" is a song on Medusa by Annie Lennox.--Fantailfan 18:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How many albums is needed to justify an "Artist albums" category?

The issue is being discussed, somewhat, at a CFD for Category:Amorphis albums, which has just seven albums. It's argued that doesn't warrant a category. --Rob 20:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally, one. Jkelly 20:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Categories: "[...] a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future)." --Fritz S. (Talk) 21:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Collaborations/Backing bands

Over at Talk:Grateful Dead discography, me and a user are trying to determine how to classify Dylan & The Dead. The Grateful Dead were Bob Dylans backing band during this tour and the album was released as part of Dylans contract and from his label (Columbia Records), so I felt this should be made to reflect a Dylan album, much like Neil Young with Crazy Horse (band) on Everybody Knows This is Nowhere. The other user wants to add it to the Grateful Dead discography and as part of the chronology. Any thoughts? Thanks! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 18:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would put in both discographies. Like you said, it was Dylan's show, so it qualifies as his album, but the entire Dead played on it and their name appears in the title, so it should go in theirs as well. I wouldn't put it in the Dead's chronology, though, because they were just the backing band, and the record didn't include any of their songs (IIRC). But then I prefer to have only studio albums, and major live recordings in the chronology, while I think discographies should be complete. -Freekee 02:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Live albums and compilations...

  1. On live albums, do we still write who wrote the songs?
  2. On compilations, do we write the origin of the songs like in this article?
  3. Another question, which is the best term to use? CD I, CD 1, Disc I, or Disc 1? Or is it something different altogether?

Thanks in advance. — Prodigenous Zee - 14:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. Yes. No. Maybe. I think it's preferred, even though I didn't do it here. (That's not a live album - MightyMoose22)
  2. I like to do it like this. I didn't do it here, though.
  3. I use "Disc one" "Disc two." Sometimes I go nutty.
==Track listing==
===CD track listing===
====Disc one====
====Disc two====
===Original LP track listing===
====Side one====
====Side two====
====Side three====
====Side four====
====Side five====
====Side six====

--Fantailfan 15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. I'd say yes. See Live Cream I and II.
  2. Yes, but Best of the Beast is an extremely long-winded way of doing it. See Strange Brew for my preferred method. It's a lot easier when they're presented in chronoligical order, as on 20th Century Masters.
  3. Disc one, Disc two etc.
In fact, just look at Those Were the Days, it uses all of the above at one point or another. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 17:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's my thoughts:
  1. Yes, as above
  2. I think that looks a bit too busy. The way I usually deal with that can be seen at A User's Guide to They Might Be Giants. It's similar to Strange Brew which is linked above, but without the footnotes. I just have a separate section that has a list that has Tracks x,y and z are from Album (2006). Of course, it's easier when dealing with a greatest hits, for a rarites or b-sides compilation album, it's a little more complicated, that I will handle like at The Bad the Worse and the Out of Print using a table
  3. As above, Disc one, Disc two etc.
Joltman 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Recat discussion of Category:Comedy recordings to Category:Comedy albums

Box sets..

So, there's this box-set which contains three albums. Each one of these albums have their own Wikipedia article. What I want to know is what goes in the 'Current album' section in the infobox (for the article on the album in the box-set)? Am I right in putting the box-set as the current album?

One more thing, box sets are italicised just like album names? Thanks in advance. — Prodigenous Zee - 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well... I did it this way for Rykodisc's 4-disc Elvis Costello box 2 1/2 Years. I put it chronologically in order of his other releases and called it a compilation. Perhaps unnecessary details. More comments welcome. --Fantailfan 14:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
In my case all of CDs are new and never released before... — Prodigenous Zee - 05:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Depending on how much of a body article each album has... If not much, then I'd put all four together on a single page for the box set. Otherwise if there's significant details about each album, then I'd put the box set page in the regular chronology and have the article for the box set discuss the box set in general and clearly link to the four component albums. With each component album on a separate page, I'd use the regular chronology to display the box set as current, and the previous album and next album (non box set albums). Then I'd add a second chronology box and list the artist as the box set title (even though it doesn't make sense to say Box Set Name Chronology) and the albums in proper order would be the prev/curr/next albums mentioned. Maybe instead of mentioning the year, mention which part (1-4) of the box set the album is. Hopefully you followed that, but at the same time, I'm not an expert with this project ;) Hope that helps. ~Gertlex 03:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that's the best thing to do. Thanks for your help! — Prodigenous Zee - 02:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

quick request for help

Someone who knows how to fix these things, I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong at The Reputation (album) regarding the reviews in the infobox. Any help? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. But they still miss links... --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I gave up on tracking the links down 'cause I got frustrated. I'll grab 'em now, though. Thanks for the help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


The Beatles

The Beatles is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 15:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Style issues

Capitalization of foreign-language titles

The issue of foreign-language albums isn't really addressed in the "Style" section, which is a shame. Many langages differ significantly from English in such style issues as how to capitalize things like titles.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


I found a leg to stand on. Over the weekend, I rooted out my copy of the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers — The fourth edition, so not the most recent, but these things still don't change much in the 11 years since this one was published. Well, the long and short of French capitalization (section 2.8.1, if you want to go check) boils down to the following, for which a basic familliarity with grammar terms will be helpful:

  • In prose, French capitalization is very much like English capitalization (though I've taken enough semesters of French to tell you that anyway). Major exceptions include
    • the pronoun je and its pre-vowel form j', meaning "I"
    • names of months (septembre, janiver, avril)
    • names of days of the week (today is lundi, or Monday)
    • names of language (le français, l'anglais)
    • adjectives derived from proper nouns, even though proper nouns are still capitalized (Je suis américaine. But in referring to me in the third person as "the Yank", you would say l'Américaine.)
    • Titles before proper names
    • The words rue (street), place (square), lac (lake) and so on, in place names.
  • For titles — albeit the titles of books and the like, not songs — I'm told to capitalize the first word and all proper nouns. There are some differences of opinion discussed here, but some of them are minor, and others I haven't seen at all.

So this is what I found. If anyone wants clarification, or a distilation of other languages, let me know.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue of title capitalization rules in different languages isn't really addressed anywhere in Wikipedia as far as I know. It would be useful to have a guideline such as this one. Jogers (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it would be very useful to have just such a guide on and for Wikipedia. As it is, I ended up referring to a guidebook. The catch with sending everyone running to their local guide is that guides vary. Just the one guide said there are differences of opinion. So it would be a lot simpler to have a single thing that said, "This is how we handle foreign-language capitalization."  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On: people not following the guidelines

Why is it so difficult for people to understand the procvesses of categorization? I've run into yet another editor (ExplodingVivi) who vehemently refuses to follow the project guidelines because she wants to color her album infoboxes "her own way". I've already tried talking to her, but she might benefit from the guideance of others as well. --FuriousFreddy 17:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A technical solution might be best. Have the colour rendered not based on by-hand input from the user, but based on a "type of album" field. I don't have a sense of how complicated that would be, though. Jkelly 17:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
That was actually being discussed up there, I'm not sure how close to realisation it has gotten as of yet, though. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 17:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Category:Uncategorized albums

I've noticed whenever sorting Category:Category needed and patrolling New Pages that there are always a large number of albums in need of categories. In order to help those of us who are trying to clean up there (and yet aren't so interested in this topic), would anyone object if I made this category? It would be quite helpful in keeping the "front lines" cleaned up, and would allow members of this project to have a good category to work on. Aside from reducing the distraction on the category needed list, this would also allow members of this project to keep a better eye on articles for notability, hoaxes, etc (i.e., you're the experts, ya know?) --SB_Johnny | talk 13:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to just be bold, and made the category. Here it is. SB_Johnny | talk 13:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems a good idea to me, thank you.--Doktor Who 23:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Research question

If an artist posts information to an article concerning one of his pieces, is that considered original research and hence verboten? Fantailfan 16:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Expanding on the theme. The policy is, "Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position." Even if the artist had not previously publish the information regarding his piece, but it is rather "in his head," so to speak, is that original research? Fantailfan 16:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If the information was not published it is not verifiable. Jogers (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on verifying that the artist is the artist, and perhaps he can post it to his website once that is determined. Then it fills both requirements. Fantailfan 16:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Update - I have confirmed the posting is by the artist. Fantailfan 17:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me for jumping in here, but I don't see how Fantailfan's personal testimony can be considered verifiable evidence of anything. Even if his/her "proof" were cited, it should at least be subjected to the same tests of reliable sources that any other evidence is. Am I missing something here? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The article in question is Avenging Annie. The user is the Andy Pratt, no question about it. Fantailfan 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
That isn't even an album... -- W guice 21:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But it is a work by an author/composer commenting on an article concerning a song he made... rare occurrence I think! Anyway, end of "controversy" - Steven G. Johnson moved the article to the discussion page. Fantailfan 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 7 |
Archive 8
| Archive 9 →


Star Ratings

Is there a set way to display this as i've noticed that through out wikipedia there are 2/3 different types of stars and layouts such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razorlight_%28album%29 which has two types, and there are some pages that have one or the othe, is someone willing to set a stardard on this? --Ashl 16:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Remastering

Isn't there a specific colour scheme for this? I mean, it's not an original studio album? Might have missed it. if so, excuses. Darksteel 13:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Sometimes the info is included in the infobox, or within the text body, and/or as bonus tracks to the album. Fantailfan 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tapes

There isn't a color for tapes, how about adding one for them? i've been annoyed severely cause i can't add tapes at the moment. Darksteel 13:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Colors are assigned to album times types (i.e. live, studio, compilation), not to media types ("tapes", cds, dvds, etc.). Many albums have been released on more than one format. ~Gertlex 00:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Got it. Darksteel 13:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Elapsed times for sub-tracks

See for example Hemispheres (Rush album) - should we have a different way of displaying these from the way we display track lengths, and if so what (currently they are in parentheses)? Rich Farmbrough 22:28 4 August 2006 (GMT).

Resources

Does anyone have access to Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums (any edition will do I guess, the later the better)? Or The Complete Book Of The British Charts: Singles and Albums? Punctured Bicycle 01:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

i've got 'British Hit Singles', 11th edition, if that's any help. W guice 20:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox colours

Sorry to bring this up yet again...but is it really necessary to have different colours for different types of albums? I mean, the colours are totally irrelevant to any casual reader, to anyone who is not involved in this specific wikiproject. Recently someone had a creative idea to make the colour match the actual album cover. I reverted it because I am familiar with this project, but that did seem better than the completely random orange or whatever. I am reminded of the old Battles WikiProject, where we had a complex colour scheme depending on continent and whether or not the battle took place on land, at sea, or in the air. It's fun to come up with schemes like that but it is totally useless for everyone else. So basically, in short, all infoboxes should have one neutral colour, like grey. Adam Bishop 15:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Aw c'mon, we've got to have some fun! But seriously, although the colours are totally irrelevant to any casual reader, or to anyone who is not involved in this specific wikiproject, they are relevant to people who have figured out the code. On the other hand, having them all the same color might reduce the number of editors who are used to seeing many different colors, and think it's okay to use whatever color they think looks good. -Freekee 16:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Freekee; I appreciate the colourings because I can tell at a glance what sort of release an album/single/whatever is. However, I wouldn't mind reverting to a one-colour system as long as the same information could be found in the infobox fields. --Jacj 17:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
But Freekee, Wikipedia articles are not a code to be broken. Why should random readers have to figure it out? Adam Bishop 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't figure out why that question is relevant. I mean, you told us why you don't find the colors to be as advantageous as many people think they are, but you didn't really explain what the disadvantage to having them is. -Freekee 04:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The disadvantage is that the colours chosen are all ugly. Who seriously uses salmon and turquoise? That's why I reverted both attempts (one just today, another some time ago) to change the Vas (band) colours to the ones I'd added originally. The only advantage is available only to those of you who pay attention to the project. Only you realise it means something different. This time, after reverting two of the articles to less hideous colouring, I visited the project page out of curiosity and saw what the point was. I've put the colours back to your standard but I'm still having trouble seeing the point. Why not have an infobox field which gives the same information and let a minor aesthetic choice be made for the articles, or chose something more neutral. - BalthCat 18:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The disadvantage is that they don't mean anything to anyone, aside from the people who created them. Adam Bishop 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Just calling them "ugly" alone seems subjective, but on a practical level I feel that the stronger colours often tend to clash badly with album cover designs, whereas muted colours are somewhat more in the background, allowing the album (or single) cover image to become a focal point.Ricadus 05:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The main problem I see with hard-coding colors (either in the template itself or the article) is that they might not (and often do not) look good with all of the stylesheets. The default monobook stylesheet, being mostly white, is pretty forgiving about what colors look good, but the other stylesheets are not. Personally, given the choice between the color being in the article or in the template, I'd prefer the template, for ease of editing and for consistency. Also, if it is in the template there's a possibility of the color being easily moved to a stylesheet (each type of ablum could have a class, and if the user wanted different colors or uniform colors they could control that in their own stylesheets). It'd be great if certain articles could link to an additional stylesheet (like an "Albums Project Stylesheet" for all album articles), but I imagine the software would need to be modified to support this. —TheMuuj Talk 05:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, if the colors are changed, I think Wikipedia:Colours provides a good starting place for deciding which colors to use. —TheMuuj Talk 19:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming we keep the colors in existence, I think there should be a sixth color added for albums which have not been released yet...--NPswimdude500 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - there's already a template for that. Fantailfan 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep the colors, its a fast and efficient way of instantly recognizing an albums type. Yes, the information can be read in the box too, but for those of us not colorblind, colors = speed. Now can someone explain why all the colors I installed on my Roy Harper album pages have turned pale blue ? 84.58.18.49

It's light steel blue. See discussion below. We were bold. – Fantailfan 13:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0 Assessments

Hi. I was wondering if you are aware of the bot-compiled Wikipedia 1.0 assessments at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index and if you wish to take part in this process?: WikiProject Songs are now involved and - speaking as an editor who works mostly in the field of music - this Project's absence is particularly notable. If you'd like any help getting {{Album}} updated to handle this system and the assessment categories put in place drop me a line at my talk page or head on over to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. See also: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. Cheers. --kingboyk 17:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should join in. Secretlondon 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to establish basic criteria for Stub, Start and B-class articles (for hunters and gatherers like me)? Fantailfan 11:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think if we create a list of what "features" are commonly present (and often missing) in most articles, we can use that to gauge an articles "quality"... For example, Infobox, track listing, and an initial summary are found in 95+% of articles, but at the same time, those articles are what we call stubs. It's features beyond that that makes the latter quality ranks, to me. Sales rankings, track by track analysis, miscellanea, separate credit sections, strict adherence to WP:Albums format, and so on that are the additional stuff. Anyone want to take a stab at grouping those? I've gotta pack for college, so not me. o_O ~Gertlex 14:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
How about we classify every article that has an infobox and a complete track listing (including track lengths and songwriting credits) and a credits/personnel section as Start, and everything missing any or all of those three a stub? Anything beyond that (articles with track-by-track analysis, etc.) would then be B-Class or beyond, depending on quality as described at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I could agree with that. Fantailfan 15:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I find that idea logical as well... But it does seem significant enough that it should be more widely discussed. Particularly with the criteria for stub vs. Start, that would be something to add to WP:Albums page itself. Classifying as Start would mean removing stub tags too, right? ~Gertlex 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I would consider one of my own contributions (Kojak Variety, which I don't even own) to be a good Start level but the key piece is discussion of the album and track-by-track analysis, though the latter should only be necessary for Important albums. The problem is, how do you write an article about an album that is neither POV nor OR? I've been thinking about this a lot as I am trying to expand my contribution level from Hunter-Gatherer and Librarian to Scribe. (these are temperament classes I have made up on my own.) Essentialy, I want to write an article, but beyond barebones description and more Weasly words than can be boarded at Gryffindor, I do not know what to do. Fantailfan 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I agree with the assessment that that article is a good Starter. But at the same time, Kojak Variety's a longer album than many, and in the case of a 5 track album (such as Five Live), it has the advantage of looking more complete with the same sets of information. Undoubtedly, some would love to argue Five Live as a stub AND Kojak Variety as a Start. ~Gertlex 23:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
By the definition I proposed above, yes, because Five Live lacks songwriting credits and the personnel section, while Kojak Variety has them... --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Unreleased albums

Please note that there is a considerable amount of crud in the above category and Category:Bootleg albums. I'll nominate a couple for deletion and tag others with various cleanup tags, but if other editors would care to examine these categories and see if anything can be improved or should be deleted it would be most welcome. (I hope you won't take exception to The Black Room (album) though, as I believe it's very well referenced for an article on an unreleased album :)). --kingboyk 12:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The KLF discography

The KLF discography is up as a featured list candidate, and an issue of some debate is whether it should include cover scans or not. I personally look to Kylie Minogue discography and The Beatles discography as two of the best discographies we have, and feel that using images this way is legally and morally fair use. The article would be so bare without them. I'm well aware that there is an opposing view too, which is that using images this way is overkill and not fair use at all. I'd be grateful then if interested editors would chip in at the FLC. Ultimately, if removing the images is the only way to get the article promoted I'll do it, but I think the article will lose by it. Your 2c to the FLC please (whether you agree or disagree with me). --kingboyk 12:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone home?

I've seen more life in a morgue! :) --kingboyk 12:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

May I know what you mean by this? --Siva1979Talk to me 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps that's a Briticism: I mean, would somebody care to answer any of my above threads, there doesn't seem to be much traffic around here for such a large WikiProject. --kingboyk 12:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's mid summer if nothing else. People are on holiday and students are away. I think we should join in with the Wikipedia 1.0 thing. Where has this been announced - I think people generally do their own thing and didn't notice - I only noticed because articles on my watch list were being tagged. Secretlondon 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I was only joking, no offence meant :) The links I posted above are the best places to start. I've actually already set up your categories for you (see Category:Album articles by quality and Category:Album articles by importance) and have changed {{Album}} to (for now) put all Albums into the Unassessed categories. Further to this, {{WPBeatles}} shares our assessments of Beatles albums with you (ditto {{KLF}}) so you actually already have a few Albums assessed - see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Album articles by quality/1.
The next step would be to place the assessment code into {{Album}} which is very easy to do and which I'm willing to do for you, set up an "Assessment department", and get cracking. It would be great to have you aboard because - as far as I'm concerned anyway - this is a mighty important WikiProject :) --kingboyk 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
We're going to have to draft our own assessment scales as well, right? –Unint 23:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be easiest to use the standard scales, but renaming them (and then mapping those renamed scales to the "standard" ones would be quite acceptable I think. --kingboyk 21:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

NEW! Categorizing retitled reissues

I had a little poser with a rare case, and had to used what seems to be a good solution. In case it's not already well-known, I wanted to document and share it with the others -- as well as to get feedback if there's a problem, or a better solution.

  • The compilation The Essential Lynyrd Skynyrd (1998, MCA) has been reissued identically but with a new title and new record label, as Gold (Lynyrd Skynyrd album) (2006, Geffen).
  • So I made the new title be a #REDIRECT to the original, identical issue, put there a second infobox, and updated the lead -- so far, so good.

But a problem arised for categorizing the new release:

  • As I understand it, we usually don't categorize each reissue -- but here we have a new title and new record label: I reckon people browsing Category:Geffen Records albums, or Category:Double albums, etc., would want to be able to find "Gold (Lynyrd Skynyrd album)" too.
  • And obviously, adding "Category:2006 albums", etc., to "The Essential Lynyrd Skynyrd" page wouldn't achieve that. Using a sortkey "Gold" is to no avail here, since it will still just list "The Essential Lynyrd Skynyrd" under the letter G, no good.
  • I thought of having the "Gold" page be a one-liner article just linking to the real one, just to have a placeholder for the categories, but that was a navigationally ugly kludge.

So, I thought of trying adding the categories right into the #REDIRECT page itself. (Redirect pages used to require stuffing everything on a single line, but as was pointed out later by kingboyk, it's not even required any more.) So the redirect page was eventually edited to this:

#REDIRECT [[The Essential Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
{{R from alternate name}}
[[Category:2006 albums]]
[[Category:Greatest hits albums]]
[[Category:Lynyrd Skynyrd albums]]
[[Category:Double albums]]
[[Category:Geffen Records albums]]

And you know what? It works ;-) The category for 2006 albums correctly lists "Gold (Lynyrd Skynyrd album)" at G, and clicking it in the category's list still activates the redirect to the actual article. At the article, I removed the duplicate categories and put instead, under the other categories, a bigass warning for this uncommon trick:

<!--
  THE RETITLED REISSUE IS CATEGORIZED SEPARATELY ON ITS REDIRECT PAGE
  IN ORDER TO BE DISPLAYED AS "Gold (Lynyrd Skynyrd album)"
  IN THE CATEGORIES' ALPHABETICAL LISTS
 -->

So, with a bit of the old luck, no one should try to add them again to the main article either. Was there a better solution for that? -- 62.147.112.164 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Post later amended with the {{R from alternate name}} and multi-line for documentation purpose -- 62.147.112.177 09:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea — and this is the way to do it, looks like. Wikipedia talk:Redirect has endorsed categorizing redirects. –Unint 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I make use of categories within redirects all the time to achieve just this effect. It's a wonderful tip. And here's a tip from me: categories within redirects don't all have to be on the first line! See e.g. Words of Love (The Beatles song) (in edit mode). --kingboyk 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Unint:
  • Thanks for the pointer, and I didn't realize there was this talk page too (I had been to the nigh-empty Help_talk:Redirect and had thought the official action was at meta:Help_talk:Redirect). Since they don't document categories inside redirects either, I'll drop them a proposal...
kingboyk:
  • That's great, I'm going to use it (and then I'll update the example I gave above, to be complete).
  • I'm just a bit concerned about such "undocumented" features. Has it been confirmed by a developer that it was an official feature, intended to stay? Because if that was just a temporary glitch in the current version of MediaWiki, the next software update could wipe out all our redirects' categories.
  • Another tip for your Words of Love (The Beatles song) redirect: apparently, there's now the {{R from song}} template to be used (instead of just Category:Redirects from songs). It's part of a series at Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages.
-- 62.147.112.177 09:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't tell you mate, but I assume it's a feature rather than a bug/oversight. The Mediawiki developers are pretty good and I'm confident they're aware that categorising redirects can be useful. --kingboyk 09:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's also what I assume, but just to be on the safe side, I have asked the question of multi-line redirects at WP:VPT, so we'll see about that. At any rate, it's about time to have it confirmed by the devs and officially documented at Wikipedia:Redirect (where I also dropped a section proposal documenting categories inside redirects...)
-- 62.147.112.177 10:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Short story, from developer Tim Starling:
  • Categories in redirects are officially OK
  • Multi-line redirects are officially OK
  • BUT templates in redirects, such as the "R templates", are not OK for performance reasons, and may be broken in the future.
Full story, with IRC logs and Bugzilla confirmation:
Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Content_of_redirects:_templates.2C_categories.2C_multiple_lines
-- 62.147.38.54 19:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks for that. I feel vindicated, because I use all of the features mentioned except for the R templates (I just type the category name in, e.g. Category:Redirects from songs). --kingboyk 19:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessments

I've added assessment code to {{Album}}, as described at Template_talk:Album#Wikipedia_1.0_Assessments. I've also created the assessment categories and an Assessment Department (Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment).

I'll now add some instructions and go tag some FA class albums so you all can see it in action.

Mathbot does a daily run through the Albums by quality and importance categories and creates these spiffy pages: Index · Statistics · Log. --kingboyk 21:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, continuing above discussion here.
By "drafting our own assessment scales" I meant, say, expanding on the standard ones to include album-specific details, which would make the necessarily subjective process easier all around. I'm particularly worried about the importance scale: you did say it's not that important, but people are using it anyway — and "rating albums" is something that people will instinctively do (often to much heated debate, if the past half-century is any indicator).
Anyway, I started by putting album in the "top" category. That much I'm sure about. –Unint 22:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean with regards to your own assessment scales. It might be worth having a look at how we've done this at the Beatles project or asking at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index where the WikiProject representatives and technical boffins hang out. I'm a bit knackered after doing this kind of work all week TBH!
With regards to importance: It will help Wikipedia 1.0 if the most important (Top/High) articles are identified, and also I suppose if there are high quality (GA, A, FA) articles of Low importance it would help them to know this too. I'm a little worried that with a Project of this size there will be bickering over importance ratings, and fans of certain artists wanting to inflate importance. So, I've put that code in but don't promote that feature - let's see what happens?? Again, Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index is a great venue for discussing these things: WPMilhist can tell you why they ditched importance altogether, WPBio can tell you why they're only assessing core articles for quality, and WPKLF (me) can say that for a small Project importance was a piece of cake :) It's also a good place to get an understanding of what this system is all about and why. Perhaps you'd like to continue this thread over there?
Anyway... I've tagged the FA and GA articles. Albums by The Beatles, Beatles solo and The KLF are already assessed, thanks to {{WPBeatles}} and {{KLF}}. I'll be watching the logs (Index · Statistics · Log) tommorow with great interest! :) --kingboyk 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, keep it dark for now. Suits me fine. As for the Editorial Team... I think I'll wait until we have a solid core of people working on this before heading over. (Anyone reading and interested, speak up.)
And thank you, tremendously. You've really consistently gone above and beyond the call of duty here. –Unint 03:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A simple question

  • Why is there categories for people that have only done a few albums? It seems a bit pointless to me. I think there should be some sort of limit for categories (when it comes to albums at list). I understand things need to be in categories, but that doesn't mean there should be a category for each and every artist's albums. Categories with 10 or less entries should be gone in my opinion. RobJ1981 20:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Even artists with only one album get an albums category. It helps with navigation and organisation. --kingboyk 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on that? If someone only has two albums, what sort of organization do they need? -Freekee 00:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, some sort of limit for categories is needed.Dr. Who 01:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Are we running out of category space? Jkelly 01:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
eheh, :), I guess not, (imho) it is undoubtedly true that cathegories help with navigation and organisation, but also please note that a cathegory which has just one entry could lead the reader to confusion.Dr. Who 01:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be a little bit weird to have Category:Albums by artist who released 10 or more albums instead of just Category:Albums by artist which is pretty straightforward. Jogers (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize it is an established rule that all artists with at least one album article must have their albums categorized, but I had hoped that someone could convince it's a good idea. -Freekee 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I gather it's sort of like if you have a street with only one building on it, you still give that building an address. You don't address letters to "The building on 192nd Street"--that would be kind of awkward. Nareek 04:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it needs to be changed. I'm sure there is more than enough people that feel the same way I do. A category for a few albums (just for the sake of categorizing), seems just pointless. RobJ1981 02:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think there should be a limit. An albums category for every artist with an album article creates consistency between all of Wikipedia's music articles. It is the basis of the album categorization system and keeps several parent categories organized, easy to navigate, and comprehensive (particularly Category:Albums by artist, Category:Albums by artist nationality, and Category:Albums by genre). --musicpvm 18:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the policy is fine. Categories are the only form of metadata supported in MediaWiki, so having a category for every artist makes browsing artists much easier. If some of the features of Semantic MediaWiki [34] ever make it over to Wikipedia, then I'd prefer other means, as categories tend to become clunky. (the features of Semantic MediaWiki would be fantastic for the albums project, by the way) —TheMuuj Talk 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary

I have been making a fair number of edits based on the Album guidelines and was wondering if we have (or should have) an edit summary like many of the projects do. I did a quick search of the talk archives and didn't find anything. You can see from my contributions that I've been using: "Standardizing album info – You can help!". Thoughts?--Fisherjs 18:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea. Making some kind of to-do list would also be useful. Jogers (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Automatic album template

Recently I've been adding lots of {{album}} templates to talk pages of albums either as I go about doing other things (and I notice the talk page link is red) or sometimes I seek out album pages here or here. Anyhow, I'm wondering if it's possible with a bot to automatically put the album template on the talk page if the article has an album infobox? I know next to nothing about how to actually do this, but maybe someone else does? We could also go in the reverse direction and say that if there is an album template then the article should have an infobox. A dump of the ones that don't have infoboxes could go on our to-do list (that's yet to be created).--Fisherjs 17:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm planning to do it (kingbotk (talk · contribs)) - tagging album stubs as stub-class album articles, and then tagging all other albums with a default {{album}}. I have some article lists ready, I'm just waiting to clear a few jobs first (tagging songs and living people). Please, nobody do a bot run without consulting with me first, as you'll need to be aware of some changes I've made to the template, and it would be best to co-ordinate things. --kingboyk 18:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
OK! Kingbotk (talk · contribs) has started tagging album stubs. It took me quite a while to get a working regular expression which would zap empty {{album}} tags and those with only empty parameters, whilst ignoring talk pages with any valid parameters, but I'm reasonably sure I have it right now (for those who are interested, I'm ignoring talk pages containing the following: WPBeatles|\{\{KLF|\{\{(template:|)album(s|)[^\}]*=[a-zA-Z]+[^\}]*\}\}). The automatically-assessed articles are stored in Category:Automatically assessed album articles; hopefully the numbers in that category will go down quickly as passers-by assess the articles and remove the auto=yes parameter!
When I'm done I'll look at tagging all other album articles, although I might do some more work for WikiProject Biography first. Hope that helps. --kingboyk 21:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Stubs have been done. If you see any album stubs with auto=yes on the talk page, please assess the article and remove that parameter. I'll do the other album articles next. --kingboyk 10:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, going quite good... had a few false positives due to some bad categorisation but nothing too major. Get assessing folks! --kingboyk 07:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pitchfork Media Reviews

Hey everyone. Let it be known that Pitchforkmedia has revamped the way they store their reviews on their website, leaving many of the links here on Wikipedia pointing toward absolutely nothing. So, when you come across an album page and it has a link to a pitchfork review, can you just check the link to make sure it's still viable? I'll be doing the same, and thanks in advance for your help. --King Bee 16:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Review ratings

Just though I'd note here, that I've created new SVG stars, to represent the ratings given to albums, by pro reviews. I also created a template to embed them easily in the right size. {{Rating-5}} is the template. You can read the instructions there on how to use it. It could maybe do with some work, but I think it will be useful to have (the SVGs are too big, and the template code makes the much more efficient to scale down easily). The only real advantage over the PNGs currently used is that these are SVGs. Take a look at Paris (Paris Hilton album) for an example of it in use. Feedback would be appreciated. Oh and if you're wondering why I didn't use the currently vacant {{Rating}}, there's stuff on the talk page relating to a deleted one, so I though it best not to use it. I know there's already one kind of similar at {{stars}} but I just though a layout like this might be a bit simpler to use (the template sytax I mean) - Рэдхот 22:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I will use your SVG stars in the future, if for no other reason than to use SVG. I went ahead and tweaked your template to include alt text, since the default alt text (the filename, I believe) isn't as useful, and there is rarely a text description of the star ratings to accompany the image. —TheMuuj Talk 00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh that's a good idea. I just spent so much time fixing bugs that I accidentally included (at one point it caused them to skip a line - it's very hard to know until you see them in a infobox template) so didn't really think about the rest of how it looks. I just thought that the code for the other, {{stars}}, was just unneccessasarily long and a bit complicated if it was to include halves, when most album reviews are out of 5 and only include halves (which are a bit hard to do with it). If others like it, (which I have yet to find out) maybe it should be on the main project page. Anything not using an out of 5 system could be converted and rounded, as although up to 10 is available with {{stars}} it would be very long to have 10 and would probably break a line. - Рэдхот 09:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
There's been a lot of discussion about stars (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Stars). The issue is controversial and there is no consensus whether to use them or not. I oppose recommending usage of stars on the project page for this reason. I also strongly oppose so-called "rounding" (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_7#Stars) Jogers (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the stars and I don't see any convincing arguments against them in that talk page (but let's save that debate for another day). If by rounding he means chopping off a half, that's a definite no no. I don't have any problem with converting a 5/10 review to 2.5/5 out of 5 though. --kingboyk 10:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well the rounding wouldn't come up often anyway . I just saw one that said something like 7.9/10 which is what I meant - 7.9 divided by 2 = 3.45 so you could just put in 3.5/5 stars and then specify exactly in brackets after the stars (although if you're going to get that specific in decimals I don't see why they don't just use a percentage) e.g. write: 3.5/5 stars (7.9/10) . I just checked though, using ten stars, with a reasonably sized name and a link on {{stars}} will break lines (and it looks a bit strange having ten). The main reason I created it is cause nearly all the major reviewers only use halves or are out of ten, meaning that for the majority of cases, the new one will suffice (and I certainly think it is simpler to use, in particular for halves). I created it without discussion because its usually the quicker way to establish whether or not it will be supported because if its there, then it's obvious exactly what you mean by the proposal.
But I think the format for stars should be on the project page. Nearly every album infobox with a review uses stars, so it would help if it was standardised (even if it was to end up using {{stars}} instead of {{Rating-5}}). And since I'm not exactly sure how you interpreted "rounding" I mean if its awkward and would be almost impossible to convey in a star (as I already mentioned 7.9/10 would be very difficult). I didn't mean changing 3.5 to 4 (I did upload stars that half halves in them) - Рэдхот 13:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just meant that stars shouldn't be used at all for other than 5-poins scales. Jogers (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
What? Do you mean use them only if its out of 5 in total? Cause I'm not sure if that's what you mean, but that's what it sounds like. - Рэдхот 10:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is what I mean. It's not only my opinion [35]. Using stars for other than 5-point scales is either unnecessary (when you add a plain rating anyway like this: 3.5/5 stars (7.9/10)) or inaccurate (when you just convert and round). Jogers (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand that, but if some of them have stars, but then others don't in the same infobox, then it would look funny wouldn't it? But do you have a problem with saying 4.5/5 stars (9/10) ? - Рэдхот 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It's one of the reasons why I'd prefer not to use the stars at all. Representing all ratings as plain text is easiest and most uniform. I don't see a point of saying 4.5/5 stars (9/10) instead of just (9/10). Jogers (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think it would look funny, really. It would just show that that particular media outlet uses stars as a rating system. If, for whatever reason, people feel the need to have all reviews in a standard format then we can just go 100% text. Unless I'm misunderstanding the argument, it's nonsensical to represent a percentage mark, for example, with a little 5-star image just for the sake of uniformity. Iae 22:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Scaling a rating is pretty much misquoting the reviewer. A-, 90/100, 9/10, 4.5/5 all boil down to the same core meaning mathematically, but the different ratings carry slightly different meanings and connotations. Changing 9/10 to 4.5/5 is tampering with the author's intended meaning. Analagously, "The album is awesome" and "The album is wonderful" essentially say the same exact thing, but we obviously have no right to alter the author's original word choice. Punctured Bicycle 22:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess that does make sense (about the converting, when the end result won't be exact) but I still don't really see the problem with halving ?/10. I don't really see what harm it does if the end result is exactly the same fraction, just with a different denominator. I also strongly dissagree that halving the numerator and denominator alters the authors intended meaning. Practically invariably, what a rating is given out of (?/5, ?/10 etc.) is decided by the publication, not the author of the review. Oh and since we're on this general topic, what would people think about creating a green + and red - SVG to denote when a publication rated positively or negatively? Or something along those lines - I know it's been discussed before, but I want to see what's the current opinion. - Рэдхот 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I was about to suggest the +/- images! I might get going on creating such an image. What should be put however if the reviewer sort of havs a mixed image? My ideas would be a green + for possitive and a red minus for negative and a yellow for both if it's mixed. Andrzejbanas 21:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
oops. on fiddling with my version of photoshop i realized I can't make svg's. But I still think this idea shoudl be taken into consideration. just having the word (possitive) or (negative) in there looks kind of bleah. Andrzejbanas 21:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You mean to change e.g. 9/10 to 4.5/5 stars but leave 9.1/10 as text? Jogers (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

producer credits (hip hop)

  • been working on a few hip-hop album articles recently and i was wondering if there's already a consensus on how to do producer credits as to who produced which track, which comes up a lot. i've been going:
  1. "Blood" – 4:26

a la the way we do verses. other people put "Produced by xxx". just wondering if there was a style guideline so we can make them all standardised. word W guice 17:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Track listings and times

With many CD re-releases the track listings and times vary from the original vinyl - not only that but differnt CDs have different extra tracks (take Space_Ritual I know of three CD versions plus the original double vinyl - how are these treated? --C Hawke 20:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen articles with multiple track listings, each specifying it's differences from the other listings... It seems like a proper and simple enough way to manage that. Whether anything should be added to WP:Albums page, probably, but I'll wait for a concensus and more opinions. ~Gertlex 01:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
whatever we do we have to ensure that the original track listing from the first release is the one which is shown on the main listing, subsequent tracks added on re-issue can be listed, after the initial list, but as these often vary on different issues, maybe a "On subsequent issues some or all of these tracks have been added" or something similar - the only exceptions are when different countries original releases contain different tracks - Dunno how to deal with this --C Hawke 08:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Album template revision status.

For several months now, there has been an effort underway to overhaul the template used for template entries in Wikipedia. ReyBrujo has developed a template which is signficantly more manageable than the pre-existing template. The template is about ready for prime time; however, feedback is sought from all interested parties, especially those who participated in earlier discussions.

To find out more about the proposed replacement templates, see User:ReyBrujo/Sandbox, and User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox.

Those who want background information on this subject may start here. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The proposed changes are widely supported [36] so I see no reason why not try them out. Jogers (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the info, Jogers. So, what do you think, ReyBrujo? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 17:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am not active enough during week days, preferring to do small edits instead. As a first measure, I would suggest moving the templates out of my user namespace to the Template one, renaming them accordingly. If necessary, I would suggest an administrator with oversight powers to delete the history items that have nothing to do with the template itself (that is because I forgot to start a new Sandbox). There are two ways of doing the exchange: two disruptive and one non disruptive but slower. The non-disruptive way would be moving them as new templates ({{album infobox 2}}, in example), and then begin moving the album articles from the existing infobox manually (as in, no bot required, but AWB or similar welcomed), choosing random articles to see if the template is working correctly in them, and warning in the talk page of the article not to go back to the other template as it is our planning to move all the infoboxes to the new one. And after a week with no serious problems, requesting a bot to do all these changes automatically, adding a note in the talk page to report errors here. Otherwise, the other two ways are similar: the first one is putting the latest version of the template in the current infobox, see if there are complains, and if so, revert to the old infobox until the problems are fixed. The advantage of this method is that it is easy, and since the template isn't subst'ed, automatic. The bad thing is that we lose the history of the template development. The other is similar: moving the old infobox to another name, move the new infobox in its place, and work the found errors on the fly. The good thing is that we keep the history of the template development, the bad thing is that we can't move the old template back in its place (without bothering some admin), and if we need to slap the latest "old" template in the new one to keep compatibility if serious bugs were found, we will be back to square one. -- ReyBrujo 18:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There are two points I would like clarification on: 1) You mentioned a loss of history using the non-disruptive approach (NDA); if the pages are moved, how will the history be lost? 2) Could you itemize the actions required to make this transition? I am rather confused by the process required for this effort, and will probably be unable to relay the instructions/steps to an admin.
FWIW, I vote for the NDA. Making the transition as seamless as possible will hopefully keep resistance to the new template at bay... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No, the NDA way does not lose the template history. Only one of the disruptive approach loses the history. And for the other question, see the next section. By the way, what is {{Album infobox 3}}? -- ReyBrujo 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up the NDA issue. The steps outlined below seem rather clear to me; why do you think admin intervention is needed for this effort? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Only if we were one of the disruptived method where we needed to replace the full template with the new one, and an administrator with the m:oversight touch if we are to remove the non necessary items from the history of the new template. I have around an hour and half, in case you want me to be responsible for messing everything up while moving the templates :-) Otherwise, anyone is welcomed to follow the proposed steps. -- ReyBrujo 03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I just realized that oversight cannot be applied to this case, so you will have to keep those edits there. -- ReyBrujo 03:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Just so that I am clear on this matter, the NDA can be implemented w/o "adult supervision?" If you are available to help with the move, that would be great. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Steps to implement the new template

  1. Move User:ReyBrujo/Sandbox to {{Infobox Album 2}}
    Edits before June 25, 2006 are not necessary and can be deleted.
  2. Move User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox to Template:Infobox Album color.
  3. Move User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox2 to Template:Infobox Album link.
  4. Move User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox3 to Template:Extra album cover 2.
  5. Move User:ReyBrujo/Temp/Sandbox4 to Template:Extra chronology 2.
  6. Create Category:Articles about albums with infoboxes using non-standard type parameter value (or whatever the name should be).
  7. Fix wikilinks between the four templates.

Up to this moment, all the templates should be working again. We then just need to begin replacing {{Infobox Album}} with {{Infobox Album 2}} in random articles to see if we have forgotten something. As I said, the modifications should be transparent for most articles. -- ReyBrujo 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The template should be backward compatible so why not just copy the code to {{Album infobox}} and see if anybody complains? The link to User:ReyBrujo/Sandbox could be included in the edit summary so anybody interested in the template development history could go to this page and check it out. Jogers (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case, we should also modify Template:Extra album cover and Template:Extra chronology, to take the changes to accept the Type as argument. Any way of implementing this is fine with me. -- ReyBrujo 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have found a problem. {{Extra chronology}} is protected because it is used in both album and single infoboxes. Theorically, it keeps backwards compatibility, so it should not be a problem with the single infobox. I will replace the {{Infobox Album}} with the proposed one to see how it fares for a couple of minutes, after adding a warning in the talk page. -- ReyBrujo 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Although I only applied the template in the sandbox to a handful of articles, I would like to know if there is an easy way to find out which ones were affected. Any suggestions? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
As you can see, I finished steps 2 and 3. I could not continue because my internet connection went down and had it restored just now. There is no simple way of knowing which articles will be affected, so I will be adding a notice at the talk page of the Album Infobox stating we are changing the template and that any error should be reported either in the talk page of the template or here, to centralize discussion, quickly fix any problem, and measure the overall impact of the modification. Since I am off to sleep, I will be doing the big change on Sunday, in maybe 12 hours (that would be 18 UTC I believe) if nobody dares to do it before ;-) -- ReyBrujo 05:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The next pair of steps have been implemented. How does Category:Article templates with unorthodox parameters sound for what follows? That way, the template can be used by other projects/portals. Also, please clarify what the last step is about. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 18:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was bold and decided to copy the template in the old one, with the Category:Non-standard album infoboxes category. As for the other templates, for now we will keep the other ones (the main problem is that one of the templates is protected because it is used by the Single infobox as well). -- ReyBrujo 18:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't created the category (although the albums are already there, 4600 or so), just in case we change the category name. I don't like the idea of "unorthodox" parameters, because we would be mixing problems with the album templates with, in example, problems with singles, comic characters, etc. -- ReyBrujo 18:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, the template is working. I am checking some random album articles, and it seems to be working fine. Now, the colors haven't been updated because the template gives more priority to the background color set manually than to the type. The next step is to decide whether Studio album and [[Studio album]] can be considered valid types, or we should force type to be without wikilink. If they both are valid, a change can be made at {{Infobox Album color}} to accept the wikified version too (which currently does not), and by removing the background parameter (or giving more priority to the type parameter), the new colors would be implemented. The main problem is that some users may find it odd that they are giving [[EP]] as type, and they are getting [[Extended Play]] as result (this is just an example). -- ReyBrujo 18:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I am in favor of flexibility in the template, provided the system avoids incurring a performance hit for such leniency... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm just getting gainsboro for | Type = Album. Am I doing it right? Fantailfan 18:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That is because type must be Studio album. We can also modify the color and link templates so that [[Album]] and [[Studio album]] link to Studio album, so that the chosen color is selected. But that is what I was saying, someone who puts type as [[Album]] will get [[Studio album]] as album type, which may confuse the editor. -- ReyBrujo 19:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I know it's too late to jump in here... but if I have to put in Studio album I get "Indigo Girls Studio album chronology" when my chronologies include EPs, Live albums, and Compilations... Fantailfan 18:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
...and XTC Compilation album chronology for The Compact XTC... Fantailfan 19:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe the chronology should always have (aka, hardcoding) "Album" (or "Single" if used in the Single infobox too), nevertheless the type. After all, most if not all chronologies include everything. -- ReyBrujo 19:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Good job, BTW. Didn't mean (only) to whinge. Fantailfan 19:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem, feedback is encouraged. The infobox is now using {{Extra chronology 2}}, thus the caption of the chronology should be fixed. Per CBD's previous change in the template, we may have to include the extra chronology template into the infobox. -- ReyBrujo 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Beauteous... going through my Watchlist now with AWB... ignoring U2 & R.E.M. for now... Fantailfan 19:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Note that I have to delete entire Background = to get new colo(u)rs to work. Fantailfan 19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is because, currently, the template gives more priority to the background color than to the type. These are the two steps we need to decide now:
  1. Should {{Infobox Album color}} and {{Infobox Album link}} accept variations of the proposed types? In other words, right now it accepts Studio album. Should it accept [[Studio album]] and [[Album]] as well? If not, we will have to manually (or with a bot) modify the 29000 or so articles, changing from their current type to a valid one.
  2. The template, right now, gives more priority to the background parameter than to the type. That is because of the previous point. If we change the priority, since most types have wikilinks, most of the infoboxes will appear as gainsboro.
There doesn't seem to be too many problems. I will be updating the temlate instructions later once we determine it is working right. -- ReyBrujo 19:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Unluckily, the deletion was by mistake (I wanted to delete Temp/Sandbox, but instead nominated—and ultimately got deleted— Sandbox. Since we have not moved the template from my userspace, Not much was lost. It is good to have my sandbox back, though :) -- ReyBrujo 03:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is lightsteelblue the current color for studio albums? Shouldn't it be orange until we adopt the changes to all the articles and then discuss new colors? Jogers (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just changed it back to orange. I don't mind any other color and personally I find orange rather ugly but I thought that this way we are less likely to confuse anybody. Jogers (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I liked the lightsteelblue as well. We should hold the discussion about the types and colors, and whether to use several types (wikilinks and plains) for each type, so that we can finish with the changes (setting the new colors, and creating the category for non standard types). -- ReyBrujo 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I kind of like the lightsteelblue better. The orange sort of jumped out it you in a sort of gaudy way. Cool colours worked better then the neon-orange thing we have going. Andrzejbanas 01:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

lightsteelblue vs. orange

Voice your support for which you prefer below:

  1. lightsteelblue. --Folajimi 21:51, 4 September 2006
  2. ReyBrujo I like lightsteelblue as well. I am not sure, but somehow this part is not getting a lot of attention, and all this section will surely be archived soon.
  3. Lightsteelblue, surely. I suggest we change the color after most of the infoboxes are updated, though. Jogers (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. LightSteelBlue, but I really don't think we should be choosing the colours one at a time. It could cause clashes later on, or at least the early commitments would restrict the later choices. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 10:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. LightSteelBlue, suckas Andrzejbanas 13:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. lightsteelblue. Fantailfan 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. AnythingButOrange LightSteelBlue - I agree with MightMoose22, colours should be picked as a scheme, and the colours should come from Wikipedia:Colours to start. - BalthCat 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. i'm all about the orange. Otherwise, the way this is heading everything will be a washed-out indistinguishable pastel shade in no time -- W guice 11:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. While I like lightsteelblue, I agree that we should really consider Wikipedia:Colours. —TheMuuj Talk 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This poll has been open for ten days, and the consensus supports the proposed switch from orange to lightsteelblue. The change has been implemented, and I would like to thank all of those who participated in this event. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 15:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a bot that's able to make the changes? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There should be no need. We can make {{Infobox Album}} to skip the Background parameter, thus forcing the new colors to every article. -- ReyBrujo 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's useful. I hope I haven't been using the wrong one... --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

comments

  • To MightyMoose22: Anyone with issues with the others can put them up for votes as well. My problem was simply related to the one used for studio albums. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 11:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • What I meant is that we should vote on them all together, rather than one at a time. For example, put up a dozen nominations and ask people to choose the half-dozen they like and think work best together, then assign them to album types after they're chosen. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 11:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe we should go with the less-shocking approach. As no issues have been raised with the other colors, it is much better to change one color (although it is the most common/bright of them all) than changing all of them. -- ReyBrujo 13:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, then I agree. But I seem to remember some people jumping in with complaints about other colours last time the issue was raised. Particularly salmon and turquoise, I seem to remember. But if they're not brought up again this time, then I guess it doesn't matter. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 13:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Remember, this isn't do or die; if anyone has any concerns, they can always bring them up at a later date. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 13:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually I did mention, above, that I found the main colours pretty hideous. I came here because some one kept changing the colours of albums whose articles I created. I found the blatant orange ugly in comparison to the fairly unobtrusive grey I had originally chosen. I reverted it, only to have it happen again a few months later. The Project template was added to the talk page about the same time and I came here and saw that the colour had meaning. However, I tend to agree with the posters above (unless it has been archived), that the colours are ultimately unknown to people outside the project. This is why I take issue with pretty much all the other colours. They're very sharp and in your face, and frankly I find salmon, teal, and orange to be hideous. I think that Wikipedia:Colours is the way to go because this colour scheme should be a "background feature" (not foreground) in the layout of the album template. Those who know the meaning of the colours (who I assume are few...), will know, those who don't, won't get a slap in the face from the garishness of it all. I mean contrast the standard blue/grey layout of Wikipedia to salmon? It just does not go. So my argument is twofold:
  1. I'm against orange, teal, and salmon. LightSteelBlue is a start, but there's two and a half to go (the purple is too strong too...)
  2. The colours chosen should be unobtrusive, pale or mild colours. More like a movie's background score rather than an anthem.
- BalthCat 20:58, 7 September 2006.
As has been mentioned earlier, now is the time to nominate replacements for undesired hues... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 01:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply to W. guice:

After reviewing web colors, I beg to differ with your assertion. It is indeed possible to select a spectrum that avoids being abrasive, loud, or otherwise undesirable. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Y'see, i don't really consider it that loud, abrasive or undesirable. i find it easily referrable and distinct. Though i see a majority seem to dislike it, so it's mildly immaterial - W guice 01:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
What I mean to say is that I seriously doubt that replacing the orange will result in "...a washed-out indistinguishable pastel shade in no time..." --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 02:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeh, agreed, i don't think the orange alone will do that. Although i find the lightsteelblue-esque colours rather bland and the ones at Wikipedia:Colours are forgettable even as you're looking at them, let alone afterwards. - W guice 02:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of the first trio of hues in the orange category? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 12:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how the colours have to be unforgettable. These colours are of benefit to readers familiar with this project, and only those members. There is no element in the template explaining to readers (not editors) what the meaning is, so aesthetic appeal is of more importance than memorability. Those who are in the know will make an effort to know, whereas readers will have no clue. Besides, pale blue and pale green are as memorable as blue and green, it's simply the intensity of the colour which is different. The more important thing is to keep the colours differentiated by colour category. This was my problem in suggesting replacements for all the colours (I spent some time last night), finding appealing colours which were not overly intense and yet were not close to each other in similarity (lightsteelblue and paleblue for example). What do people think of:
EPs salmon ===> EPs navajowhite
Original studio albums orange ===> Original studio albums lightsteelblue
Live albums and live EPs darkturquoise ===> Live albums and live EPs paleturquoise
Cover and tribute albums plum ===> Cover and tribute albums thistle
Greatest hits, box sets and other compilations darkseagreen ==> Greatest hits, box sets and other compilations mediumaquamarine
Soundtracks and television theme songs gainsboro == Soundtracks and television theme songs gainsboro
- unsigned comment by BalthCat on 08:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
samples
Studio album: Robbie Robertson (album)
Greatest hits: The Very Best of Elvis Costello and The Attractions 1977-86
EP: Never Say Never (EP)
Cover album: Pin Ups
Live album: Blow Your Face Out
No soundtracks since they stay gainsboro. —Fantailfan 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • i was kind of meaning "memorable" as an aesthetic criterion rather than a logistical one, if you see what i mean. i don't know, i suppose i can't really express it better than that i think the present scheme is grand, and doesn't need watering down with mimsy light shades. i think the 'salmon' colour's gorgeous, for instance (albeit not that much like an actual salmon), whereas navajowhite, like Shania Twain, does not impress me much. i don't really buy the "garish" or "too intense" or "(allegedly) 'tasteful' = better" arguments whatsoever. However, as i've said, i recognise i'm very much agin the wind on this one, so if it's ok with all i'd like to withdraw from the discussion at this point. obviously i'll keep an eye out for what gets decided and implement that as normal. - W guice 19:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Railway Stories audiobooks

Hi. The article on The Railway Stories has been noted as being in scope for this project, and a request for an infobox has also been applied.

Q1 Does this project apply to audiobooks, or just music albums?

Q2 Is it necessary for each album to have a separate page or infobox?

Where I'm coming from is that The Railway Stories page describes ALL the audio(book) recordings of the original Railway Series books by Rev W Awdry. So far, this amounts to a series of fifteen 7" singles (the first releases), and a related (?) series of thirteen (?) 12" albums (which were also later released on audio cassette), plus a single new CD recording. That's an awful lot of very small pages (contrary to WikiProject:Thomas aims, which is attempting to reduce the number of small pages used), or an awful lot of album infoboxes on the same page. Apart from the CD release, the content is purely spoken-word.

Having looked at your project page, I can't see that adding The Railway Stories would be appropriate, however I am prepared to be convinced! --EdJogg 13:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The information is really fun, so it should be somewhere. I'm not sure if it fits this purview, and I'd imagine the standard would be that any interesting audiobook information (which is essentially what this is, an early audiobook) would be to include it in the article about the book. Since this is a series, I'd think the proper merge point, if that was the route you took, would be The Railway Series, although there seems to be more than enough information here to clean it up and keep it as a regular article. In this specific case, as they aren't really albums as much as releases of stories from the series, I'm not sure you'd excise them from here. Then again, if the individual stories themselves have articles, maybe the information from the original 7"s can go there. Not an easy one, haha. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Just for clarification, there is no suggestion that the content of The Railway Stories is going to be merged elsewhere - it is appropriate as an article in its own right. Indeed, as part of WP:THOMAS it was moved to the main The Railway Series page for a while, but then extracted again because this was more logical, and there was so much information still to add (most of the page content has been added since then). There is no expectation that the original books will receive individual pages either (there are 40 of them!), so the singles cannot be covered elsewhere. -- EdJogg 14:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I actually started that stub, and it was me who added the {{album}} template - but Ed and WPThomas have done all the work :) If I'm not mistaken, what's he really asking is "should it be in the scope of this WikiProject", which ties in with the next thread about comedy albums. Well, in my opinion yes - there's no other WikiProject covering spoken word albums and they are albums after all. Opinions are like... well everyone has them let's put it that way! So, if yours differs speak up :) --kingboyk 06:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comedy?

The template was just added to the talk page for the George Carlin album An Evening with Wally Londo Featuring Bill Slaszo, and I notice that the wording contains the phrase "a useful musical resource on recordings from a variety of genres" (emphasis mine). I wonder if it might be a good idea to reword that, or come up with an altered version for non-musical albums, such as stand-up comedy and other spoken word projects. - Ugliness Man 14:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As above we need some consensus on whether these albums are within scope, but I'm firmly of the opinion that "WikiProject Albums" is just that - any and all albums. I support a wording change. --kingboyk 07:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the word "musical" from the template. See Template talk:Album#Proposed rewording. --kingboyk 12:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Noting source for track lengths

I often find when standardizing album articles that the album length doesn't match the sum of the individual track lengths (I do believe, logically, that they should match). I don't own most of the albums I edit, but All Music Guide is almost always cited as a review and AMG usually lists the track lengths too. When I find non-matching track and total lengths, I usually take the times from AMG instead and update any incongruities. A problem with this, is of course that AMG is not always right, but I have no way of knowing that for each individual album. As a result of this, I've taken to leaving comments stating the source of the track lengths for other editors to read, generally in this format:

== Track listing == <!-- Times match those from actual CD --> or "Times match those from AMG"

Is this reasonable? I couldn't find (didn't look super hard) any guideline on what degree comments should be left in pages. I think this is useful in letting other editors know why times suddenly changed (though I've yet to have a complaint or to notice a reversion of my updated times). Comments? ~Gertlex 01:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is tough. I recently corrected a total album time from what had been given at AMG to what was on the back of the CD I was holding in my hand. I didn't source that. I suspect a lot of these total times come from manual addition of track times. Jkelly 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I will use AMG, or the album notes (which are invariably off by ±10 sec.) or the values that come up when I pop the CD in my computer/the values from my "Music Collector" database. I think that the computer will get it wrong as well (usually an error of +2 sec.) so yes, it is tough. Fantailfan 01:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I checked earlier today, and as far as consistency goes on putting the CD into a computer, I did get the same set of times with both Winamp and Windows Media Player... I did indeed forget to mention that often the wrong total length is due to using what AMG lists as the total length; when AMG does list total length (not that often), it seems it's almost always wrong. Concerning manual addition of track times, I use a self-written program that so far has worked perfectly every time to do the math... I could share it if there's an interest in that sort of thing (I'm sure better made software exists out there for that purpose, though :) ) ~Gertlex 02:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
In answer to your question, I think it would be a good idea to source your track times, otherwise people are going to be correcting each other's edits ad infinitum. I don't think it's worth a ref tag, and the edit summary isn't a good place for it, so an html comment is probably a good idea. And mention whether you took them from the CD itself, or from its booklet. (Freekee)
Ahh, a good distinction! I too had thought a reference tag to be excessive as well. (never mind that I've yet to memorize the exact syntax for using references anyways)
  • Times from "Reviewer source here".
  • Times from album booklet.
  • Times from album, as read by computer.
Any other distinctions that would be meaningful?~Gertlex 03:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I would say to differentiate between CD and LP, and not use "album." -Freekee 16:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that you can also find durations at Discogs, and if that fails you can take a bet with Freedb. (The later is NON-authoritative, anyone can inject wrong or vandalized information into it. Or worse, people posting the track listing of their ripped/customized/burned CDs under the original release name, and you'll never know it.)

On a related matter, and for reasons explicited at length in the next section below, I think it should also be prescribed that:

  • The total length in the infobox should be based on the addition of the lengths documented in our track lists
  • That "silence before hidden track" and similar tricks should be discounted and/or explicited in the infobox total.

(Continued in next section)

-- 62.147.112.177 11:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To base the infobox length on an addition and how

(Spin-off of the previous section)

It is quite common for the total of track lengths to differ, slightly or largely, from the album's total, because of at least two things:

  • Actual track lengths aren't an exact number of seconds - what you see is rounded (and the rounding can differ from one device/software to another). Let's say you have 9 tracks, and each is actually 05:00:33 long. Your track listing will display each of them as "05:00", but the album's total length will be 45:03 instead of 45:00, and rightly so.

However, about this point I'd say: all our duration data is always going to be slightly off anyway, so I think it would be simpler and more verifiable to officially require our infoboxes' album length to be based on the addition of the track lengths (rather than a CD player's reported total), and indeed to document the source for the track listing. This means that the album total we would put in the infobox will often vary from what you see in your CD player, but only a little (worse case scenario with 10 tracks and a rounding-down algo would make the error be 10 seconds off max). And since the track lengths can vary a bit too, as well as the various editions/reissues, there usually wasn't a "real album length" in the first place.

Special cases breaking the rule: when the album's total length is somehow a significant part of the album. For instance, I remember some albums intended to be exactly 66:06 or such values, for pseudo-occult reasons (666, number of the Beast, yadda yadda yadda), and we have no reason to hide or remove such details from the reader, however trivial they may seem. There's also the case of the quite famous album 76:14 where each track is titled after its (rounded) duration, and the album too was titled after its total duration (which happened to be different from the total of each tracks length, because of the rounding).

  • And as you all know, many CDs use a wide range of stupids tricks tampering with the length of ACTUAL music, such as long minutes of silence before a "hidden track", bonus track hidden in the pregap ("track 0"), etc.

Encyclopedically, I find more relevant that our track listings document when a CD track is actually "5min of music, 10mins of silence, 5min of bonus" as sub-track listings. And I find more encyclopedical to add up only the *music* parts, not the long-silence parts. In this very common case, the total duration as reported by AMG or a CD player will NEVER be the real, encyclopedical value we will get from adding up only the actual songs. This is I think a second good reason for prescribing to derive the album's length from an addition of what is listed as non-silence in the article's track listing.

Now, because of various special cases, the best way about "silent tracks" may be to have the infobox document both values, such as "Length: 72:00 (67:00 + silence)" or "Length: 67:00 (72:00 with silence)". I can't find back all the special cases I've seen about such issues, but I remember those:

The album Orblivion is currently documented as 72:00 (the infobox doesn't tell there's actually 5 minutes of silence). We could just go ahead and say "67:00", but the last track is ironically titled "72" because the padding of silence makes the album's 67mins of music extend to 72mins of reported length. So, if we list this album as "72:00", we don't provide a fully accurate and encyclopedical value, because I think the reader expects to be told the total of actual music. But if we list this album as "67:00", in such special case we miss a secondary but amusing detail about the title of the last track. So, mentionning both could be a good solution, at least for special cases.

The album LP5 has different amount of silence between its two main editions. The infobox currently reports "76:16 (64:11 + silence)".

The album EP7 has a hidden track in the pregap and its infobox says "60:09 (66:53 with hidden track)" because no CD player will report the pregap, and most won't access it anyway.

(Note that even the fact that this hidden track is 404 seconds long is intended as a joke on Error 404 Not Found. My point being that sometimes the track duration should NOT be pulled blindly from AMG or such, so any prescription of format should be a rule of thumb, that such special cases are allowed to break -- with the inclusion of HTML comments to warn why not to tamper with a given value...)

So as I said, I think any solution or prescription should be able to handle, gracefully and encyclopedically, those general and particular issues as well. It's a tough world.

-- 62.147.112.177 11:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the total album length should include the silence. This includes the two seconds of padding between the songs. The time is on there, whether the artist intended it to be, or whether it's just an industry standard. But the important question is what the point of having the total time is? I think it's to show what the total running time of the record is - from when you hit the play button to when the record stops. -Freekee 16:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Generally that two seconds of silence is included in the track lengths I think... Every MP3 I've ripped from a CD has that silence at the end. I'm more on the side that of providing the total playing time of music (obviously including the already present couple seconds of silence). You'll get the fewest questions from newcomers if you match the total album length with the individual tracks (and how would you go about measuring each album length from start to finish? Own the album and play while running a timer? Unrealistic). ~Gertlex 00:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
How would I measure the total time? Pop the CD in and see what the player says. This wouldn't work with LPs, of course, and I wouldn't even try timing them. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freekee (talk • contribs) .
Every MP3 I've ripped adds two seconds. Let's do some testing...
"Johnny B. Goode," Chuck Berry. His Best, Volume 1, track 14. 1997, MCA/Chess/UMG, Universal City, CA.
as read by Music Collector - 2:42
as read by RealPlayer - 2:42
as ripped by RealPlayer (192K VBR MP3) - 2:42
as read by iTunes - 2:42
allmusic.com - 2:42
musicbraniz.org - 2:42
what Windows Media Player and Creative Zen Xtra thinks the song length is - 2:28
Conclusion? Don't trust what an MP3 player (software or hardware) says about VBR-ripped tracks.
Fantailfan 11:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
By testing, do you mean ripping and then observing, or inserting the CD and playing from the CD? (though in All Music's case, simply reading their listed time). The point of my previous comment was simply an observation of silence already existing on everything I've ripped (and not, as you quoted, 2 seconds specifically). Do we have any definite idea for a solution? ~Gertlex 14:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Inserting the CD. Fantailfan 15:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't all this original research? I mean, if you have the album, you have the times that appear there. If the album states a full length time, even if approximate, then use it. If it does not, add the individual song's length and get the album length. This is still original research, but at least everyone can verify it easily by checking the album cover and adding the values up, instead of having to rip the songs, listening to them, or having to add or remove the silence. -- ReyBrujo 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you do if no track times are listed on the CD? Fantailfan 15:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The search for a link to a reliable site where they are stating the length of the album, if only in approximation (in example, a link to Allmusic where they say the full album is a little over 70 minutes). Then add ~70:00 as time, with a reference to the link. -- ReyBrujo 16:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You'll forgive me if i'd rather expend a small amount of effort writing the times out manually from a CD player than i would trust Allmusic as far as i could throw them. --W guice 17:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with putting more accurate information. However, information must be verifiable. If there is a link, everyone can verify it. If you put the times that appear in the CD cover, a good number can verify it (by searching for the album cover, or by just inspecting the cover of the album they have and adding up the values). If now we begin discussiong whether to add or not the silence, if the hidden track should be considered as part of the album or bonus track, etc, we are now being just too accurate. If people does want that kind of information, I guess it would be possible to add all the different measured times in the infobox, like ~70:00 [allmusic.com], 68:54 (song length), 66:30 (album length without silence), 62:55 (without bonus track, available only in limited editions) Although I believe it is just too much. -- ReyBrujo 17:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not original reasearch to insert the CD and read the time on your player. That's still published info, which can be verified by others. Is it possible to add too much info? Well... yes, in the sense that we do more work than is necessary to satisfy most readers. Personally, I think if we list track times and a total running time (and source them), that's good enough. Though I have my preferences, I wouldn't change an article to a different source or style. -Freekee 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on the remarks so far, there seems to be little in the way of consensus. Until a procedure is hammered out, I suggest that the solution put forth by W guice be adopted. Speaking of which... ReyBrujo, is it possible to have the template automatically sum up the track times which are typed in manually? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
In order to do that, you'd need a way of differentiating the track times from the rest of the text, which is near impossible. And with song names like "10:15 Saturday Night" and "5:15" it's even more difficult. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 04:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What could be interesting is creating a special template or automatic procedure so that it creates a skeleton for album articles, including the infobox, the general layout (summary, track listing, categories, stub, etc). -- ReyBrujo 04:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
ReyBrujo, it appears we are on the same wavelength! :) --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Master Series

Okay, odd thing to bring up out of the blue, but just hours ago I noticed the Master Series compilation series and started to do some preliminary research on it. Right now it's just a mess of information I've gathered from all over the place (and a list of artists that you'd never expect to see in the same place). This is an open call for knowledgeable people (if anyone could be said to be knowledgeable about a budget series of CDs released in Europe) to look things over, fill in any glaring omissions, factcheck, etc. –Unint 05:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Joining?

After doing some work on Kirlian Selections (I left the POV template there) I made my way here, and was wondering, can I join? Are there any conditions I need to meet? For that matter, is there a members page that I missed? ^_^;; --Schlagwerk 04:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no members page or conditions you need to meet. You are welcome to help to create, expand, categorize and format album-related articles, as well as participating in discussions on this page. Jogers (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't there a members list? In my experience getting people to sign up, sending them a newsletter occasionally etc etc gives a sense of community and really helps the project. That's certainly been the case at WP:BEATLES. --kingboyk 08:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not create one? Jogers (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Could do, but don't want to rock the boat too much :) Is there any reason why the Project doesn't have these things? --kingboyk 10:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that there is any specific reason. It probably never came up. Jogers (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This list could get quite long over time. How about creating a subpage like Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Participants? Jogers (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I've done that and transcluded it. If it gets too big the transclusion can be changed to a link. --kingboyk 11:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Fine, thanks. Jogers (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox: Album covers

It would be really nice if the album covers within the infobox defaulted to a width of ([width of album infobox] minus [some very small number]) instead of 200, so as to create a perfectly symmetrical and very thin border between the cover itself and the infobox. Try it -- it looks fantastic! Why have those big vertical strips on either side?

Covers with an original image width below the new default should of course be displayed actual size -- but those are few and far between. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ecksemmess (talk • contribs) .

New categories

I have added 2 new album categories : Category:Self-titled debut albums & Category:eponymous sophomore albums I also gave the major album categories links to each other (for a look, go to Category:Debut albums). These include

  • Debut albums
  • Sophomore albums
  • Final albums
  • Eponymous albums
  • Self titled debut albums
  • Eponymous sophomore albums

I hope this is alright, and that it is appreciated. Troubleshooter 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess it's alright, but where does this leave Pearl Jam? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
They would just be in Eponymous albums. It would be silly to have "Eponymous 8th albums" etc. Troubleshooter 19:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Or The Cure? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 17:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. I recall seeing a note somewhere (can't find it now) saying not to use the word "sophomore" to describe records, because this is an Americanism. Is this still an issue?
  2. I don't really see the point in Category:Eponymous sophomore albums
  3. Not really a fan of Category:Self-titled debut albums either
  4. Shouldn't the categories have the same wording: either both "eponymous" or both "self-titled"?
  5. The tree seems decent
-Freekee 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Point number 4... I think they should be the same... But Selftitled debut albums should not be Eponymous debut albums, as the former is more recognised. Change Eponymous Sophomore albums to Selftitled Sophomore albums? Troubleshooter 19:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with eponymous debut. It's a phrase in common usage round my turf. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 21:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Try a google search of "Eponymous debut" (311k results) and "Self titled debut" (1.8m results). Troubleshooter 22:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And search for eponymous sophomore album (60,000) vs self-titled second album (2,000,000) or feline (12,600,000) vs cat (672,000,000). "More recognised" doesn't mean "better". If you're gonna change eponymous (3,250,000) to self-titled (5,250,000), why not change debut (176,000,000) to first (3,610,000,000)? Hell, the word probly gets over 1,700,000 results, does that mean it's not wrong? MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 00:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't stand the word sophomore, truth be told. It's an Americanism, yes. "Eponymous" is fine, so it ought to be Eponymous debut albums. That said I don't much see the point in splitting Eponymous albums out by debut, second etc. --kingboyk 17:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
What a suprise. You don't like something I did. Now that's a shocker. Troubleshooter 19:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, you did ask - I thought you wanted an honest opinion! If it's praise you're after, I think the formatting on the category is real nice. And anyone who likes Weezer can't be too bad, right? :) --kingboyk 20:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Lol I don't actually like them that much. I'm premusing you saw an edit... But I just like perfecting articles, with anything I can do. Troubleshooter 22:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't even know what sophomore means, and I'm pretty sure there are a fair few others like me. I'm assuming from the context that it means "2nd", but I'd be lost just seeing the word on its own. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 17:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The WikiProject Music says Don't describe an album or other recording as "sophomore" (...) as this is an American usage and is unfamiliar to much of our audience. Jogers (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Like me. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 17:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to confess that I wasn't entirely sure what it meant either, and also had to look it up when a newbie here :) Alas the word pops up quite a lot (I change it when I see it) so I'm used to it now. Still hate to see a classic English indie band's second album called "sophomore" though ;) --kingboyk 19:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That's what made me create it. I don't know whether you're referring to Libertines or Razorlight, but I thought it was strange that there were selftitled second albums appearing, as it's usually just debut albums. Troubleshooter 19:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, I don't like these categories very much too. I think that Category:Eponymous albums worked fine without subcategories. Jogers (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't sure what other word to use for Sophomore. I'm not American. Troubleshooter 17:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
"Second albums" would be acceptable, but I still don't think we need a category for them. You say you were surprised that there were self-titled records that weren't debuts, and I can understand that. If you really think it's important to separate them, I suggest having a category for "eponymous non-debut albums", since I think you will be similarly surprised at how many of them there are at all stages of bands' careers. However, personally, I recommend against adding a category for that either.
In short, I prefer no cats to separate self-titled albums by release order, but if you're going to do it, have a single cat for all non-debuts. -Freekee 20:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I said it was strange (not suprised) that there were self titled second albums (not self-titled records that weren't debuts) appearing. Troubleshooter 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Not only that, but should we post in both Eponymous albums and Self titled debut albums, or should one be a subcat of the other? Either way, it's going to be a lot of work to keep them policed. Nobody but us will know which way it should be. -Freekee 20:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If someone doesn't do it, it doesn't harm the article, it just makes it slightly incomplete. There are many albums without all the necessary categories. Troubleshooter 22:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
After hearing these comments, I suggest we change the name of "Eponymous sophomore album" to "Self-titled second album". Does anyone agree with this? Troubleshooter 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not entirely sure if they are needed, if they are going to stay there definitely needs to be uniformity. Since the top category is 'Eponymous albums', the categories should also use that wording. So that means they should be 'Eponymous debut albums' and 'Eponymous second albums' unless a better, widely recognized word can replace second, as we have already realized that sophomore is not widely recognized. Joltman 12:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll go with this. Troubleshooter 15:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds alright to me too, although maybe Eponymous debut albums and Eponymous non-debut albums might be better? Or "First eponymous albums" and, erm, well I dunno what we'd call it but a category for a band's second or subsequent one... but, anyway, is the crucial point whether an eponymous album was a band's debut or not, or whether it was their first eponymous album? (e.g. The Beatles, not a debut but their first and only eponymous album. That's not a rhetorical question by the way. --kingboyk 19:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC) PS like the new sig much better, doesn't hurt the eyes :)
It's such a tricky subject... How about:
Eponymous Debut Albums & Eponymous Subsequent Albums (subsequent stolen from KingboyK)?
Glad you like it lol Troubleshooter 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I like Eponymous Debut and Eponymous Non-Debut best.
Me too. -Freekee 04:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't like describing anything as "non-something". Whenever I see songs described as "non-album singles", I always change them to say "stand-alone singles". Eponymous debuts is self-explanatory, but I think a list would be better than a category for non-debuts, that way we can say which album they each are (8th, 9th, 12th etc.), and just add the list as the lead page of Category:Eponymous albums. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There's already List of eponymous albums (artists), it just needs adding which albums they are chronologically. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Are these intersection categories necessary? We already have Category:Eponymous albums, Category:Debut albums, and Category:Sophomore albums. I don't really see the use of these new ones. --musicpvm 03:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I. Category:Sophomore albums? Category:Second albums was deleted so shouldn't this one be deleted too? Jogers (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Eponymous debut albums would be okay, just as a sub-cat of both Category:Eponymous albums and Category:Debut albums. I don't like the others, though. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a suggestion: Find (or create) a category which will accomodate The Cure's "Cure", Pearl Jam's Pearl Jam, P.O.D.'s Payable on Death, and let it be. (If you feel the need to do a bit more, make it accomodate Weezer's self-titled Blue and Green albums. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 12:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be Category:Eponymous albums. I'm happy to just leave it at that. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 12:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion could [unintentionally] open up a can of worms that may not be worth cleaning up. Think Duran Duran's Duran Duran, Duran Duran, and Duran Duran. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 12:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you've already removed and changed things, but I don't understand why you're all making such a big deal about it. Troubleshooter 16:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"This album was leaked"

An increasing number of albums has something like "the album was leaked on [date] on BitTorrent" in their lead... Appart from the fact that these sentences are always unsourced, I think they are also unnotable, since pretty much every album is leaked a couple of days before its regular release, and I don't really think it's worth mentioning, except in cases where this had some kind of effect (The Eminem Show being released earlier than originally planned, for example). While I haven't removed any of these sentences from any article, I have seen other editors do it and I was wondering what the general opinion on these is. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to remove them as they are current event information that are ephemeral, diminishing rapidly in meaning over a few days or weeks and trivial, unimportant both at time of posting and in future. Fantailfan 11:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm disagreeing. They're unsourced because they are self-evident. Besides, a link to a torrent site would prove the point adequately. Pretty much every album is leaked? Yes, but pretty much every album gets an official release too; that doesn't diminish its significance. In any case, for albums that have yet to be released such events are the only real-world developments regarding those albums, aside from label press releases. --W guice 14:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
A link to the torrent site? Do we really want to encourage that? It seems to me that advertising a torrent site that participates in trafficking commercial music releases is tantamount to using Wikipedia to encourage piracy. I've no interest in starting a debate about piracy itself - whatever your feelings on the topic, it's still illegal, and I'm not sure that it's such a good idea to give free advertising to a website that enables users to do something illegal, if for no other reason than for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility. Aside from all of that, torrent links tend to be pretty transient. Linking to a page that's likely to be gone in a week or a month doesn't seem especially productive on what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Incidentally, count me in as one who agrees with the proposal to delete the references to album leaks that aren't notable. -Erik Harris 18:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No, personally i don't think we do want to encourage that, but do read it again - i didn't propose actually doing it at any point, i was merely pointing out that it's disingenuous to claim that the reporting of a leak is unsourced/unsourceable, when a simple empirical test (observing it on the page) shows that it patently is sourceable. --W guice 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal but good luck implementing it. Some tides just can't be stemmed. With regards to posting links to sites which breach copyright, I'm pretty sure there's a guideline or policy somewhere prohibiting it. Can't remember where it is at the moment so if anyone's interested you'll have to dig around for it :) --kingboyk 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Reports about leaks can be included if they are notable (in example, when the Red Hot Chili Peppers album was leaked, they wrote about that in their blog (or somewhere). That is a notable report of a leak. If MTV reports the album could be found in places before it released, that is a notable report. If it is stated that in MyVeryBigTorrentSite.com the album was leaked a week before released, that is original research. -- ReyBrujo 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If it is merely stated, then maybe. If the files are demonstrably available for downloading it leaves original research and becomes common knowledge. --W guice 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You cannot demonstrate they are for download without including a link to a page or torrent, which is a bordeline case of copyright violation I would prefer skipping. Also, I prefer not to use "common knowledge" arguments. The article must be as informative for fans as for casual readers. I assume common knowledge when stating the sky is blue, the ocean water is salty, the summer is warm, but not in technical issues. -- ReyBrujo 19:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
i addressed that further up in this section. The point isn't to link to torrent sites, the point is that whether anything is linked or not, the information is still patently verifiable by all and sundry, and to insist otherwise merely looks like disingenuous technical quibbling. Also, no offence, but i couldn't really care less about your personal opinion on common knowledge. the whole point of that concept is that it's bigger than individuals' opinions -- W guice 20:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I just don't get the point of posting the information - this isn't a news site. Unless it has an impact on the album's official release date, it is information that is merely ephemeral - "It rained that day" - and trivial. Fantailfan 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict, reply to W guice) No offense taken. Consensus is what rules Wikipedia, and so far it appears you are the only one against removing them. Burden of evidence is in the one who is adding the information to the article. Thus, you can't rely on common knowledge to solve these cases, nor expect others to search for a reliable source reporting the leak themselves. I agree on having the leak mentioned if they are so by reliable sources (MTV, musician's blogs, CNN reports, whatever), but not if the only evidence is a torrent file in a server. -- ReyBrujo 21:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
(sorry, Rey, I ec'd you). I'm trying to point out that a datum that has to be removed after its "expiration date" is a datum that shouldn't have been there in the first place. In the context of an catalog project, which is what WikiProject Albums is, adding and removing information relating to current events is not meaningful. Fantailfan 21:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Weird Al"'s album pages

In case someone doesn't know, "Weird Al" Yankovic is best known for doing parodys of other peoples work, and as such parodies usually make up about half of each of his albums. Anyway, I'm here to see if his album pages are being done properly. As can be seen at, for example, Running with Scissors and Poodle Hat, Most songs have bulleted information with them, particularly of what they are a parody of in case of the parodies, as well as a list of songs in the polka medleys. Is this really the proper way to deal with it, or should they be discussed or listed outside of the track listing? If anything should be left under the song, should it only be what it parodies and nothing else? Surely saying what the song is about right under the song name is not needed. Joltman 12:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Song descriptions should go in a seperate section, but I think a bullet with what song is parodied is fine in the track listing (similar to listings of samples the Project suggests). --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Would the same go for the polka medley, even though it will be a list of a dozen or so songs? Joltman 14:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
i reckon so. see, for instance, certain rap songs [37] for other instances where a lot of similar information goes under a song title. As for information on more general styles being parodied, etc., i'd see that as information for the main body of the article. --W guice 14:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Another question, what about style parodies? That's where a song parodies not a particular song, but the style of either a particular artist or a genre. Should that be listed under the song as well? Joltman 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Those pages are WAY too cluttered. The track details definately need a seperate section. I've also noticed that those pages include the subject of each song ("this song is about..."), what other artist's album pages do that? At most the track listing section should be...
  1. "Song Title"
    • A parody of "[[insert song name]]" by [[insert artist]].
  2. "Song Title"
    • A pastiche of [[insert artist]]'s career.
  3. "Song Title Polka"
    • A medley of [[insert genre]] and/or [[time period]] songs.
...and just leave it at that, to go into (slightly, not much) more detail in a different section. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 14:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why we're not giving him individual song articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Because then there'd be nothing to put on the album page. :) MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Because nobody's written them yet? Seriously, though, let's try to keep the song articles to notable songs. Or have we crossed that line? -Freekee 04:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that I like the Weird Al tracklists as they currently exist --Alcuin 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Guest musician - in track listing or credits?

If there is a guest musician on a track, where should it be noted? In the track listing, like this:

  1. "Once Were Warriors"– 3:15

Or should the song be listed as normal and list the guest musician in the credits with all of the other musicians, like this:

  • Al Barr – guest vocals on "Once Were Warriors"

I guess another question is would it depend on how many tracks the guest musician was on? As in, if the guest musician was on 3 or 4 of 12 tracks, would it be dealt with differently than if they were just on 1 track? For reference, I usually do it by listing them in the credits, but I wanted to see if I was doing it right. - Joltman 14:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I add the guest musician under Additional personnel and refer to the song by number. Fantailfan 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

subsidiary labels as subcategories of major labels

Harvest_Records has always been owned by EMI. Does it make sense to make Harvest into a subcategory of EMI, and delete the EMI category from any Harvest release (unless it has been reissued)? edgarde 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like the right thing to do, if what you say is true. Troubleshooter 06:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Metacritic Suggestion

I suggest that the metacritic link should be included on the "Professional Reviews" section, if it has one. That makes the user to see an overall reaction of the critics, and look for more reviews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jakeshow (talk • contribs) .

It's an alright idea, but Metacritic calculates some reviwes strangely, turning A+'s into % values, and at times, some albums have maybe 5 reviews on that site while others have 30 giving them a sort of bias. It's just as simple and easy to take the review they have there and put them in the professional reviews, since they source them and everything! Andrzejbanas 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It also only goes back to 2000. Fantailfan 22:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Cat:Uncategorised albums

Early notce: the category is back up to around 25 entries, so someone might want to take a look before it keeps growing. Aelfthrytha 19:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • i've (with some other people working at the same time i think) got it down to 25, the ones left are either completely baffling (Ibiza Chillout Mix Volume #4673689467) or will need some article-wide renovation (Pastor Troy album) but i'll have a bash. Now, anyone wanna help clear Cat:Needs album infobox?? -- W guice 11:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Track listing format for LPs and cassettes

I'd like to suggest that, in the case of albums which were originally released only on LP or cassette, separate track listings should be given for Side 1, Side 2 and so forth.

In my view, the arrangement of sides on an album - the fact that side 1 of Sgt. Pepper ends with "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!", for example - is just as important as the ordering of tracks.

There is a lack of consistency at present: compare Rubber Soul with Let It Bleed. AdorableRuffian 15:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, in principle. However, this would mean going through all albums 1984 and earlier. In many cases we'd have to dig around to find the side divisions since in my case I sold the LPs when they came out on CD. There is the release period 1984-1988, when (I think) some CDs came out after the LP. Also, in the period ~1980-1986, cassettes outsold LPs which outsold CDs (the order shifted fairly quickly IIRC), so which is the definitive edition? Food for thought. Fantailfan 16:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's worthwhile. Not enough for me to go out of my way to change any, but certainly enough not to take out someone else's side references. How about a mention on the project page that dividing tracks by side is acceptable for albums originally released on LP?
But what about the details? Should they be listed Side A, 1, 2, 3; Side B 1, 2, 3. Or Side A 1, 2, 3; Side B 4, 5, 6? The reason I suggest the latter, is because most people listen to CD these days, and this will also accomodate bonus tracks on CDs. This seems preferable to having two different track listings. Two different track listings is my least favorite way. -Freekee 17:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
"a mention on the project page that dividing tracks by side is acceptable for albums originally released on LP" Yes. Very much so. Will also go with Side A 1, 2, 3; Side B 4, 5, 6. I've done it with double albums, but rarely single ones myself. Fantailfan 20:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Why exactly are there reviews in the album infobox? These are POV per definition and as such have no place in WP. Spearhead 09:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So are the Academy Awards, and yet they have an article, too. I think that objective discussion of POV opinions surely belongs on Wikipedia, and that how an album was critically received is certainly an important part of an article about an album. An article itself should not be POV, but it surely can mention that there are different opions on the topic and what these opinons are. While "the album X is wonderful" is POV, "Y said the album X is wonderful" is a fact. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So are there any guidelines for what reviews are included? WP:ALBUM isn't much helpful here. My guess would be that the review source must have a WP article. Spearhead 14:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "use your best judgement" isn't very specific. The most commonly used links are listed here. Links to user-submitted reviews like Rate Your Music are not acceptable. Jogers (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 8 |
Archive 9
| Archive 10 →


Proposed new colour theme

At least two other users (ReyBrujo/MightyMoose) have suggested that we decide on a colour scheme all at the same time rather than replacing colours one at a time, here is a suggested scheme change. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart

I have tried to chose colours which are differentiated from each other without being overly vibrant (which, I think, minimises taste concerns) or too pale. - BalthCat 04:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

When I said we should choose them all together I didn't mean as a scheme, after all, the only page they'd be seen side-by-side is this project page. What I meant is we should choose them together so we didn't get any that were too similar, and choosing two types of light____blue is exatcly what I was trying to avoid. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well then suggest another? I went through a bunch and they kept coming up ugly so I got tired and left that as it was. The problem is that there are about as many substantially different colours as we have categories, so our options left are bright pinks, oranges and browns. What about rosybrown insted of lightskyblue? - BalthCat 15:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps tweaking will suffice; I like the wheat, but introduced some revisions as well. Comments on the spectrum below is requested:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart
We can simply keep tweaking until an acceptable spectrum [to the stakeholders/participants/voters] is attained. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Palegreen seems a bit too fluorescent. Khaki overlaps with {{Infobox musical artist}} (see color selection code at {{Infobox musical artist 2/color selector}}); that one specifically chose plum as the only overlap with the current spectrum. (Note to self: update whatever we decide on for cover and tribute albums to match in the color selector.) –Unint 03:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I reckon a mix between the two:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart
Except maybe wheat & khaki are a little too similar. That way they're all the same colours, just a bit quieter. But I have to say, I don't really care, so long as they're easily distinguishable. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 02:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the first set. I like the pale-ish colors. Except maybe for the wheat. But it's okay. I don't see an issue with colors being the same as on other templates, since they won't show up on the same page. -Freekee 04:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe his (?) concern is that they will be so similar that people will be asking themselves, "Is that LiveAlbumBlue or StudioAlbumBlue?" - BalthCat 23:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That's the one. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 02:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the colour coding is a minor and largely decorative feature, as most (if not all) articles will mention in the text whether it is a compilation, live album (also usually compilations of sorts) or whatever. Some genres don't fit easily into any single category anyway, such as jazz. This meritricious use of colour coding is the subject of an often-ocurring debate I have with numerous book editors, most of whom are simply anxious about a project's content and feel they need to add 'something' to attract or retain interest – i.e. they have doubts about the worth of the text itself. Anyway, the debate you are having here is that you can't decide whether a contrasting or aesthetically-pleasing spectrum of colours is most useful. I suggest you try and increase the contrast by starting with primary and secondary colours and harmonize their brightness. BalthCat is right: if the colours are too similar they will only be distinguishable if seen side-by-side, such as in a transport network diagram. Ricadus 23:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If you look further, you will see that the hue and saturation of an album type's color bands have to do with their type (chiefly having to do with type of recording), not their genre, which defy easy categorization. These tints have nothing to do with their value as albums - Elvis Costello "rates" the same color as The Plasmatics, as long as they both are full-length albums. Brubeck albums of sufficient length are lightsteelblue, the same as Tupac's latest offering from beyond the grave. –Fantailfan 00:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What was this discussion about? I was watching it, and all of a sudden, Folajimi says the voting is closed. And then I see the voting was about halfway up this page (wish I'd noticed that going on). So what were were talking about here? And why did we only change the studio album color? If nobody was interested in changing the others, what was this discussion for? -Freekee 05:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The idea of upgrading the "kitchen sink" was put forth by BalthCat, after the initial proposal for switching from orange to LSB was made. In other words, the outcomes of each proposal are independent of one another.
You might have noticed that MM22 took the liberty of re-arranging the spectrum, which is legitmate. However, this discussion might be around for a while, since it appears that the LSB switch has drawn more attention to this page. So, while the vote on switching from orange to LSB was closed; it is independent of what becomes of BalthCat's proposal.--Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
So further changes to the color scheme is still an open discussion - though nobody seems interested anymore. I've been very confused by this whole template/colors thing. -Freekee 04:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the first propsed new colour scheme. If we changed the orange to lightsteelblue, we should get going on the others. Especially for Live albums, the blue on those is rather horrid. Should we get up another quick voting system for these again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrzejbanas (talk • contribs) 05:23 (UTC) 21 September 2006
Freekee, it is quite possible that ReyBrujo can address whatever in particular has you confused about the template. As for inactivity on this discussion, notice that MM22's proposed change was submitted a day or two ago; by my count, there are at least four interested participants.
Andrzejbanas, do you have a preference for one of the proposed templates? If so, which one? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 13:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Preferably the one propsed by BalthCat above, I don't know we only changed one but didn't change the rest really. I just assumed the rest would be taken care of later. Andrzejbanas 17:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Folajimi, I hope I didn't sound like I was blaming you (or anyone). It all just seemed kind of weird. And I wasn't too worried about the changes. I figured I'd just wait and see how things ended up. -Freekee 01:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems everyone agrees on keeping the colours for Greatest hits, box sets and other compilations, and Soundtracks and television theme songs the same, and changing Cover and tribute albums from plum to thistle. I think light steel blue is popular too. I have tinkered with the colours (holy geez, they look different than on the X11 colour chart for some reason) and I propose the following for the other 3, as they look like a good matching pale set to me.


Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart

Now the light steel blue and the powder blue could be argued as looking similar, but if you ask me, people will be able to make the distinction. -- Reaper X 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The beige looks a bit to pale for me. And if we are going to test new colors, here is my try:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart
→AzaToth 21:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
i think i said i wouldn't contribute to this discussion any more but i wanna say that if we really must faff around changing the colours, this set above from AzaToth is about the best we're getting, i reckon. - W guice 16:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I live the very first proposal from BalthCat the most. They are pastel-like colours and yet still are similar in colour to the provious setup so that there is little confusion. ——(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 23:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Except that I don't care for the wheat. I think the light pink would make a suitable translation for the godoffal salmon. -Freekee 01:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I failed to see my similarities with BalthCat till now. Like Freekee though, I dont care for the wheat and suggested beige. I also thought light sky blue was too bright compared with the other colours, so I believe powder blue seems to match better. -- Reaper X 17:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the current live colour? I did a page for Live From Oz and cannot get it change to whatever the live colour is - I used darkturquoise after looking at an Allman Brothers page, but it didn't take. Tvccs 02:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Tvcccs, the colour code isn't being used anymore due it being abused. To get the colour to match correctly label the album "Live album" instead of simply "Album". Well, do it next time. As I already fixed that page for you. :) Andrzejbanas 03:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

(continued in next section)

Proposed new colour theme (part two)

AzaToth, the lavender is almost indistinguishable from the background; do you have any other hues in mind which could be used for cover albums? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Songs changed from yellow to khaki for singles, and that hue is too close to palegoldenrod. Fantailfan 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
See http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_colornames.asp for more colors->AzaToth 20:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Or just go to Web colors. -- Reaper X 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart -- Fantailfan 21:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Fantailfan, the hue you selected for the Cover album works for me; I can live with the "Live" paleturquoise as well. However, the beige is barely noticeable - about Peru or Burlywood for the EP category? Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll go with burlywood. Fantailfan 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Very well. I motion that a vote be called per Fantailfan's nomination. Anyone to second the motion? Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
what of peachpuff for EPs? no, it's for something else. nm -W guice 18:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think gainsboro was just fine for soundtracks. -- Reaper X 18:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe we want to retain a gray hue for nonstandard album types. Fantailfan 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps change EPs to peachpuff, and change soundtracks to rosybrown? Also I don't like 'paleturquoise', it's too bright, I propose lightpink instead →AzaToth 19:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart

Okay, but make it a swap of EP and Soundtrack colors... I disagree on lightpink v. paleturquoise, but I'm not going to argue. I only have flatscreen monitors and maybe that's why I think paleturquoise isn't too bright.Fantailfan 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Point of Information. What is the spectrum on the left hand side supposed to represent? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 00:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats what the cuurent colours are now. -- Reaper X 00:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall a vote on a background switch to lightsteelblue from orange for studio albums; what did I miss? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 00:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
When I made up the first (recent) full spectrum the vote was not yet finished (I think), so I believe showing the spectrum on the left as it is there is a holdover from then. ps: I think prefer gainsboro to silver, but I can't tell without using another infobox, since the new one automatically colours. (I think there should be an override field or something.) - BalthCat 03:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
What — pray tell — is the rationale behind having an override field? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be kind of nice if the new colors were at least somewhat similar to the original colors, so it's less confusing of which new color is which. For example, I think if we are going to use silver it should replace Soundtracks. But that's just my opinion, that's probably just me.
BTW, I had no idea you guys were talking about this again. Is is possible whenever you do start a new discussion or a new poll that you either do it at the bottom of the page or at least mention it down there? Joltman 18:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Azatoth started a new color palette and then I split it up into two wastes of spacesections. Just substituted gainsboro for silver in non-standard album colors. Fantailfan 18:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Consolidated spectrum

Below is an amalgam [of sorts], derived from the responses so far. The nominations put forth by AzaToth and Fantailfan were blended, and I discarded the peachpuff — the amount of red and blue used by the lightpink is quite similar to that used by the discarded hue. (Besides, ReyBrujo has expressed interest in use of the latter hue, whereas use of peachpuff was barely noticed). Lightsalmon was selected as the possible replacement for the eshewed hue.

Finally, based on Joltman's remarks, I have reshuffled the hues so that they bear some semblance to the original spectrum. Here is the end result:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart

Contructive feedback requested. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the television/film and other/unknown should be switched, as I think the unknown type should be grayish. But otherwise it's fine. →AzaToth 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is album changed away from lightsteelblue? There's not point in changing that one again as most of us agreed for that to be a good colour for it. Andrzejbanas 19:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Andrzejbanas and AzaToth. Studio album should stay lightsteelblue, so swap live w/studio since burlywood seems acceptable. New point: What do we do about combo live/studio albums? (Rattle and Hum) Fantailfan 20:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Here is the updated spectrum based on the feedback:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart Fantail, is your question regarding recordings which feature live and in-studio recordings? If so, that would probably be best suited for the box sets/compilations category.

Alternatively, it may just be tossed under "Other albums" until the issue can be resolved. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 21:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we can implement this change now, I'll change it soon unless someone complain. →AzaToth 21:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Works for me --Alcuin 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Strike while the iron is hot? Yeah, okay. Back to the live/studio combo - it is a compilation only in the general sense. The definition of compilation is (I believe) previously-released material with maybe one or two 'previously unreleased' tracks. This means that reissued albums with bonus tracks are, technically, compilation albums. However, albums issued right off as live/studio are different. The problem (I think) is that we made Studio album the chief category, whereas with Album you could fudge a little. Ah, maybe we can figure it out later. Fantailfan 22:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Album should default to studio album --Alcuin 23:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Post-change Infobox Album Comments

  • The poll for switching the studio album template parameter(s) has been closed. The orange has been replaced by lightsteelblue.
The motivation for the entire effort — replacing the unmanageable infobox template — is now complete. The hues were a secondary issue, and I am content with the status quo. Thanks again to all the participants. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 20:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Paint It, Black. :-) Fantailfan 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I have modified {{Infobox Album color}} to take into account more options. In example, if the Type of an album is Studio album (the ideal), it will paint the background in lightsteelblue. However, it will also happen that if the Type in uppercase is [[STUDIO ALBUM]], [[ALBUM]], ORIGINAL STUDIO ALBUM or ORANGE. This is a temporary measure to minimize the amount of articles with wrong types. Maybe we should implement the category for bad types soon, but I may wait until Friday night to implement it (the server must work some to include every album in the category). After some hours, we will be able to count the amount of albums with wrong types (each of those will display a wrong color) and determine if we can fix them ourselves or need a bot. After all those errors are fixed, we can remove, in example, ORANGE from the valid Studio albums, and fix all the albums that drop into the category for having been using orange as type. The ideal is to remove a type and fix the category until all the articles are fixed. That is work for a bot, undoubtedly, but if we can get most of the articles to fall outside the category (in example, meaning that the Type for a studio album could be 5 or 6 including studio, studio album, album, original album, original studio album, original), we can fix the broken ones by hand until the bot is implemented. Expect some complaints. -- ReyBrujo 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Any challenges "opportunities" that arise will be addressed as needed.
Besides, what could be tougher than coming up with a newer, better, template? ;) --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this still a proposal? About half the albums on my watch list have changed. -Acjelen 03:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

With some help from AzaToth we just changed the album template, giving more priority to the type than the background color. If the type is not recognized, it will go with gainsboro by default (or it could take the Background in some circunstances, although I am not sure about that one). So, right now the colors found at {{Infobox Album/color}} are being applied. Once a color scheme is selected, that template will be updated with the new colors. -- ReyBrujo 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that if the "album" category has anything else in it (such as "CD" or "vinyl LP," or whatever) the infobox will display whatever the command code is. In my case, this was orange. If the category is "album" then it will ignore the command line and go with lightsteelblue (I believe). For reference, see the albums list in the Badfinger category. -ZincOrbie 23:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
CD and vinyl LP aren't valid types, so the background color will override the out-of-range color (gainsboro). Fantailfan 13:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed this as well. I believe its simply due to the changes not being fully implemented yet. The orange -> lightsteelblue is a proof of concept, and who knows, maybe it's drawing more eyes to this discussion (Possibly people thinking "Sheesh, what's the big issue about colors???" ;)) ~Gertlex 12:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little late in the game here as I didn't realize that you guys were continuing discussion of this stuff in the middle of the page. I was confused as hell when I went to an album today and saw it was lightsteelblue even though it was set to orange :P
Anyway, I have two questions/comments:

  1. Is it possible to try to change all of the colors so that they are just different shades of what they were before? Album being a lighter shade of orange, live albums being a lighter shade of blue, etc. That seems like it would be less shocking to see than just arbitrary new colors.
  2. Shouldn't the default color on Infobox album color be something that isn't one of the other types? Like right now, if there is an unrecognized album type and no color set, it will be gainsboro, the same as soundtracks. Shouldn't it be a color that is not used by any of the album types?

Joltman 12:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To admins - could we break out the post-color-change discussion into a new topic? (I am chary since I archived a discussion without, uh, permission, of making the change on my own). Fantailfan 13:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to be an admin to refactor a talk page. But, if it makes you feel better, go ahead! ;) --kingboyk 18:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed the original thread - but what, actually, was wrong with orange for albums? :) --kingboyk 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My sentiments are the same as kingboyk. I vote to scrap the new proposed colour scheme and keep with the old - I have no problems with the old one nor does hardly anyone else. Seems quite pointless and stupid to change it, as it'll make more mundane work for Wikipedians who could be spending their time enhancing articles rather than changing infobox colours. Keep with the orange. Also, it'd be nice if people were consulted before someone plainly messes around with the colours, as nobody has had a chance to have their say (because they don't even know about the discussion!)LuciferMorgan 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got to agree here - is there really any good reason to change the colours, or have some people not got enough to do? No offence to anyone who has spent time on this, but what's the point? Bretonbanquet 18:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Shining orange could bring certain health issues in determined people. Searching for that information in the archives. -- ReyBrujo 18:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
See here. -- ReyBrujo 18:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The discussion was conducted from 21 June until 14 September which period, I believe, was sufficient for anyone who was interested to monitor the WikiProject Albums talk page. The color scheme was decidedly secondary to cleaning up the Infobox Album. Orange was removed due to a specific request regarding difficulty of visual perception. All other proposed color changes were jettisoned due to how long it would have taken to decide on them. --Fantailfan 19:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well if some folks have problems seeing that colour or it causes them discomfort, it's a different matter. I'd like to point out though that I was only asking, I don't much care what colour it is :) Thanks. --kingboyk 20:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This is all news to me. I began creating my first info boxes on albums only on Saturday and used the project page as the basis for this. This page lists orange as the colour for studio albums; I'm puzzled at why, if lightsteelblue has been adopted for studio albums, the project page still shows orange.Grimhim 21:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
That is why I added a note about the colors being discussed. To know the real colors, try {{Infobox Album/color}}. -- ReyBrujo 21:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Epinions

I've been noticing these popping up in the Reviews listings. From what I can see it is not a useful review source - like rateyourmusic. Should we allow them or no? Fantailfan 15:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on WP:EL, I vote NO; for the same reason MySpace is now considered inappropriate. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted a couple more... Fantailfan 14:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"User Reviews"

I know this can't be all things to all people...etc...and I also know Wikipedia has relationships with companies like AMG...that being said...

From an "end user" standpoint, groups of User reviews from established sites like "Rate Your Music or Amazon or other site contain as much, and often more information than on "professional sites". I have been doing research on a couple of artists and find myself having to send in corrections to the "big boys" on numerous occasions for things as simple as misspelled names...much less fact checking, which I have found numerous errors.

The bottom line is, from a User standpoint, it would be just has helpful to be able to include the Amazon's or Rate Your Music's and the like as it is to rely on a sole source reviewer who may, or may not know what the h* they are talking about.

As I heard a long time ago..."You can believe everything you read - except those stories of which you have first hand knowledge"

It would be helpful to be be able to add credible groups of "User reviews"...they can often be more detailed and better reseached than to so-called "pros". Thanks.

Tvccs 15:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We use AMG because they have virtually everything, even if they are wrong. User reviews, however helpful (and I do believe that there are far better reviews out on the web) are unbelievably inconsistent. This is not (primarily) a review site, but we have to have some reviews and we may as well go with the old farts at Rolling Stone. My 2cents. Fantailfan 19:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Strange as it may seem, but Wikipedia's goal isn't to report the truth. It's to report what the verifiable, reputable sources say - and that is indeed the likes of Rolling Stone and NME, not Amazon customer reviews. Interesting idea though, and a less enyclopedic music only wiki wouldn't be a bad idea... but it's not Wikipedia. --kingboyk 19:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I love the Albums project, and I think that a free, independent repository of this data is a worthwhile endeavor. That being said, I have often thought the project is more suited for its own Wiki project rather than on Wikipedia itself. UnhandledException 02:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Um...I write for a NY Times paper...and there is NO way I'd simply buy into the idea that "We use AMG because they have virtually everything, even if they are wrong" AMAZING!!! Let me show an example of what I mean...AmazonAll Music Guide Facts - The American Metaphysical Circus was in print for nearly 20 years and had two re-releases before 2000, while the United States Of America was in print for no more than two years and had no re-release until 2004. The twelve Amazon people give it five stars...while Mr. AMG who believes otherwise,largely pans it with a three, simply because he preferred the earlier work. I referenced the Amazon review in the text because the feedback is well-written and helpful, but it would be easier to include it under reviews and not get raped for doing it. That...or add a field to the box for "user reviews", or modify the box script to just read "reviews". Relying exclusively on so-called "professional" reviews in the days of the Web is extremely shortsighted at best, IMHO. Tvccs 01:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
People just use AMG for things cause it's often a place to find out some more basic straighthead information for sourcing (e.g: songwriting credits, year of relase, record charting, etc.). I've been constantly browsing around to add reviews from sites like [38] and the Robert Christgau site to add to reviews. It's best to have at least more then one to keep it unbiased. The problem with sites like Rateyourmusic.com and Amazon.com is that people who rate things there have an even more topsy turvy rating scale then allmusicguide. Is it fair to rate a Britney Spears album 1.5 due to the fact they don't like her as a person regardless of music? Most of those sites are either heavily biased in the 4.5 to 5 rating scale or to the lows of 1 to zero stars. As the albums page says "Use Your Best Judgement" if the All Music Guide rating suggests that it's heavily biased or fan-based. Then feel-free to remove it or not print-it. :) Andrzejbanas 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
You write for a NY Times paper? Congratulations! This, however, is an enyclopedia and the rules are different :) Amazon stars just don't meet our criteria for sources, end of story. (I'm not taking a position on this, just laying down the facts.) --kingboyk 18:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not just the stars, although again, they are completely relevant in my opinion. AMG is riddled with fact errors, which I have tried to correct through the AMG mechanism, without a single reply or correction from AMG. Amazon has some excellent user reviews, which their readers in turn rate for the helpfulness. In the case of one of these reviews, I forwarded the copy to the artist themselves, and they responded that the reviewer had done an incredible job of nailing it, so to speak, which I agreed with - far, far better than the so-called expert from AMG, who made a major fact error of which he had no knowledge which tainted his entire presentation, and that fact error is being repeated worldwide through Wikipedia and its linking resources, I've seen it over and over and over now through Ansers, About, Encylopedia.com, etc. If Wikipedia simply takes the position that it's going to repeat the errors of so-called credible sources regardless of facts and use that as a shield of ignorance, then it does its readers a fundamental disservice, defeats a primary purpose of the entire collaboarative effort, and loses a fumdamental strength in being able to draw from a far wider range of sources than ever before possible. You suggest the rules are different for Wikipedia in that it has no responsibility to correct errors of fact, and simply rely on supposedly reliable sources when there are in FACT better ones and the so-called relaible ones are dead wrong? Frankly, that's both irresponsible and asinine - even if it is the norm, heaven forbid. And yes, if the AMG reviewer would have bothered, the issue was discussed in detail on Salon.com in April, 2002, much less bother to do credible research with the credible parties in question instead of approaching the issue from his POV which didn't support a major fact contention he forwarded in AMG and elsewhere. Oh...and the AMG review also had fact errors for the musician listing, issue date, etc. Credible source indeed. And my experience with the smaller artists I work on is that in many cases the user-driven sources do as good or better job of rating the "cream" of an artist's catalog numerically than the big boys, it's by no means just high or low, and they flag numbers which only represent a small sample with a warning, as they should. Tvccs 16:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think a distinction needs to be drawn here. You are talking about facts/information and subjective views as if they can be judged by the same criteria. A reviewer may introduce some basic facts/information to provide context to the reader or make their review more colorful and cohesive. AMG also has facts/information to the side like release date, release history, etc. It is true that AMG is not very credible in this area; errors are abundant. Because of this, I agree that AMG reviews or even biographies should not normally be used as sources to back up facts/information in a Wikipedia article. The same can be said for similar resources (e.g. The Great Rock Discography by Martin C. Strong). However, for reviews, factual errors are petty. The primary purpose of a review is not to deliver facts/information, the primary purpose is to deliver views. Views are subjective and cannot be "dead wrong". When Richie Unterberger says "the songwriting is simply not nearly as strong as Byrd's previous group", he's neither right nor wrong; he's just sharing his perspective. When Unterberger gives an album 3 stars out of 5, that's his rightful opinion. Because their staff is made up of professional critics, AMG is credible in that area, regardless of whether you agree with them. Twelve Amazon reviews don't undermine the credibility of professionals. Wikipedia:Verifiability says "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false." It also says "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." I think Amazon reviews fall within that camp. If you want to change policy I think it is more appropriate to discuss it on the policy page. Punctured Bicycle 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your comments. And since you go to the heart of the matter, i.e. Richie Unterberger's AMG review and his matgerials for the 2004 release of the USA reissue CD - I'll go to that point. I disagree with Unterberger as to which of the two recordings is "better"...and for that...so what, it's meaningless. However, he goes much further in calling TAMC a commercial failure, etc., in dismissing it and tying that back to his opinion. The facts, as I knew first hand from professional experience and in talking with Joseph Byrd directly, are that in the U.S., and worldwide, TAMC sold much better than USA. Period. Yet Unteberger, because of his relationship with the "opposite camp" in this little tempest in a teapot, has repeatedly opined the opposite, which is wrong from a FACTUAL point of view. That's my beef, not that he likes one recording better than the other, which is nada importance. His review on AMG and other materials contain that complete error of fact, which Joseph Byrd addressed in his 2002 materials in the Napster case and which I have extended personal knowledge on going back 35 years at this point. The FACT that his error continues to be repeated in a variety of forums, now including Wikipedia, undermines his credibility on the entire issue in an undeniable way - he's perfectly free to opine about why he likes one recording better than the other, he's not free to make a major fact error on sales/popularity in dismissal as a rationale. My collaboration here with Ghmyrtle here has explained some things even Joseph Byrd, much less myself, wasn't aware of as to why the UK is much different than the US, and I've adjusted my copy accordingly and enhanced my knowledge, and am passing things along to Byrd directly as well - it's a textbook example of Wikipedia expert collaboration. Byrd's work is likely to be written about in scholarly research for the next 50 years. Unteberger is just plain wrong, because he never bothered to research the facts, rather he made an assumption based on a faulty opinion, whereas one review of the 2002 Salon article in question, or one phone call or e-mail to the only first-hand source (Joseph Byrd) would have readily confirmed otherwise. He could have them gone on to opine however he wished without repeating said fact error, etc. And as a result of his major fact error that colors his review, the opinions of some of those Amazon users who wrote them, as I illustrated, showed a far greater knowledge of the facts/technical aspects of the music in question than the so-called expert. As I stated earlier...you can believe everything that you read except those stories of which you have first-hand knowledge, unless you do the research as a writer, and I try and write to that standard. And thanks for the policy page suggestion as well. And yes...I get to write about Wikipedia for my newspaper tonight - will making it appear there first make it somehow more credible at the outset? P.S. My thanks to all who have offered thoughts on this...it's been very useful. Tvccs 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Album credits

What's the policy on the credits for an album? More importantly, how detailed should they be? I'm asking because someone just re-edited an article that I had added information to, removing what I had added. My version included information on the engineers, mastering, layout, cover artist, and photographer. The artist is especially notable, as he did the artwork for the band's previous album, and his following was established partially due to these works. Shuckiduck 08:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion about this in Archive 3 of the discussion page, which cites Aquemini, where engineers, cover artists etc are included as "Personnel". Frankly, it looks messy to me. I've just bumped into the same issue while I add to some of the 10cc album data. On The Original Soundtrack the engineer is inserted after the producer's name in the infobox. It looks OK, so I'm now torn on whether I should add the same detail in the same place under 10cc's other albums.Grimhim 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately, there's the History where you (or others) can retrieve the information. I usually remove production credits if I find them. (I add other information, so I am not an Exclusionist.) My preference for an all-inclusive listing would be:
1 - Personnel
The band
2 - Additional personnel
Musicians not present on every track; if possible with track(s)) # on which he/she participates
3 - Production personnel
Knob twisters and overdub specialists :-)
4 - Other personnel
Design and illustration, A&R, photography, etc.
-- Fantailfan 11:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Where does this fall on the album page then? I'm guessing the order of play after the info box is (1) Track listing (2) Credits and then (3) Personnel with all the details you note above. There is nothing on the WikiProject Albums page on this, so I'm guessing it's an informal style? Have you got an example of the way you've don it? Thanks Grimhim 13:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
A Wikiproject Album only needs musician credits to be considered complete in that area, so I haven't been worked to make them all that way. So, it is very informal - I don't add the non-musician credits myself and usually but not always keep them around if they're there - so I am inconsistent. An example is Hounds of Love (which doesn't have design credits).
—Fantailfan 13:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought that if the information was complete and correct, then why delete it. I believe it's important to the recording as well; the people did work, they should be recognized. If it's clear, I assumed it would stay. That's why I was surprised someone else removed the information. It's not like it was false. My assumption is that usually the research isn't done to include the producer, engeineers, artists, etc. - but if it is, more power to the article...
Shuckiduck 20:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the information should have been removed. I've seen many cases where some edit didn't meet the "owner's" standards, and was simply removed, with no effort made to integrate the information better. I think the attitude is often that "if they think it's that important, they'll come talk to me about it." Which I think is elitist. If someone removes your info, you need to evaluate it to see if there was a reason for it, but that fact in itself doesn't validate the removal of information.

Anyway, that could be the reason for the deletion, because that kind of info is certainly acceptable for an article about an album. Maybe the guy was just unhappy about how you listed it? Did you talk to him about it? -Freekee 03:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't talk to him directly, I wanted to check if there was a policy first, that's why I came here. Didn't want to start an edit war or whatnot. He's edited the article before, so I assume he also is at least somewhat knowing of the band. Not sure how to bring it up nicely without offending, either. Shuckiduck 09:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
(1) "I don't think the information should have been removed" sounded blasphemous to me months ago, but I have since learned (a) there is such a thing as too much information (listen to the song of the same name on Ghost in the Machine) and (b) since Wikipedia allows deletions, rather than engage in revert wars an agreement should be arrived at as to what constitutes important. This is not elitist, it's Exclusionist (which I am not).
(2) There is no such thing as an article owner. – Fantailfan 13:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
You sound like you're trying to disagreee with me. :-D Just for the sake of clarity, "exclusionist" is defined by a certain set of actions, whereas "elitist" is defined by a certain set of beliefs. In other words, the reasons behind the actions. What I meant by "article 'owner'", was the phenomenon where someone makes the major part of the contributions to an article, and devotes so much time and energy to making an article perfect, or what he thinks is perfect, that he considers himself to be the owner. Or, to use a less negative connotation, anyone with a stake in an article. Whether you use such terminology or not, when a person who has put a lot of effort into an article tries to exert pressure on newcomers, in order to mold the article in the way he sees fit, this can annoy those newcomers. This can be elitist. Or it can be good sense. It depends on how far he pushes it. -Freekee 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, ok. No disagreement intended. I guess in some sense I'm trying to push my album format, which is evident from the articles to which I have contributed. I'm short on analysis, big on 'stats' - the definable information. But I am inconsistent, you can't deny me that. Fantailfan 17:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh, heh. I like a lot of production info. I also like a lot of analysis. I wish I could write more if it. -Freekee 18:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Miles Davis

Miles Davis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums:

Why is this here? I think we're busy already compulsively attending to our own narrow area of focus, not to mention obsessively finding out how Dolette McDonald's name is spelled, or whether Kate Bush is Alternative Rock, or just what the heck is proto-punk already, without worrying about the rest of Wikipedia. Fantailfan 19:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I must be blind. Where is the list? -Freekee 05:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, at the top of this page. I was looking on the project page. If there's a to-do list, shouldn't it be on the project page, and not the talk page? And if there's a to-do list for the album project, shouldn't it be our own list? -Freekee 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
And you should probably ask that question of User:AzaToth, since he put it there. -Freekee 05:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's there for us to populate. See Wikipedia:To-do list. Could be useful. -Freekee 00:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Updating template modifications

I implemented the category for wrong infobox types. You can browse it at Category:Non-standard album infoboxes. Note that the category hasn't been categorized. There are 4,400 albums with non standard types right now. I picked some randomly to test if the category was updated:

Album Type argument
This Narrow Road [[Compact Disc|CD]]
Imp Years [[Extended play|EP]]
My Game [[Vinyl record|Vinyl LP]]
Q (AAA) [[Single (music)|Single]]
Same Girl, New Songs [[Extended play|EP]]/[[Demo (music)|Demo]]
Strawberry Panic! drama CD Drama
Airbag/How Am I Driving? [[Extended play|EP]]
!Hero (album) [[Double album]]
A Thousand Lights In A Darkened Room [[CD]]/[[2X12"]]
Aégis [[CD]]

Team Invasion Presents Keyshia Cole is currently broken because it is passing the background color in hexa, and apparently is breaking the template. I will see how to fix it. I am guessing dropping the background color completely may help. -- ReyBrujo 15:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with dropping background parameter, as it should never be used →AzaToth 16:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, now that the colour is determined by the type field input, the background field is entirely superfluous. Chuck it. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 02:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous measure. What was wrong with the old system, and if we must implement a new one, why aren't we allowing for more common variations? --CJ Marsicano 04:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the old system is that a few editors have said "that orange is ugly, I'm changing it to a nice pink that better matches the album's artwork", which in some cases went un-noticed for months. If you lose the background colour field, you lose the ability to screw it up so easily. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 23:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe all the background=hex albums have been fixed now. Rich Farmbrough, 21:38 20 September 2006 (GMT).

DVDs

A similar complaint to one that MightyMoose22 mentioned above, I've been browsing through Category:Non-standard_album_infoboxes and I've found several people have made infoboxes for DVD's, such as Britney Spears - Live and More!, what colours should they be (as this user justed used "Pink" to fit the dvd colour schme), should the be filed just under "Compilation Album"? Cause that label doesn't sound terribly appropriate. Sorry if this has been brought up before. :) Andrzejbanas 06:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I brought this up before, now archived here and here. It was ultimately left unresolved with a suggestion to get the new infobox sorted first and figure it out later. Now the new infobox is sorted, however, it's a good time to revisit the issue. The questions that went unanswered were as follows...
  1. What should we call them? Video albums? Keep in mind we shouldn't be format-specific, as there are DVDs, Laserdiscs, VCDs, VHS and Betamax cassettes etc. and many are available in more than one format (and that the term music video is taken).
  2. Should we use different colours for live video albums and compilation video albums (or whatever we're calling them)?
  3. Should we use the regular live and compilation colours and just distinguish them by their type fields?
  4. Should we just treat them as audio albums, and only mention they're videos in the body of the article?
MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 03:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
We definitely need to figure this out. I think we should have one type, as it seems to me that most releases will include a mix of live footage, music videos, behind the scenes stuff and perhaps a documentary. As for what to call the type, I'm not sure. Would simply Video be too vague? Video album doesn't sound to bad, but my only problem with it is that it doesn't seem to be a standard term, and there's not even an article here called that, so what would we link it to? Joltman 12:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this too - I've been going through the Non-Standard albums and have noticed a lot of these. If they are actual videos then they should be in Films - if DVD-Audio should be in Albums. Or are Music Videos not considered films? Fantailfan 13:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, DVD-Audio is just a regular album on a different format, and as far as I know, there hasn't been a DVD-Audio release yet that isn't also available on CD at least. So that's not an issue, that's just another format listed on an album page.
"it doesn't seem to be a standard term" - from what I can tell, there is no standard term. That's part of the problem. That's why most people refer to them by their format, which is bad from our point of view.
"are Music Videos not considered films?" - actual music videos are sometimes called short films, but if you had a collection of shorts, would they collectively be called a film? I'm not so sure.
There's also audio+video packages to consider, like Animals Should Not Try to Act Like People and Salival (wherein the audio and video are equal parts of the product, as opposed to one being a "bonus disc"), along with those that are released seperately like Royal Albert Hall London May 2-3-5-6 2005. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 16:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of my view of videos or concert films (which is biased by my year of birth o so long ago) I think they belong in WikiProject Albums.
1. What should we call them?
Music video single (1-2 songs, up to 15 minutes) but I would prefer they be in WikiProject Songs ; Music video longform; Music video box set; Music audio and video for combinations (standards mainly from RIAA certifications)
2. Should we use different colours for live video albums and compilation video albums (or whatever we're calling them)?
3. Should we use the regular live and compilation colours and just distinguish them by their type fields?
Distinguish by type (see above) and use the standard live & comp colors or a color very close in saturation to them.
4. Should we just treat them as audio albums, and only mention they're videos in the body of the article?
They should use Types as I suggest above. The cover art should be like 250 x 500 or so.
-- Fantailfan 17:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
And we would require template for Music Video. Fantailfan 18:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Music video single is just music video, that's simple enough, and (as you said) should probably be handled by WikiProject Songs. How many videos are released independently of the single anyway? The other types you've suggested seem too clumsy to me. How about just music video compilation and live video? I like music video box set, but I think it should be used for the audio+video packages.
Cover art at 250x500 seems particularly huge, considering album covers are only 200².
What do you mean by template? A new infobox? I think Infobox Album will be fine. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking perhaps since there are so many formats we could use simply Video Release as a new heading for DVD, VHS, laserdisc, music video comps, straight-to-video live recordings, bootleg videos, etc. for these things. But I think certain things like Concert films such as Stop Making Sense or The Last Waltz should probably use the infobox for films instead. I guess we should make a new colour for these things as well perhaps?Andrzejbanas 05:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I agree with Andrzej after all. Adding three or four new types is silly. So:
Use Infobox Album
Use Type = Video release, with color TBD
Some concert films with wide release (e.g., Stop Making Sense or The Last Waltz) will use the Infobox Film) and if they have a soundtrack it uses Infobox Album as Type = Soundtrack
Concert straight-to-video - (If applicable) Infobox Album as Type = Live album ANDInfobox Album as Type = Video release
Fantailfan 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Deluxe Edition vs deluxe edition

It's my understanding that, in the context of albums, the words Deluxe Edition are proper nouns, as if part of the title, and therefore should be capitalised. This is supported by Category:Universal Deluxe Editions and the official site universaldeluxeedition.com, wherein if you click on any of the album covers the blurb that follows always has Deluxe Edition in capitals.

My beef is that an admin is currently using AWB to change all instances he finds to deluxe edition, which I have reverted (those on my watchlist) explaining that they are proper nouns, and back and forth until at one point he compromised by changing it to deluxe edition (Universal Deluxe Editions), which to me seems pointless. I'm just asking to see what the consensus is before exploring the matter any further, and maybe looking for a guideline to be added to the project page either way. Thanks. I apologise for my grammar at this point. :) MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 23:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, in looking at one of those record articles, I see the line Bonus tracks (2003 30th Anniversary Deluxe Edition) in the track listing. I think this is wrong. In that case, the words are simply a descriptor. But I think that your question is whether the words "deluxe edition" are part of the record's title or not. I can't answer that, but I think only the publisher can answer that. Technically, they'd be retitling the record, by adding the phrase to the title. But since it's not technically the same record (having bonus tracks and whatnot), that might be the intention. -Freekee 05:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It depends on the usage. So, 'Universal Deluxe Editions published a deluxe edition of "XYZ" called "XYZ Deluxe Edition".' See special edition. Interestingly these albums are actually labelled "DELUXE Edition" (The Cure refer to (dlx) (dig), and "Three Imaginary Boys" is labelled "three imaginary boys", and the track notes are done lower case, so perhaps there's stuff to be corrected there (someone has fixed nottingham->Nottingham but there are studio names etc.). Sorry for causing grief with the "10:15..." track. Rich Farmbrough, 22:49 20 September 2006 (GMT).
DELUXE Edition is really just a stylistic thing, similar to Faux Cyrillic, but if you check out universaldeluxeedition.com you'll see that they use Deluxe Edition every time regardless of whether it's anywhere near the albums' titles. Examples...
  • "Now, more than 30 years after its original release, The Who’s Live At Leeds returns in a special Deluxe Edition that includes for the first time their entire February 14, 1970 concert at Leeds University."
  • "One of the landmark albums in rock history, Cream’s 1967 classic Disraeli Gears, has been set to receive Deluxe Edition treatment featuring a digitally remastered two-CD package that debuts a previously unreleased track."
  • "In celebration of the 30th anniversary of Eric Clapton’s first solo gold album, first solo gold single, first solo #1 album and first solo #1 single, the two-CD Deluxe Edition of 461 Ocean Boulevard (Polydor/UMe), will be released on October 26, 2004."
  • "The American and commercial breakthrough album for Bob Marley & The Wailers, 1976’s Rastaman Vibration, becomes the latest to be reissued in a Deluxe Edition as the most comprehensive and ambitious catalog program for Marley’s recordings continues."
So from this I gather Deluxe Edition to be proper nouns and should therefore be capitalised wherever the term appears. (And don't worry about "10:15...", I gather it's an easy mistake to make with the way AWB works.) MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 23:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting bit of research. Since Universal capitalizes the words in every instance (which is definitely wrong), we still can't be certain whether they include "Deluxe Edition" in the title, or if it's just a descriptor. -Freekee 04:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I would say it's completely reasonable to refer to the "Disraeli Gears Deluxe Edition" or the Deluxe Editions version of "Disraeli Gears", but it is still the deluxe edition of Disraeli Gears. We have the same situation with, for example, universities, Warwick University for example should be referred to in the article or headlines as "the university". See WP:MOS#Institutions. Rich Farmbrough, 12:45 8 October 2006 (GMT).

Which category is right?

Category:Jazz Fusion albums or Category:Jazz fusion albums? One should be deleted, I guess the former, but I am not sure. -- ReyBrujo 17:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It is the former. I've corrected the one page in Category:Jazz Fusion albums and added this handy template. -Acjelen 18:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! -- ReyBrujo 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Joining

I just thought I'd point out a few things, for whomever's interested, but hadn't noticed.

-Freekee 02:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

AWB plugin

I've just added support for this WikiProject to my AWB plugin for adding templates to talk pages and assessing articles. Please see User:Kingbotk/Plugin for more information. --kingboyk 16:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Review ratings again

Just though I'd note here, that I've created a new template, {{Rating-10}} works the same as {{Rating-5}} by User:RedHotHeat

Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 19:36 22 September 2006 (GMT).
I don't see this as an improvement over using plain text such as "(X/10)". I doubt that'll fit in one line with the source and link in most of the infoboxes... And I think users can read plain text much fast than count all those stars. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't like it too for the reasons given by Fritz Saalfeld. Jogers (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not really against it. I believe the two templates could be merged in one, though. -- ReyBrujo 17:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Yea, It kinda muddies the userboxes up by being so long. Perhaps if it could be improved so 2 rows of 5 are stacked on another or something, something to shorten it. -- Reaper X 17:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Just the text is pretty short, isn't it? ;) --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The 10 thing sort of streches the info box. Most albums that are out of 10 can be converted to the 5 star rating anyhow. It's the same value, just a different way of showing it. Although I do find it ugly with the pitchfork reviews when they say "(6.1/10)" on a page. I've been writing 61% instead. Same value, looks nicer. Also, RedHotHeat, are you going to make those +/- ratings anytime soon? :) Andrzejbanas 23:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel converting ratings to other scales (ten-point to five-point, ten-point to percent, etc.) is misquoting the source and should be discouraged. --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Strongly agreed. In my opinion, the rating should be expressed in whatever format the reviewer uses.--NPswimdude500 23:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I certainly didn't expect it to be used except where some form of stars are already in use, or used by the original. And certainly it was the lazy man's solution, if someone can make a better one that is consistent with rating-5 (which itself can be changed, of course) then please do so. Rich Farmbrough, 20:09 24 September 2006 (GMT).

Redirects from album tracks to albums

I feel like some people are taking this too far. Some users (particulary User:Hraefen) are even adding non-notable album tracks to disambiguation pages. His/her goal seems to be for every single album track from every album to be linked to the album's page through a redirect or dab page. If this is followed, disambiguation pages will be filled with hundreds of non-notable tracks. I think it's fine to redirect singles or notable tracks which do not have separate articles to their respective album articles (or to add them to dab pages), but I really cannot imagine somebody coming to Wikipedia and entering random non-notable album tracks into the search field. They would surely have the sense to search for the album. Also, this is mostly being done with albums that are not even very notable themselves. For example, see Rhythm and blues (disambiguation). This dab page was created solely to dab the genre from some non-notable track from an album that didn't even chart in any country by an artist that also seems not be too notable. I discussed this with the user, but she/he disagreed and reverted me when I redirected the dab page back to Rhythm and blues. In my opinion, adding non-notable tracks to dab pages is just unnecessary clutter. The probability of somebody searching for a track this way is near to zero. If anything, this just creates confusion for somebody searching a dab page for a topic with actual notablity. And it is ridiculous for "For other uses, see Rhythm and blues (disambiguation)" to appear at the top of the Rhythm and blues article because of one non-notable track. --musicpvm 08:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about that. First, I say "ugh." Non-notable, delete, blahblahblah. But then I think that if soneone's heard that song, and wants to find out who did it, how can they? This is the only way I can think of. If anyone has any other suggestions, maybe this editor should be made aware. But back to the first hand, non-notability. Which means that people shouldn't be able to search for it here. *shrug* -Freekee 04:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if they search for it, as long as it is in the body of the text for the album, shouldn't the album show up? I definitely think that this is unnecessary. Joltman 12:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I would think so. I personally just can't imagine users searching for random tracks. If they are aware of the non-single track, they surely would be aware of the album too. And if not, I don't think this extremely small or probably nonexistent number of searches should be a reason to clutter and create excess dab pages. These users are just wasting their time with all these redirects/dab additions. They're more clutter than they are useful. --musicpvm 06:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It's getting ever more tiresome trying to clear out Category:Needs album infobox and seeing dozens of "This album is connected!"s on articles that don't even have basics like an infobox. -W guice 00:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
That is a good point. Certain users' time would be much better spent actually trying to improve the articles of these albums rather than unnecessarily cluttering disambig pages. --musicpvm 21:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • OK. First off, I'm a he. Secondly, I can no longer defend Rhythm and blues (disambiguation). I was over-zealous when I made that and it can be deleted for all I care. But please don't take that to be a represntative example of what I've been doing. While you guys seem to care mostly about albums, songs, music etc., the following disambigs that I've started show that what I've been doing doesn't just lie within the scope of albums, songs, music etc. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were all created because a song title needed to be disambiguated and they now contain entries from a variety of topics. And these are not even the best examples; they're just a few that I could think of off the top of my head. There are many topics on Wikipedia (songs and otherwise) in need of disambiguation and using song titles is one way to find them. And no one has adequately answered my question from above: why would a reader look "for album tracks via the search box" just because it happened to be a single? Wouldn't these readers "be sure to search for the album title first" as well? I think that argument is either true for both types of songs or true for neither. And for all the talk of "cluttering up disambiguation pages," no one has shown me one that I made that is indeed cluttered (Wake Up, IMHO, clearly is not). There's an old saying: when you're looking for something lost, it's always in the last place you look. The same logic applies to disambig pages. If users really are interested, as some contend, only in those songs that are full-article, blue links (Wake Up (Rage Against the Machine song), Wake Up (Hilary Duff song), Wake Up (The Living End song) etc.), then why would they continue to look below these links (full-article, blue links are always on top) to all the links that you guys seem to consider "clutter". Either they do look below them or they don't, but I don't think you guys are the ones to decide whether or not they should even have the option.--Hraefen Talk 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Chart Positions

I can't seem to find a resource to get chart positions for an album, does anyone know of one? Weatherman90 15:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking for U.S. chart positions http://www.billboard.com lists the current charts as well as peak positions for older stuff. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip - it would probably work well in most cases except that I am looking for Pablo Cruise album & single chart positions - and they havent had any charting albums since the early 80s. Billboard only gives you 20 years back unless you pay to subscribe. Any one else? Weatherman90 16:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
All Music has older Billboard chart listings available... --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Chronology error

Im noticing in the chronology of many album infoboxes, the text in the "this album" field makes ''' show up. It is normal to have this text bold and italisized, but the template already bolds it, with no need for 3 of the 5 ticks that are normally put. For example, if you put '''''Siamese Dream''''', it will show up as '''Siamese Dream instead of Siamese Dream. I know for a fact this never used to happen, and now many infoboxes are getting screwed up, so what went wrong? -- Reaper X 20:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody bolded "this album" in the template. I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing this out. Jogers (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, but I think it still exists in the "extra chronology" part. Could you fix that too? Cheers. -- Reaper X 21:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jogers (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Extra Chronology color error

This was pointed out elsewhere, but album infoboxes with an extra chronology sections are still using the color that is designated in the infobox. In other words, many infoboxes have an extra chronology section that is orange instead of lightsteelblue, such as Goodbye (album). This issue was previously brought up with Blind Faith (album) (but I can't find that discussion). The solution offered was to change the chronology to 'Extra chronology 2', but this too results in the manually inputed color showing up (or no color if none is chosen). There has to be a way to fix this, but I don't have the skills. Thanks. --Alcuin 14:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Misc section infobox

It seems that now the background parameter is removed from the infobox, the Misc for extra chronology and extra cover art also needs an update. It still has a background parameter and if left unset, it defaults to piss-yellow. It however should take the colour of the infobox. E.g. A_Dangerous_Meeting Spearhead 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Demos

Lot's of demos get articles as well now. E.g. Hatred Surge. And having an album infobox, they used to use different kind of colours (salmon and orange mostly). Now it defaults to grey. What colour should we use? Shouldn't there be a colour for demo recordings? Spearhead 20:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think this was important (and still don't ) but, for some reason there a lot of demos on WikiProject Albums. Are they notable in any way shape or form? Fantailfan 20:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Some are notable... Metallica's No Life Till Leather springs to mind. Anyway, either demos should be removed or have a proper infobox w/ a settled colour. Spearhead 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Demos are essentially the same as studio albums, except for the form of their release. They contain original songs. At this point, if a demo record is notable enough to get an article and an info box, call it an original studio album. Unless, of course, it's a demo of cover songs or a demo of a soundtrack. I think it's up for debate if we want to start a new type for demos, but until then, just use studio. -Freekee 03:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that there should be a type for demos. To me, studio album is a more official term that indicates it was distributed, whereas demos were (mostly) undistributed and is usually not an official part of a band's discography. Joltman 12:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It's amazing the number of demos I've been running into with my AWB-non-standard infobox cleaning. They seem to be chiefly of the metal genre and its various subgenres. I would agree with Spearhead that nearly every demo should be removed as non-notable. Since anyone can create a page here, notability is not indicated by having "an article and an info box."
Fantailfan 14:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
1st I didn't say that demoes should be removed per se. But that at least there should be a general concensus on how to handle them, which I think is either delete or agree on how to treat the infobox and such, even if only *very* notable demoes are kept there should be consistency how they are handled.
And yeah, lots of them are metal, I guess that has a lot to do with tape trading that got lots of metal bands into "fame", particularly in the 80s and early 90s. Spearhead 20:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I support a separate colour for demos per Joltman and the fact, that many demos/promos, at least in black metal, were recorded on cassette tapes during a quick rehearsal session. These shouldn't be grouped in together with distributed studio albums. As for notability, I've ran into quite a few and all have been at least by notable bands, if not notable for their own merits, such as being one of the first recordings on a certain genre. Prolog 14:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I support a recognition of Demo as an album type and using lightsteelblue as the colour, as is done for Studio album, since demos are quite similar (and one step down the ladder, really) to them, and feel like different creatures from EPs. Using an entirely different colour for Demos seems unneccessary. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Infobox musical artist?

See Joseph Byrd...this infobox doesn't seem to be rendering properly...looked at history...all prior versions are also not working. Help? Thank you. Tvccs 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see any problem. What is failing? -- ReyBrujo 16:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Just for an FYI long after the fact: on 25 September, {{Infobox musical artist 2/color selector}}, an internal template used by {{Infobox musical artist}}, was damaged by a bot which mistook the color codes for Unicode charaacter definitions and "corrected" them. This caused an ugly failure of the infobox. Fortunately, I'd recently been working with the infobox code, and was able to track down and revert the change fairly quickly. So, Tvccs is not crazy; there was a real problem. It just didn't last long.  :) Xtifr tälk 08:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Kittie Discography

i am trying to write an article for the discography of the band, Kittie, but i can't find the RIAA Certification of their debut album, nor any other album. i also can't find sales of the "Sex Is Hell demo", "Kittie EP", or the "Sampler Demo". i'm not sure if they even exist. their discography on their page is aslo need in organizing. could somebody please help me clean this up (even though it is not the the to-do list)?

WereWolf 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It will be certified only if (a) their label requests it and (b) they supply RIAA with documentation that they have sold at least 500,000 copies of it in the United States. Some bands and labels (especially the indies) do not do this either out of underestimating their sales, bad accounting, or because they do not wish to be certified by the RIAA on principle. Fantailfan 00:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That answers one question . . . WereWolf 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Plus they're Canadian. The Canadian Recording Industry Association site no longer has search-by-artist. This would help if their sales are higher (relatively considering population) in Canada.
While I do have a weakness for Canadian musicians, alt-metal is at the end of my likes-dislikes spectrum. You might check with Artemis Records, the CRIA or band members themselves. They might even be on Myspace. –Fantailfan 11:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Record Collector price guides

Anybody have any old Record Collector price guide books? I think I've thrown mine out in favour of a year 2000 Penguin Price Guide for Record & CD Collectors. Basically, I'd like to "chart" the change in value of a mint condition copy of 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) over the years (£60 in Y2K). --kingboyk 14:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox color stuff

Couple things I wanted to point out about the new infobox color template thing

  1. I think 'Split album' should be an appropriate term for an album (lightsteelblue).
  2. I really think an unknown album type should NOT be the same as a known album type. Right now, an unknown type gets gainsboro, which is the same as soundtracks. Unknown types should be some other arbitrary color like lightbrown or something.

Joltman 16:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should discuss valid types and colors at the same type, otherwise we will be discussing the color of the new types later again. I suggested pink for unknown types, but never really caught on. -- ReyBrujo 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the current color proposal above, they include non-standard as silver. Fantailfan 17:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Misc Fields

Using a Misc field results in a different color than what is specified by the Type field. Would it be possible to simply have the same color used for entries in the Misc section as what's in the main template? Issue arose when adding an alternate cover and having to manually specify the background color. If a 'Cover2' or 'CoverAlt' field were added into the main template that could resolve it as well. Sparkhead 17:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing you were using {{Extra album cover}}. Try using {{Extra album cover 2}}, specifying a type there. That should work. We could not merge the changes of Extra album cover 2 into the other because the original is being used by singles as well. -- ReyBrujo 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the example box in {{Extra album cover 2}} wrong? It shows {{Extra album cover as the start, I'm guessing it should be {{Extra album cover 2, but I'm not about to change that myself. I switched to {{Extra album cover 2}}, and now when I don't set it manually, I get no background color, even if I set type to "Studio Album". If you could, review Under The Blade. If you go in and remove my background color for the extra section, it goes white. I think I'm doing everything correctly, but any pointers appreciated. Sparkhead 18:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the 2 is just a copy from the extra album cover, with a small modifications to work with the type. However, when we completely removed the background color from the main infobox album, we forgot to update it. It should be working now, thanks for noticing the error. -- ReyBrujo 19:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Glad to be of help. Thanks for the update. Sparkhead 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote on spectrum for infoboxes.

Below is a pair of spectra. The spectrum on the left is the current convention; the one on the right is the proposed replacement spectrum:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart

Please voice your support for which spectrum you prefer below. (Support implies supporting the change; signal Oppose to maintain the status quo. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 23:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Folajimi 23:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    Comment What exactly are you supporting above Folajimi? The one on the left or the one on the right? Does this vote need more explanation? Sparkhead 23:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Question It's either keep the old, or go with this one for the new? What was wrong with... oh nevermind. -Freekee 00:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I hope the revised statement above addresses your concern. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 02:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Presumably we'll change them back if there are too many objections. When is close of voting? Are there any standards for this kind of (yes, I know Wikipedia is not a) democracy? --Fantailfan 00:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • To be fair, this vote should be up for ten days; that would be on par with the length of time for the Studio album vote. As for what would be considered successful, the result should be more than a simple majority; two-thirds majority seems appropriate. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • post-voting notes: burlywood came in as a good non-excrement-colored brown and darker than wheat, beige and different than khaki, which is used for singles. lightpink, I don't know how that one popped up. I would like to change it but the rest are acceptable, at the very least, being better than the current set. --Fantailfan 11:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support we need a change. those colors were kind of old. WereWolf 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Alcuin 00:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, voting is evil, but this will at least provide a forum for anyone with concerns with the new colors. --Alcuin 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there an alternative approach you would like to recommend? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 02:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I think this is good. I think it's helpful to see people's objections, as it's often the best way to gain new ideas for improvement. --Alcuin 03:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Considering Freekee's opinion on the spectrum, I have to agree with you on the issue of objections. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Do we need this poll? The {{Infobox Album/color}} has already been updated with the new colors... -- ReyBrujo 01:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • AzaToth is out of line; this is the second time in as many days where said user is taking unilateral actions which violate protocol. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 02:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't thought we had to have a vote, we have had discussed the colors for many sections, and people where starting to agree with the colors, so I asked if it was ok that I was updating the template, and I felt I got a go. →AzaToth 08:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Imagine what would happen if everyone who uses the infoboxes decided to change the template [on a whim] to suit their preferences... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Neither AzaToth may be out of line, but the colors he posted at 21:39, 21 September 2006 and the ones posted by BalthCat at 04:22, 12 September 2006, above, are both better than the alternatives here. How was it narrowed down to these two? Sparkhead 02:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Up here. -- ReyBrujo 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Neither, or at least get rid of that pink! I'm looking at albums like Superfly, He Got Game, and The Great Rock n' roll Swindle soundtracks and these totally don't feel right for "Pink". Just opinions is all. :) Andrzejbanas 05:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • FuriousFreddy spoke about this matter a few months ago... something about "...making infoboxes look more 'gangsta'..." --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Ha! Not really my point but I don't think most users seem to be keen on that pink. I'd actually rather have Unknown albums become Pink as an encouragement for people to give them types so they lose their Pink colour quicker! Andrzejbanas 05:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am unhappy with this nomination. It is my least favorite of any of the ones discussed above. I was busy editing articles last night, and didn't see you were discussing it. Salmon is still ugly. Why burlywood instead of a blue? Pink seems out of place. I thought grey was fine for soundtracks. The thistle and the green look really good, though. -Freekee 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, the new colors are much more pleasing to the eye. --musicpvm 06:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why is it that the unknown should be grey? I would rather the soundtracks still be grey and use pink for unknowns. Especially if we are using the same shade of grey, that seems like it would be confusing to use it on something else now.Joltman 11:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Why didn't you say something earlier??? I had altered the spectrum to include your remarks! --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Because I didn't check this page between the time I posted up there and the time I posted here. I don't get to check this page all the time, I usually only do at work actually. 17:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as prior please, thanks. -W guice 11:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support . -Acjelen 12:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I prefer the old colours, especially the orange. However, if there is a genuine case that the old colours were bad for persons with sight issues and the new ones overcome that we don't need a poll and should go with whatever helps these folks out best. --kingboyk 16:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - This is satisfactory to me, but I wouldn't mind seeing pink replaced. ~Gertlex 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I take a preference for the old colours as well. -- Reaper X 18:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. —MC 01:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This palette is much better compared to the old one; more harmonic (interaction between the colors) and usable; text in the infobox is easier and faster to read, neutral colors avoid confusing or distracting the reader. The old colors could be interpreted as warning the reader for something or suggesting that the infobox is the thing to read first, whereas the new ones are calm and light and don't interrupt the user's normal process. This also improves the overall design and is more encyclopedic. I'm pretty sure these colours will react better to different monitors and color depths too. I don't like the pink though, but that doesn't make me vote against the change. Prolog 14:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • NOTE: I'm just curious why most people are voting support. I do want the colours changed but not to this, a lot of people seem to vote for Support even though they prefer other suggested colour schmes or they don't like the pink. Andrzejbanas 18:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • A vote in support of the new spectrum does not negate the expressed concerns; if there are enough participants willing to deep-six the offensive hue, it will eventually happen. After all, a similar approach worked for Studio albums. (FWIW, as you mentioned earlier, it may actually be an incentive to specify which category such recordings belong in.) --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 18:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd be in favor of switching the pink and the grey, as suggested, but I think salmon and lightsalmon are much worse than the pink. -Freekee 21:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Just out of curiosity, is there anything in particular which will assuage your predisposition to perpetual protesting? :/ If so, pray tell. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I was disappointed that the nomination process wasn't set up in a very visible manner. It was more of a discussion between a few people. I was waiting to see what would happen, and in the span of less than 48 hours, a "consensus" between about three people was put forward for a vote. This whole thing seems like such a big deal, in that it's going to be around for a while, but a lot of people don't seem happy with the choice given. I would like to have seen a more formal nomination process. Short answer to your question: nothing, since it's too late. I'm sorry about my protesting. I had intended at least some of my comments to be constructive. Thanks for asking. I'll shut up now. -Freekee 00:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I understand your point, but as far as I know there is no process. Between programming (ReyBrujo and AzaToth, I think) and color choice (me, Azatoth, Andrzebjanas, Folajimi, Joltman (yes, you contributed), Reaper X), that's a bunch of people. What has occurred can only be called a process by abuse of the language on the Bush Administration level. A bunch of people made a significant change very quickly, via a short back-and-forth discussion in which basic criteria for color choice and reasoning for making changes were assumed and not stated. A unilateral palette change occurred; only then was it put it to a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so what constitutes a proper method of changing standards is different within each realm. Rather, Wikipedia appears to be Leninist - be bold! --Fantailfan 01:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Freekee, constructive feedback is needed; your last response provides useful information. I agree that the nomination process for the spectrum was inadequate; the unfortunate appearance of running roughshod on you (and Joltman) was absolutely unintentional. With that said, it seems only fair to allow a sufficient time window for discussion from here on in. How does 48 hours [as you mentioned] sound? As for dissatisfaction with the selected spectrum, there is very little I can do about that. You may recall that W. guice decided to terminate an earlier conversation than work with other participants at attaining a satisfactory solution. I had hoped for a better outcome, but that was out of my control.
              • You have been involved with this effort from the very beginning. Your input — along with everyone else who has taken the time to participate in this discussion — is greatly appreciated; having you "shut up" is definitely an undesirable solution. Remember, constructive feedback is always appreciated. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 01:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Thanks to you and Faintail for your comments. I only said I'd shut up, since I'd said all I needed to say about the subject. :-) I think 48 hours was too short a time. From my best estimate, that final part of the discussion started just after I logged off, and I'd missed seeing it the next night (and not everyone even comes here very day). Then it was put up for vote just before I logged in the next day. So 48 hours didn't really work for me, and I come here every day. If it were up to me, I would have made a new post at the bottom of the page, and explained that this was the group's consensus (and, importantly, why), and ask if anyone had any comments before a vote. I prefer to see a week for big decisions, but I'm not sure how big this is. -Freekee 02:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditch the pink - Make it palegoldenrod or khaki and I think you'll have a much better selection. Sparkhead 22:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Only if the participants whose input was used in creating the spectrum (Fantailfan, AzaToth, Joltman, and ReyBrujo) agree to withdraw this nomination... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • As previously noted, khaki is already being used by WikiProject Songs as the color for singles (changed from yellow) and palegoldenrod is too close to khaki. This would not matter if they were used for infoboxes for, say, WikiProject Songbirds, but the two projects are closely related to each other and use a very similar infobox style (they probably came from the same source.) I, too, would like to change lightpink to something else. However. My point is that I am willing to compromise on one particular color to arrive at the larger goal of presenting a full and less garishIMHO palette of colors. --Fantailfan 23:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Put Soundtracks back to gainsboro, and make other peachpuff or paleturquoise. If there is a large color scheme that the selections in this list need to avoid, perhaps you can point to a list of all of them? Sparkhead 01:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Like I say above, the color criteria and basic principles are assumed and have never been agreed upon. I think (1) choose colors in different color categories, (2) pick pleasing (or at least tolerable) colors, (3) don't use khaki or anything close to it in the yellow categories, (4) um... be bold? --Fantailfan 01:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I disappeared for a while, bad me, since I helped stir this up. As per User:Sparkhead, put Soundtracks back to Grainsboro and I suggest antiquewhite for Other rather than peachpuff. As I mentioned above ( a while ago ) an override field for colour would be nice. The rationale being that, aside from the chance something needs to be overridden (assuming it never will is folly!) is the ability to test colours. Right now, it appears I can't. (I find the colours look quite different in the infoboxes compared to the spectrum view. But I'm pretty sure I liked the look of antiquewhite.) Though, if it wasn't for my desire to see Gainsboro switched back, I would vote Support. The other issue is secondary, and the colour could be changed again later. (I still find all forms of salmon hideous, but one takes what one can get.) - BalthCat 03:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternate cover

As I've noticed the colours have changed, especially since the light steelblue was implemented a lot of album infobox's have mismatching colours when it comes to to the addition of "Alternative Colour" is there any way to figure out which albums pages don't have matching alternative album cover colours? Andrzejbanas 01:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It is my belief that any album using the {{Extra album cover}} template has wrong colors, as this template does not support the type parameter. To fix this, remove the background color, add the type, and change the {{Extra album cover}} with the {{Extra album cover 2}} template. -- ReyBrujo 01:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
See up here. -- ReyBrujo 01:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Why can't it support the type field? It's an optional field, so adding it won't break existing usage (would it?). How does inclusion into the {{Extra album cover}} cause an issue? Is type used for something else on singles? Sparkhead 02:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I should point out that this problem exists for Extra Chronology too; switching to Extra Chronology 2 does not fix it. --Alcuin 02:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I am a professional programmer, please give me an example so that I can fix it :) -- ReyBrujo 03:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
An example using {{Extra album cover}} with Getting Away with Murder (album), and and an example using {{Extra album cover 2}} with The Art of Self-Defense. (extra album cover 2 seems to work. Why isn't this on the albums page then? :S Andrzejbanas 04:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, also things like this too it seems. AngelComa Andrzejbanas 04:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Getting Away with Murder (album) was fixed by removing the background parameter, using {{Extra album cover 2}}, and adding the type to the template. The problem with AngelComa was another: the {{Extra chronology 2}} template was pointing to an auxiliar function in my userspace. I fixed the redirect, and it is now working. Thanks for spotting those errors! I will need a weekend to examine both sets (chronology and extra cover) and determine the best way of merging both. For now, though, it is better to fix the problems as they appear, instead of modifying a template that is being used not only in albums but in singles. -- ReyBrujo 04:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Extra Chronology examples: American Recordings (album), Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs. Both 'Extra chronology' and 'Extra chronology 2' respond to whatever color is manually inputed, not the color specificied by the album type. Thanks. --Alcuin 13:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs shows correctly for me, maybe you need to purge the article or the template. In the other, replace the cover with the cover 2 template, and it should work. -- ReyBrujo 13:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, changed both to Extra Chronology 2, and both show gray --Alcuin 14:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, you need to specify the type in {{Extra chronology 2}} as in {{Extra album cover 2}} :-) Added the type, they now display correctly. -- ReyBrujo 02:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • ReyBrujo, can you please address the question raised? How would adding an optional field to an existing template {{Extra album cover}} cause a breakage? Thanks. Sparkhead 11:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Note that the {{Extra album cover}} has this line: {{{Background|khaki}}}. In other words, if no background color is present, use khaki (the single infobox color). If we replace the background color with {{Template:Infobox Album/color|{{{Type|}}}}} (which transform the type in a color), we will break the single infoboxes (since a single has no type, it will return gainsboro, so the single infoboxes will have the extra album cover section in gainsboro instead of khaki. -- ReyBrujo 12:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you put a conditional check in there? Does the template have no knowledge of the context it is in? Can it check to see whether it is placed inside a single or not, and respect or ignore the type field appropriately? I'm thinking you could possibly set something in the album or single template than can be tested in the 'child' templates to determine context. I'm not familiar with creating/editing templates, but would be glad to investigate if pointed in the proper direction for some information on writing them. Sparkhead 14:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
That is my intention, but my lack of time is big right now. I will see if I can merge both templates on this weekend, however you must understand the best time for doing these modifications are on week days at night, as there are fewer users in Wikipedia than on a weekend, thus I do not really feel comfortable with testing with the live templates. I will have to recreate them in my userspace, and that will take time (switching references from one template to my userspace, testing, trying, etc). I will try, but I can't promise. Help is welcomed :-) -- ReyBrujo 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
What exactly do you need help with? Are there any specific actions which need to be carried out (akin to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Steps to implement the new template)? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 13:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Was thinking that it might be better to inline the problem then to call an auxillary templte, so as for testing, I have added some inline code to the infobox, the parameters is as follow:

| extra cover1 = Extra cover1.png
| extra cover1 upper = Upper caption (optional, default=Alternate Cover)
| extra cover1 lower = Lower caption (optional)
| extra cover2 = Extra cover2.png
| extra cover2 upper = Upper caption (optional)
| extra cover2 lower = Lower caption (optional)

As I can't see any album to have more than two alternate covers, and if so, it's too much for the infobox anyway, and deserves an own section. →AzaToth 15:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • That's excellent. One thing though - using that doesn't center the upper caption. Other than that it looks great. Thanks. Sparkhead 15:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The Dark Side of the Moon has three alternate covers in the infobox. Jogers (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Possibly a little excessive. I'd lose the 20th anniversary cover, as it's not very different from the original. That would also give the later 2 more prominent placings on the page. --kingboyk 16:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. The Man Who Sold the World also has three covers, but we used a gallery instead. --Fantailfan 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to see an example of an article using extra chronology and extra album cover, here is one: 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?). The colours are broken so if you find a fix for this - reusing the correct colour from the parent infobox, or taking an optional argument, whatever - please fix that page too. I've left it at default settings now, as an example of how great these addin templates are but how broken they are in regards to colours :) --kingboyk 16:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To fix that, just use {{Extra chronology 2}} instead of {{Extra chronology}}, and {{Extra album cover 2}} instead of {{Extra album cover}}, removing the background parameter and adding the type. As I said, merging the templates would solve that, but we need to be careful not to break the single infobox at the same time. -- ReyBrujo 17:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Not so simple Batman :) I already have a type=Single so that it says "single chronology", but I need "album" colours. (This was an album released in an edited form as a single you see.)
An easy way to do it would be put the colour codes into mini-templates and they can be transcluded where needed? --kingboyk 17:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
That is already done at {{Infobox Album/color}}, while {{Infobox Album/link}} returns the wikified text to use in the infobox. -- ReyBrujo 17:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Color code abused?

In the preceding discussion, User:Andrzejbanas stated: "the colour code isn't being used anymore due it being abused.". Can someone tell me exactly how you abuse a color code? Sparkhead 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've found shouting obscenities at it to be quite effective. When that doesn't work, I hit the colour code with a big stick. --kingboyk 12:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hehehehe. I believe the only change that has consensus was orange to lightsteelblue, per this discussion. We could be protecting {{Infobox Album/color}} and {{Infobox Album/link}} once we have settled everything (I am guessing four months of work still). -- ReyBrujo 13:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Internet Leaks

I've noticed that some articles have been noting the date that albums were leaked online. It seems that that might be against some type of wiki policy. A lot of the times it's not real notable to the article. It's just added on at the end. The Lupe Fiasco leak was notable. It pusehed back and changed the album significantly. So I can see that. But the others seem a bit thrown in. Just curious as to the policy on this. --Jaysscholar 06:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I should probably put some examples of this. Here's some I remembered.

Still Searching - Senses Fail
Shine On - Jet
  • I think the second leak via iTunes is definitely worth a mention. If a leak made big news for some reason (like pushing back the true release date), it's notable. If the artist/label deliberately "leaked" a track or three, again, notable. Suppose it's all a question of referencing the statement. If Joe Public discovered the album on torrent, then no, there's no reliable source for that and it shouldn't be mentioned. IMO. Sparkhead 14:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
See "This album was leaked" discussion above. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Street date 10/31 but iTunes date 10/14, which one is the Release date?

I was just about to update Burden Brothers' Mercy because the band just announced that 2 weeks before the street date, the album is going to be released on iTunes. So, at first I was just going to put a note that it will be released early on iTunes. But then I thought, would the release date change to 10/14, or would it stay 10/31 since that's the wide distribution date? What do others think? Joltman 12:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with the later date and say (Regular release) or something along those lines... I also thing those guys are crazy for doing Itunes before the actual CD is sold. But that's just an opinion :) ~Gertlex 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It turns out that it will be available at iTunes and other download sites on that date, so I don't know if that changes anything. As for why they are doing it, I think it's so the die-hards will pay for the downloaded songs early and then still buy the actual CD when it comes out. 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I would think that the earliest date that the album is available to the general public counts as the release date. We're talking about the published work, not the CD, specifically. -Freekee 01:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that iTunes qualifies as "street" release, since it's still public. It makes sense to observe it in a medium-independant way. Perhaps a list of release dates for various media would be in order—with the first being the primary (ok that's redundant language). —StationaryTraveller 04:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Spectrum Vote Continued

10 days for a vote seems a bit excessive. 5 days, which will conclude within approximately 3 hours should be plenty. If an AfD can be done in 5 days, so can a template change.

A number of votes for Support mentioned the pink as the one disliked color. If there's not major disagreement, it would seem straightforward to put gainsboro back to "Soundtracks" that pink now occupies and making the "Other" category peachfuzz or some other color.

"Soundtracks (etc.)" was gainsboro before and I cannot see a valid reason for moving that color to another category. Does anyone who likes the pink think it's a color they simple cannot live without? Sparkhead 20:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We need to come up with a kŭl'ər other than lightpink first. Fantailfan 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason for putting gray as the color of undefined is that people usually link gray to undefined/other. →AzaToth 20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should start assigning meaning to any color. Soundtracks were gainsboro and that seemed to be fine. Peachfuzz was invalidated due to its close nature to lightpink. But if lightpink is gone, peachfuzz can be brought back into the spectrum and put in the other category. Which, if used properly, should rarely been seen. I believe this should be done ASAP. (5 days is now passed) Sparkhead 01:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Final tally and call for amendments.

The vote to replace the spectrum passed with a supermajority. However, in light of concerns raised by the vote, I would like to invite those who expressed concern about certain hues to propose replacements for lightpink (and burlywood.)

Please provide input within the next 96 hours. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 02:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest leaving a note in the talk page of those who voted oppose to let them know about this. -- ReyBrujo 02:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I liked lightskyblue. It's blue and light. It's dissimilar to any of the other colors chosen. Is it too close to the blue of the band infobox, and does that matter? What about a lighter shade of blue, like cyan? -Freekee 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How are you getting a supermajority? I see 6 straight support, 2 support with "hate the pink", 4 oppose, 2 neither - which I interpret as "I question this vote as valid in the first place" (especially since one of those neithers is mine), and 2 comments questioning the vote outright, and a bit of other general commentary questioning the steps to this point.
    However you look at it, it's far from a supermajority. I see why Azatoth took action. Now, if he would only go back and change Soundtracks to gainsboro, I doubt there would be much dissent over what color 'Other' was, even if it stays pink. When someone sees in on an album page they like, they'll be motivated to categorize it. *Sparkhead 11:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Supermajority, meaning two-thirds of the vote. Which would have been tallied as 8 for, 4 against. He included the accept but with color issues as "For", and has opened the floor for further discussion on color. Which sounds to me like if there's consensus, we can change one of the colors, or maybe switch a couple. -Freekee 02:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I have made the change now, as I see that with the changes, there is consensus, no need to process it till end of days. →AzaToth 11:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree as far as changing the gainsboro to soundtracks. The pink isn't really an issue to me, but the peachpuff seems fine. Joltman 12:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the current spectrum layout is displayed below:

Types Color Codes
EPs lightsalmon ep
Original studio albums lightsteelblue studio
Live albums and live EPs burlywood live
Greatest hits darkseagreen greatest
Remixes darkseagreen remix
Box sets darkseagreen box
Other Compilations darkseagreen compilation
Cover albums thistle cover
Tribute albums thistle tribute
Soundtracks gainsboro soundtrack
Television themes gainsboro television
Film Scores gainsboro film
Unknown type peachpuff N/A

Thanks again to all who participated. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 22:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for getting it done. -Freekee 00:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
And thanks to all who helped on this infobox project! -Freekee 03:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Video releases

I've been reading the discussions here (see above), looking for answers about videos. Let me see if I can sum up the discussion and see what questions still need to be answered.

There are music videos, which are analogous to singles. There are also longform videos, including concert videos and compilation videos. It was suggested that if a video was a theatrical release, it should use the film infobox, but if it was straight-to-video, it should use the album infobox. When using the album infobox, the type should be either live or compilation. Either that or create a new type: video. There was a suggestion to use both categories, where applicable, but I'm not sure how that works. There is already a {{DVD infobox}};

Here's the reason I was drawn to this topic: categories. I found several video releases that were uncategorized. I thought that Category:Videos by artist made sense, but I want to make sure people agree on naming. Could videos by artist refer to both short and long form releases? Would this be a problem? Should we have both Music videos by artists and Videos by artist? There's already Category:Music videos and DVDs. I hate to see the format in the title, but so far, the song videos have been kept out.

Discuss. -Freekee 03:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no infobox, or people choose either Album or Film. I argue it should be under Album (as the types I listed above) or Film (when it is an actual pay-yer-ten-bucks movie). --Fantailfan 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't argue with that. I was more interested in opinions about naming, for categories. I'd like to categorize some of those uncategorized videos. -Freekee 00:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Distinct color for mixtapes

I had brought up this topic many times but since noone bothered to reform the infobox now I felt like it's time put the question into discussion again while the revision of the new infobox still goes. I also like to inform the people in this project that the Category:Mixtape albums has reached the total of 211 pages (with the subsequent pages) at the moment. I don't care about the type of the color just choose one if we all agree to have one. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 12:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Seems it is a category of Compilation album, which has a color. *Sparkhead 13:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, it just seems like a sub-category of Compilation album. If what I said below goes through, it could be listed as a Compilation album type for the color but then show Mixtape instead. Joltman 13:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess it will be very misleading then. Compilations and mixtapes are not the same. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't say they were the same, but they are in the same category. From the first line of Mixtape: "A mixtape is a compilation of songs and or tracks...". *Sparkhead 13:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I support having an additional color for mixtapes, they serve a different role than compilations. --Alcuin 17:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Considering that it is said that compilations such as greatest hits albums, are generally not notable, I have to ask why these mixtapes are so notable. -Freekee 00:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
My thought too, but then I'm old and used to make mix tapes on reel-to-reel and didn't distribute them--how would you copy them? --Fantailfan 01:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This section wasn't started to solve the notability problem. As said above there are compilations that aren't notable, but still a distinct color exists for them in the infobox. Notability should be considered before creating the article or after by nominating it for deletion. But still we can have a color for them just to inform readers (who aren't editors) that these are mixtapes. And BTW there ARE mixtapes that reached gold status or were listed on prominent music charts. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 22:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to sound even less cool than I already am (I'm so uncool, ice cubes melt in mouth), but can you name ten mixtapes that are notable - that the cognoscenti would recognize as seminal? --L7Fantailfan 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I will but please let's get back to the color question. The category has grown with 9 more pages in the past 3 days (when I started the discussion)...Is it only me who wants to take the mixtape-phaenomena seriously? Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
(Side note: Can you please fix your sig? A 200+ character sig multiple times while editing this is a bit over the top, as is a 30+ character sig in the display window. Is a link to Snoop Dogg truly required in your sig? Can you just put "talk"? Since you didn't respond to the request in your talk page, I'm asking here. Just a matter of common courtesy. Thanks. *Sparkhead 01:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC))
  • On the topic at hand. It doesn't need its own color. Compilations have a color, remixes have the same color, and this lies somewhere in a similar realm, per Mixtapes#Mix_tapes_in_hip_hop. You seem to be using that definition, which is a genre specific one, unlike every category that exists today. If you can show that there are substantial releases in this category that span genres beyond hip hop and rap, I could see giving it a category label that would still match the compilation/remix color. But I see zero reason to give such a specific category of release its own color. *Sparkhead 01:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, except that I don't think it has anything to do with genre. Mixtapes are compilations of songs. Someone thought the songs would sound good together, or would sell record, so they collected them and put them out. To be fair, there are newly created songs on them, but they're still collected from various sources. The "compilation" color fits well. I don't think the "compilation" label fits well, however. Until someone adds "mixtape" to the list of types, I suggest using "other compilations". -Freekee 02:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox album types idea

I had an idea for the type in the infobox. What if they type was used just for the general kind of album it is, such as Album, Compilation album or Live album, but that was only used to determine the color, and the Longtype was displayed so it could be more specific, such as Double album, Greatest Hits, or Split album. Here's an example of how it would work:

The Wall
The Wall cover
Double album by Pink Floyd 
{{User:Joltman/Test
| Name        = The Wall 
| Type        = Album 
| Longtype = [[Double album]] 
| Artist      = [[Pink Floyd]] 
| Cover       = PinkfloydThewallcover.jpg
}}

This way, we wouldn't have to have a whole bunch of possibilities for the color chooser, only certain ones, and then the longtype would be used to be more specific. And if the longtype isn't assigned, have it default to the type given, like this:

The Wall
The Wall cover
Album by Pink Floyd 
{{User:Joltman/Test <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
| Name        = The Wall 
| Type        = Album 
| Artist      = [[Pink Floyd]] 
| Cover       = PinkfloydThewallcover.jpg
}}

Opinions? Joltman 13:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC) A couple more things I wanted to note about it, one, the longtype would be optional, and would be listed under 'advanced usage' on the project page here. Also, if this were to go through, we might want to change the name from Longtype to something else so it doesn't break what's out there now, and leave it like that until we go through the articles. Joltman 13:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe, but I don't like the idea of reducing the categories in the type field. For example, you could have a live double album, a studio double album, a soundtrack double album, etc. So type would still be the base type. Longtype could be things like "double album", "rerelease", "picturedisc", "concept album", etc. but would not be a freeform field. *Sparkhead 15:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ditto. We're in the business of carving data into manageable slices. They should be limited (LP no, Vinyl no; but Live/Studio yes), that is really be thought out for Album type and longtype. Now if we could only do the same for Genres.... --Fantailfan 16:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I'm following you Sparkhead. I understand there could be a live, studio, or soundtrack double album, but in those cases the type would be live album, album, or soundtrack respectivly and longtype would be live double album, double album, or soundtrack double album. Is there something I'm not understanding? Joltman 16:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In the three examples I gave, type field would be "Live Album", "Studio Album" and "Soundtrack" respectively. But the longtype field (which I think could be named 'subtype') would be "Double" or "Double Album" in all three cases. I believe that's the original proposal, and if not, that's my take on it. *Sparkhead 20:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see what you mean now. In my proposal, I meant that longtype could be specifically what kind of album it is. So type would be Album or Live album, but longtype could be Double album or Live double album or Split live double album. Basically, it would be open to whatever you would want to put in there. Joltman 22:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, what I was thinking, is if done carefully, longtype could be used as a prefix and displayed in the infobox. I think it would be good to come up with a list of what values longtype could hold, then work that into how the relationship between it and type would work. *Sparkhead 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I like, interesting idea! -- Reaper X 23:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea as well. One thing to note is that there definitely should be a set list of longtypes, especially if we want the longtypes to all link to existing articles. On a random thought, this seems a lot like how it was a month ago... only now we're using type names instead of background colors, and longtype instead of type. o_O ~Gertlex 00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... well, I would like to have the type parameter as a "combo box", with a set of predefined types. I don't like too much freedom, because we end, as Gertlex said, with the problems we tried to solve with the new implementation. -- ReyBrujo 02:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Can we limit it to a set of prefixes? Such as "double" or "picture disc" for studio or live albums, and "live" or compilation" for EPs, or something like that? And "mixtape" for compilations. Or even just an expanded list of types, that stick to the basic colors we already decided upon. -Freekee 02:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Could "mixtape" just be a type, not a longtype? For that matter, could "DJ mix"? –Unint 05:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless I'm very confused "longtype" is already displayed as you suggest. I've used it to fix some of the "bad infobox" members without losing data. Rich Farmbrough, 12:30 8 October 2006 (GMT).
Incidentally, there are some overall orthogonal types which may be of interest to a reader, which have become conflated in the past. I would list as possibilities:
  • Genre (rock, pop, classic,...)
  • Length (single, E.P., album,...)
  • Multiplicity (single, double, ...)
  • Presentation (unlabelled, standard, boxed, de-luxe, special....)
  • Issue method (commercial, demo, promo, coverdisk, special offer, prize...)
  • Media (Wax cylinder, record, 8-track ....)
for starters. Rich Farmbrough, 12:37 8 October 2006 (GMT).
Longtype has been added as a suffix (not prefix) to Type. Not sure what you mean by orthogonality as it pertains to Type as we already have Genre and Length (and most of Presentation) as separate fields. Not sure if I agree that this extra information cannot be part of the article itself. --Fantailfan 13:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I sort of don't much mind whhich bits are ruled in and out of the infobox, I just know that there is currently some confusion in the data. I would leave it to you experts to decide what is in and out. Rich Farmbrough, 16:50 9 October 2006 (GMT).
Restricting genres to a modest list of predefined genres would be marvellous. The subdivision of genres in current music is just ridiculous and has the net result of informing nobody who isn't up to date on the latest romo-metal-grindcore or whatever the current name for "heavy metal" is :) Keep the genres simple would be my stance. --kingboyk 13:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I've flailed at this particular pet peeve before. In my book (for the period I cover), there is
  • Rock
  • Rhythm & Blues
  • Rockabilly
  • Soul
  • Progressive (probably)
  • Metal
  • Glam (maybe)
  • Funk
  • Disco
  • Punk
  • Electronic
  • Rap
  • New Wave
  • Alternative (maybe)
but I get nowhere when I try to remove genres that aren't here - they just get reverted.
My what is it list:
  • Proto-punk
  • Post-punk
  • Alternative (before 1989)
  • Anything -core (except Hardcore Punk)
  • Indie
  • Christian Death Metal (I'm kidding)
--Fantailfan 01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, All Music Guide has a list of genres which can be found on single page; each link has an extensive list of subgenres. Perhaps that will help. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tangentially, I just noticed that Smackbot is going around linking the "Album" in the Type field. I thought the implementation had de-necessitated wikifying the Type text? (Every other argument for Type seems to automatically wikify... except for "Album" itself.) –Unint 05:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that this run is complete. However if the project wants changes made across the album article space (e.g. delinking tpye=album, let me know, and I (or SmackBot) will do my best to oblige. Rich Farmbrough, 16:50 9 October 2006 (GMT).

Greatest Hits

How much can albums on the Greatest Hits page vary from the exact title Greatest Hits? I am wondering about adding albums such as Greatest Hits: My Prerogative by Britney Spears and Greatest Hits: 30 Years of Rock by George Thorogood & The Destroyers —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 15:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No variation at all preferably. It's a disambiguation page, not a list... meaning it's there only to aid navigation not to be comprehensive. --kingboyk 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are against these additions. It also seems that several bands have Greatest Hits albums followed by Greatest Hits, Volume 2 or Volume II. I think volume appendages should be O.K. Also, a few bands have Greatest Hits: year1-year2. I think these are O.K. to include. However, other than volume or year I think anything else other than the band's name should cause it to be excluded. Do you agree?TonyTheTiger 18:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against it, just use your discretion based on what I've told you about the purpose of dab pages :) If you think that an editor would accidentally link to the Greatest Hits page, when they meant to link to the album pages you're working on, or a reader is likely to type in "Greatest Hits" when they actually want your article, that's a perfect dab candidate and should be on the dab page. All other entries should not be on the dab page, as it's there for navigational help not to serve as a list. --kingboyk 19:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted a set of rules on the discussion page for Greatest Hits. I await feedback and direction.TonyTheTiger 15:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Acts in Need of Discographication

I was wondering if there is a list of acts who have web pages in need of being wikified? I was looking at the Gap Band and thinking that for a band with 4 consecutive platinum albums their web page could use some discographication work. We should start such a list if it does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're gonna add discography sections to band articles, I recommend checking out that artist's pages on the other wikipedias, often they already have discographies, and they're easy to translate to English. Cheers. --Alcuin 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
How about creating Category:Band articles in need of discographies, for the talk pages? -Freekee 04:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
i like this idea. it seems a neat way of targetting a fairly crucial area of bands' pages that can often be lacking. -W guice 10:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That was what I was thinking. I think we should start such a category.TonyTheTiger 18:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


I just created Category:Band articles in need of discographies and Category:Singer articles in need of discographies. TonyTheTiger 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It ought to categorise the talk pages really, not the articles. It also needs a template - either a standalone template or perhaps as a parameter in {{WPBiography}} (which now applies to all musicians including musical groups, under the remit of WP Musicians). --kingboyk 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed: talk pages only. The category is an aid to editors, not readers. And I wonder if it should be "performers", or "artists", instead of "singers". -Freekee 23:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You could combine singers and bands to Category:Musician articles in need of discographies, but using "performers" or "artists" only welcomes confusion and encourages acceptance of corporate-speak. -Acjelen 00:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Mea culpa, i added one to an artist's article page by mistake. Put it down to a brain bubble or something. -W guice 11:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If a category is empty (in this case, all articles discographized), doesn't the category get deleted? Can this be avoided? -Freekee 03:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I just created Category:Musician articles in need of discographies. This will have to do until someone creates a template. How do you delete categories Category:Band articles in need of discographies and Category:Singer articles in need of discographies? TonyTheTiger 19:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am not sure I agree with the discussion of adding this category to talk pages only. Also, I don't know how to add categories to disccussion pages. They have all been added to the article pages so far.TonyTheTiger 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, these categories are intended to help editors find the articles and expand them. That's not something that readers need to see, and shouldn't be cluttering up the articlespace. To add the cats to the discussion pages, simply go to them, edit them, and put in the category just like you did on the article pages. -Freekee 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

When I have created pages, I have always had people come by and put big obnoxious templates at the top saying to reedit for NPOV, notability, or Quality on the main article page. This seems to be a similar instruction that a page is in need of improvements.TonyTheTiger 14:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but those templates alert the reader that some part of he article may not be up to proper standards. I don't think that missing information is a problem that needs a warning label, nor do I think that readers need to find more of such articles. -Freekee 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that I was confused because most talk page categories appear without using the standard category syntax. It seems they come from the biography templates or something. By the way, is there a way to incorporate this in with the Musicians work group articles category? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) .

Update: someone just created the Category:Musicians work group articles needing discographies. I changed all my links to direct there. I will be following the WikiProject Musicians procedures going forward on this topic. Thanks for your help and suggestions though guys and gals. TonyTheTiger 19:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Gramophone record

Gramophone record is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Box Sets

Just wrote up the Tortoise box set. It seem that if (in the infobox "Album type" field) you try to bypass the redirect page at Box set by piping it to Boxed set (where the article is) it misses the darkseagreen and defaults to an "Unknown album" peachpuff. It's a minor quibble, obviously, but i'm always on a bit of a hunt to avoid redirecting excessively. Is there a way round this? Cheers -W guice 11:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The way around this is to move Boxed set to Box set and make the former the redirect. Go to each and note while about 140 articles link to Boxed set well over 700 link to Box set, which is the more common term in my experience. *Sparkhead 12:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I've put in the request for move. Couldn't do it direct due to edits in the redir's talk page. *Sparkhead 12:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeh, that's what i thought might happen. "Box set" seems to be the more common/obvious term to me, too, and it's the one that triggers the correct infobox colour which is obviously a bonus, but i didn't know what the history was or whether there was a specific reason for it to be under "Boxed". Cheers -W guice 12:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Artist templates

Has anyone ever proposed adding 3 lines to artist templates: 1. Grammy (wins/noms) 2. Singles (#1's/top 10/charting) 3. Albums (#1's/top 10/charting)TonyTheTiger 19:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, there should be some symbol denoting Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame Membership. TonyTheTiger 19:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Different Project - this is Albums. --Fantailfan 03:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, as for albums, is there a version of the template which supports these fields:

  • Location (mixing)
  • Engineer
  • Mixer
  • Mastering
  • Sleeve designer

The infobox has fields for recorded (which I use for "recording studio") and producer, but there's a lot of personnel and venue data on the sleeve of The White Room which doesn't currently fix into the standard box. --kingboyk 12:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that we already have the candidate for the "most likely to run off the first screen" infobox on our hands. What use has an infobox if not to condense information? –Unint 05:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Get Back

Get Back is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Layla

Layla is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I need help with !!! (album)

Could someone please have a look at it? !!! (album)... The infobox is messed up as the ! is a table separator and the chronology part uses the article name. In the infobox, I've changed !!! to <nowiki>!!!</nowiki>, but still broken. NCurse work 08:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It also happens with all albums by !!!, because of the "!!! chronology" section. 80.41.197.117 08:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Got it! :) Just had to replace the artist variable with the html special characters for it, and ! is '&#33;'. So instead of [[!!!]] put [[&#33;&#33;&#33;]] Joltman 12:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Good skillz! -W guice 13:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem with the earlier part of the infobox, though. "Album by !!!" has no problems, so there must be (may be) a simpler solution. Rich Farmbrough, 16:43 9 October 2006 (GMT).

Confused about Categories

When adding a category for album artists, i.e. Category:Anita Baker albums to a specific genre i.e. Category:Smooth jazz albums, I'm confused on whether to pipe link the names or not, like last-name-first/first-name-last, or just add the genre without pipelinking? Would she go under 'A' for Anita or 'B' for Baker? I've noticed there is not really any continuity here for all genres.... Cricket02 13:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Major label debut - does a re-release count?

I was cleaning up CKY's album articles, and came to a question. Their first album was originally released on an independent label, and later re-released on a major label. Their second album was the first to be intially released on a major label. So would their second album count as a major label debut, or would their be no major label debut since the first album was already re-released on a major label? Joltman 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say the album that they release with the new label is the MLD. With Sonic Youth I believe DGC bought the whole back catalog because they had been on so many labels prior to their MLD. --Fantailfan 15:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Snow Patrol is an interesting comparison to this. Their major-label debut was Final Straw, but A&M recently reissued Songs for Polarbears and their second album. Their major label debut is most certainly Final Straw, I think it would be wrong to consider their reissued album a "major label debut." --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Especially since the re-release of the catalog will be at least partially based on the success of the group's initial release with the major label. -Acjelen 16:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me (I could be mistaken) that in those two cases, the re-issue of the earlier album was released after the 'major label debut'. But with CKY, their first album was re-issed by the Island Records before their second album came out. Just wanted to mention that, didn't know if it would change any opinions. Joltman 16:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Tough one. Volume 1 was released by Island prior to their release of Infiltrate•Destroy•Rebuild. However, IDR was released when the band was under contract, while Vol 1 was a reissue. My opinion is that you have three choices, none of which are invalid. If it were my choice, I wouldn't mention it. -Freekee 03:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ratings

We have a discussion on a Peter Hammill album talk page Talk:PH7 (Peter Hammill album) and I'd like to take it here.

As a minimal consense I can second the opinion expressed above: "It's to report what the verifiable, reputable sources say - and that is indeed the likes of Rolling Stone and NME".

I don't insist in keeping the Progarchives links, but I highly doubt AMG belongs to these "verifiable sources". Many of the reviews I read there are short and they express very personal opinions. Amazon.co.uk and Progarchives have personal opinions too but they have more and often longer reviews.

I concede the look of AMG is more serious and it has useful information on single songs of an album. On the other hand it is an obviously commercial site as the many shopping cards show.--Peter Eisenburger 18:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep the AMG's, as there are on nearly all infoboxes for albums[citation needed]. hehe. They are biased at times, but no more then Rolling Stone magazine. I usually frown upon some questionable review sites, but I think it's good to have more then AMG on all pages. There should always be more then one review to keep it vaguely unbiased. Andrzejbanas 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Reviews are supposed to express personal opinions. If they dealt only in facts they'd be utterly pointless. W guice 20:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course reviews are personal opinions. But the point was raised here and on the quoted Talk page by several posters that "AMG has it all" and "they are professional" and music press is "verifiable", "repuntable" while "user" reviews are "inconsistant" and so on.
It is even said, "Amazon stars don't meet our criteria" (maybe Progarchives stars neither), though they may derive from dozens of reviews in some cases, but the one rating in stars from AMG from one reviewer w/o any proven qualifikation does meet criteria. Come on. --Peter Eisenburger 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

other album types not in infobox

It appears to me, by going through the albums that are showing up as peachpuff, that there are a few remaining distinct types unaccounted for by the infobox. These probably deserve their own color due to being conceptually different than the other types (indeed, though they typically use the album infobox, all but one technically aren't albums). They are:

  • Christmas album
  • Mixtape (these are usually rap/hiphop)
  • Music video (usually shows up in infobox as DVD or VHS)
  • Demo/Demo tape (usually recorded by a band to secure a record deal; are typically unreleased)
  • Bootleg

I'll go ahead and add these to the infobox soon pending feedback from others. --Alcuin 22:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


X-mas albums seem like a special case of compilation or studio album to me. Strong agree on music videos. I don't bootlegs and demos belong on WP, generally speaking, except in some special cases; in such case bootlegs can be put under live album or studio album or whatever is appropriate, with possibly a longtype set to "(bootleg)". Demos are just studio albums or EPs. Nota that also many singles use the album infobox Spearhead 22:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
(double edit conflict) The idea is to minimize the amount of types. Personally, I see no difference between a Christmas album and an album. I am not sure if Bootlegs are shown in Wikipedia, I remember at least three Nightwish bootlegs that were sent to AFD because they were non notable. The same could be said about demos. -- ReyBrujo 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Good luck picking colours! - 156.34.223.67 22:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed about bootlegs, I like the idea of putting (bootleg) in the longtype field. Another type I didn't mention above that I've come across is split albums. I guess longtype can be used for those, too. --Alcuin 00:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm repeating myself from further up the page, but I've been suggesting that DJ mix be added as an argument for darkseagreen.
As for videos, I should note that {{Infobox music DVD}} is still kicking around. It has some specialized fields and a different "No cover" image as well. –Unint 02:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I think Music Videos usually are made into a single page arent they? (In other words, it would be the concern of Wikiproject Songs, and {{Infobox single}} would be used) But I think mixtapes, demos and possibly bootlegs should fall under another category eh? The public just doesnt have the same kind of access (bootlegs are just damn near impossible to find in alot of cases, mixtapes and demos are generally not for sale). I would like to see these three under a new category with a new colour. -- Reaper X 02:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Videos, in this context, refer to longform videos, and are almost always either collections of music videos (compilations) or are concert films (live). If it is a single song video, then it should be considered as a single. Mix tapes are compilations. I wouldn't be opposed to a new type for them, but they should show as green. Most Christmas albums should be called cover albums (except for the ones that are mostly original material). I don't think they need an infobox type - explain it in the text. Bootlegs are almost always live recordings. I don't have an opinion at this time about demos. -Freekee 04:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My opinions Christmas album - not necessary, can be either album or compilation; Mixtape is a form of compilation, but you should see Mixtape in the infobox; Music video I'm not sure on, either incorporate it into album infobox or maybe its own would be better; Demo I think should have its own color/type; and bootleg should just be album or live album. Joltman 12:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Live EPs

Where would Live EPs fit, as EP or Live album. Spearhead 22:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends on context, I think in most cases I would use EP --Alcuin 04:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say that the more interesting and pertinent fact is usually that a record is an EP. -Freekee 04:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I always put it as live, seeing as how our project page says "Live albums and live EPs" for burlywood. Joltman 12:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Are there enough Live EP to justify inclusion in the infobox as type? -- ReyBrujo 12:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I just had a thought about this, I'm sure others won't agree, but I'll put it out there anyway. Should there be a type specifically for live EP which is a different shade of brown? It just seems kind of weird for studio EP and studio album to have different colors, but then live EP and live album would be the same (or for the live EP to just have the EP color). Joltman 12:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have an article about Live EP, thus it is not noteworthy enough. I suggest merging it with Album or Live. -- ReyBrujo 12:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox conversions

I recently went through all the articles that link to album (music), found here and replaced any remaining instances of piped links to [album (music)] (there were lots). All except for category and image pages, and those pages that use a non-standard album or song infobox. Thus, if anyone's interested in replacing old album infoboxes with the template infobox, that's a good place to find them. I'll be going through and converting those over time, but I'd certainly welcome help. Cheers, Alcuin 04:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't a bot be setup to do that kind of stuff? Joltman 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'm hoping --Alcuin 13:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Official list of accepted types and how to handle non-standard types

From the discussion about, I thought it was time that we settled this. I think we should have a list of accepted types, and decide how we want to handle modifications of those accepted types. First, the types. I think this is what we should have:

Accepted type Color Link
Album lightsteelblue Album
EP burlywood EP
Live album burlywood Live album
Compilation album darkseagreen Compilation album
Cover album thistle Cover album
Tribute album thistle Tribute album
Soundtrack gainsboro Soundtrack
Film score gainsboro Film score

I think that should be it, only the basics. And for other types, I like the idea of what Spearhead said above, about putting (Bootleg) in the longtype. So we could have stuff like type=Album longtype=(Split) which would appear as Album (Split) in the infobox. The same would be for Compilation album (Greatest hits) and others. Feel free to tell me how right or wrong I am :) Joltman 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, how many Live EP we have? I believe they are not that many to justify its own type. -- ReyBrujo 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the Live EP one. As said somewhere above, the idea is to remove, not add. Show me at least 10-15 albums that are Live EP and we can begin looking for consensus. Adding them without verifying first will make others add their own types without looking for consensus. -- ReyBrujo 15:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, it's not a big deal. I just thought that since it was listed in the project page it was enough to go here. It could just get listed as type=EP and longtype=(Live), that would be fine with me. So, with that out of the way, what are your thoughts on my proposal? Joltman 16:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
A few off the top of my head: Pete Yorn's Live at the Roxy, R.E.M.'s Not Bad for No Tour, Turin Brakes' NapsterLive, Toad the Wet Sprocket's Acoustic Dance Party and Five Live, Ann McCue's Live: Ballad of an Outlaw Woman. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have already suggested that we need to review every album in Category:Non-standard album infoboxes, to see which types are being used, and if some is used a lot, we may consider it as an extra parameter. The same way there is a limited amout of fair use template to tag an image with, we should keep the types with as few as possible. I would like to write a small tool to generate albums (much like the Requests for adminship or Editor Review one, where you specify the RFA or ER page and get a generated page with the template). However, I don't think it can be flexible enough to allow combo selection. I have no problem with adding a type that is often used, but we need to discover them first.
As for the longtype, that parameter was thought to be an "expanded description", not a type complement. In example, it was thought for "Soundtrack to ZZZ movie by Madonna", where Soundtrack is the standard type, to ZZZ movie was the longtype, and Madonna the artist. Now, let's suppose you are right, and Live EP is pretty well used, but we don't know that because we haven't yet surveyed the category. So, we begin tagging these live ep as EP, with longtype optional. When we discover the Live EP is needed, we will have to review all the EP's in order to determine which ones should be categorized anew.
I don't program bots, but I can create one running from my home computer with a delay (which should not even be necessary as my internet connection is pretty slow), to retrieve the export information from every album in that category, and then process it with some magic like perl or grep/sed/awk) to get a list of types. Or it can be done with AWB (I think) but I am not a user myself of that program. -- ReyBrujo 16:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: it would not be technically a bot, as it would not edit, just retrieve the less than 1,000 articles in the category. -- ReyBrujo 16:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the main change here is changing all subtypes of "compilation album" into longtypes. My only concern with that is that it would probably cause the field to overflow to two lines or more for every compilation album with a subtype, since "compilation album" is already the longest string in the table. Example:
Untitled
{{{Name}}} cover
Compilation album (Greatest hits) by Blah
So even before artist name is displayed, the first line is already filled.
One other thing: the current configuration for soundtracks doesn't allow linking to the more specific article film soundtrack. There's also computer and video game music, and there are quite a number of such articles out there as well. Finally, there are cast recordings, but that would probably only deserve a longtype since Category:Cast recordings has exactly three articles right now (not counting any albums merged with their musical's main articles). –Unint 16:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought about the compilation longtype thing, running over too, but is that necesarrily a bad thing to go to a second line? And as for the different soundtracks, couldn't the longtype just be, for example, [[computer and video game music|Video game]] so it would look like Soundtrack (Video game).
For the record, I was just throwing this out there because this is stuff we really need to figure out. I'm not saying what I'm suggesting is the best, I'm just putting it out there as a possiblity. If anyone has different ideas on how to handle them, please let us know. Joltman 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Longtype

What is Longtype? Thank you so much for anyone's kind help! – Alakey2010 12 October 2006, 04:55pm (CDT)

It is a special parameter that is inserted between the album name and the artist name in the infobox description. In example, a type of Soundtrack and an artist of Madonna will show Soundtrack by Madonna in the infobox just below the image. If you add a longtype of for XYZ film, it will show Soundtrack for XYZ film by Madonna. It is optional, and was originally thought for soundtracks only. -- ReyBrujo 22:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox instructions

I just updated/clarified the instructions and guidelines for infoboxes on the project page. Feel free to take a look and make sure everything still makes sense. -Freekee 05:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Outdated template flag.

Is there a tag which can be applied to articles using the old album infobox template? There are several songs from Trey Anastasio's Shine which need tending to. Examples include Shine, Spin, and Air Said to Me. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 23:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That is because people substituted the templates. I am trying to find a way of not allowing substitution (in example, when you use subst:infobox album, it will also add a warning that you should not substitute it. Unluckily, I don't know of any tag (unless a deprecated one, but we can't use it as the templates have been substituted. The only way to fix those is by doing it by hand. -- ReyBrujo 00:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you absolutely sure that a bot will be inappropriate for such a task? Me surmises that it could take a while to manually implement such a change. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I never said that. I meant that, if you find an article with the substituted infobox, you should replace it with an infobox. A bot may get confused as people may have substituted different versions of infoboxes. I guess it would be useful for a bot to check every album and add the ones that do not have a reference to the template into a list. However, I don't know about bots, don't want to begin programming them, and don't know anyone willing to write one. -- ReyBrujo 01:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
As always, thanks for the feedback. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
There does exist a tag, {needsinfoboxconv}. Maybe I should go through and tag all the albums i've found that need conversion. There's a bunch here. Also, most Loverboy, Kool and the Gang, KC and the Sunshine Band and Huey Lewis and the News albums need conversion. I've been slowly going through and converting some. Personally, I find it less tedious to just replace the infobox than to tag the albums. Cheers. --Alcuin 03:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the tag could be used as a flag for a bot who would implement the changes? Just a thought. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 05:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine with me, know anyone who runs a bot? --Alcuin 05:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'll take a look. Rich Farmbrough, 15:38 29 October 2006 (GMT).

Issue with album cover template

I've raised an issue on the album cover template used on images of album covers. The tag is currently in use for many things that aren't music, and I'm wondering whether it'd be better to change the current template to suit all audio covers, or get together a new one for the non-musical stuff. I'd like to get a discussion going and see what people think before requesting an admin to edit the existing template, so please join the discussion here on the template's talk page, and add your thoughts! Rob T Firefly 10:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see why the album cover template should be reserved for musical albums? The template should be able to cover any type of album cover. -Acjelen 20:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
For me, album=33 1/3rpm, 7" or 12" record album, OR digital 5" compact audio disc. What else could it be? --Puzzled in Boston (aka Fantailfan 21:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC))
The template has now been changed by an admin to read "audio recording," rather than "music album." Now it fits all the non-musical albums out there. Thanks for your input! Rob T Firefly 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Some help?

I'm not apart of your WikiProject, but I'm currently working on the Big Shiny Tunes article. I only own two albums in this series, and if anybody has any more info on it that they could share, that would be great. ---SilentRAGE! 03:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm a member now. Just spreadin' awareness of this article. Tell me what you think. ---SilentRAGE! 06:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Category:Needs album infobox conversion

Title says it all, there are a fair few of these, if anyone's looking for sonething useful to do. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52 16 October 2006 (GMT).

I will try to fix some. A pity there is no such category for songs or singles. I will focus on album infoboxes. By the way, I could not yet find a way of making the infobox insert something when you substitute it. -- ReyBrujo 00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • i've edited the group tasks list so that it doesn't say this category is "currently zero" and point to the wrong place. W guice 12:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been putting songs and singles needing conversion there too, as well as entire categories. Hope that doesn't bother anyone. --Alcuin 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have fixed maybe 20 albums yesterday, may work another 10-15 today (not as much free time). I just skip the singles and songs for now. -- ReyBrujo 16:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Extra album cover 2

Is there any chance of adding support for type=single in Template:Extra album cover 2? There is at least one article for a single ("Windowlicker") using the EAC template. --taestell 02:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the default color is the single color. So, as I did in that article, just don't include the type argument and you'll get the right color. Joltman 12:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Albums released under multiple labels?

If an album has been released under multiple labels (as is the case with Astral Projection albums), what should Label in the infobox say? Each of the labels, the first one only or something else?

I put in all labels, separated by newlines, on Another World (Astral Projection album) since the releases differ slightly, and now I'm pondering whether I should do the same on the other Astral Projection album pages. Shurique 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The project page officially says that only the label the album was originall released on should be in the infobox. Joltman 12:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I seem to have missed that. Sorry :) Shurique 08:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Although, if you want a suggestion for how to do it if you're going to list multiple labels, I'd say list them in order of release. ~Gertlex 20:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Additional terms for Advanced Usage

I propose additional terms such as, "Copyright" and "Release #". Copyright comes into play when the release date and record date are not the same as the copyright that is held, and release # is used often by solo artists as well as OST albums for authentication purposes. Anyone else have any others that should be proposed? (By the way, can someone tell me who is able and how they add these to the template? Is it programmed or a simple Wiki edit?) --Notmyhandle 06:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're proposing here. Are you saying the Copyright would be the year of copyright on the album since it may be different than the release date? And would release number be the label's catalog number, or something else?
You are right about both, though catalog number might be a better title.--Notmyhandle 01:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would an album's copyright date be important? -W guice 02:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this is of course an optional term. Second, the copyright date of a product determines when it can be re-released. Third, copyright determines who actually owns the product and when they took claim of it, creating a historical record. In relation to release date and recorded date, copyright can be redundant but should be important to the general public, unless we want to deny or withold information regarding the rights and claims of individuals and organizations. Somewhat unrelated, copyright in terms of "cassette tapes, CDs, LPs, 45 r.p.m. disks, as well as other formats" under U.S. law is referred to as phonorecords, and should be accounted for in the manner as stated by the U.S. government at copyright.gov; we should, if implemented, try and follow this guide where (P) is concerned. --Notmyhandle 07:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow why it's so important to show the copyright date. I think it's important to give the recording date, because that gives the music a historical context for the music itself, and the release date establishes an albums entry into the public's awareness. What would the situation be, where a differing the copyright date was notable? And I don't think catalog number is terribly important, either. -Freekee 14:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
So the real question then is of importance. I feel that they aren't necessary, but complimentary to Wikipedia in allowing more information to be collected in one place. Placing them in the advanced term category allows people to add the information, without being forced to apply it. --Notmyhandle 18:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see any point at all in including the copyright date. To me, that's a formalty of the publishing business. All I care about is when it was recorded and when it was released. But please tell me why *you* find it interesting. Oh, I see where you said, copyright determines who actually owns the product and when they took claim of it, creating a historical record. Hmm. I think if that were intersting or important, it would best belong in the text. Like explaining who owns the Beach Boys catalog, or something like that. -Freekee 02:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Album types

I tried above to figure out how we are going to do this, but nothing came out of it. So, since we are still using the same thing, I wanted to propose Split album as an official type, with lightsteelblue color. There was also talk above about adding Mixtape as darkseagreen.

Additionally, I've been thinking, is Double album really appropriate? I mean, Double album doesn't apply to the album in general, just to one or more specific media that it was released on. For example, if an album was released as a double on vinyl, but a single CD, Double album only applies to the vinyl release, so I don't think it's really appropriate to list it in the infobox.

Anyway, just my thoughts, feel free to say what you think of my proposals or add your own. Joltman 16:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I still think greater differentiation between the various types of compilation albums would be more practical. I do wish I weren't the only one voicing opinions on this, though. –Unint 02:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "Double Album" is necessary. I also think "Live EP" should be a type, since it's important to list EP as the form, and live EPs are supposed to be listed using the live category. And they should probably have a "Compilation EP" type as well. I'd support a "Mixtape" type.
The Split as an type makes sense, since on those records, both artists are shown, but it could be interpreted as a collaboration (both artists performing in the same songs). Unfortunately, that would lock the color. It seems to me that studio, live, or EP are more pertinent informations to determine color by, but I don't think three different types are necessary. So how about adding a longtype kind of field before the type, where you could fill in the word "split"? Would this open the infobox up to too many abuses? -Freekee 14:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It was suggested above, that the Live EP isn't notable enough to have its own type. I don't think that calling it a Live Album seems appropriate, and it seems important to me to call it a live EP in the infobox. In this case, the longtype kind of field before the album category would work to include the word "live" before "EP".
Or (as was suggested above) we can use the longtype field for all these things, by filling in the word in parentheses. Like Live album (EP), compiilation album (mixtape), Original studio album (split), EP (split). -Freekee 15:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I think a prefix longtype field would be useful. --Alcuin 03:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If I want my contributions peer-reviewed...

If I want album pages peer-reviewed by people such as yourselves, where should I post them? Is there somewhere specific, do I just do it going by standard peer-review protocol, or is this the place to do it? By the way - the albums are Somewhere Along the Highway and Oceanic. Seegoon 19:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

All peer reviews are done at the peer review page, but you can direct people to it by posting a note here. –Unint 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Debut. Sophomore.

I am getting increasingly irritated by seeing these words when there are perfectly usable and understandable alternatives - first and second. It seems to me to show a lack of originality - using in-words for the cognoscenti that wouldn't be tolerated in another field. Imagine the Sophomore World War, or Roosevelt's debut administration. Can we leave these words where they belong and not use them as an oh-so-clever bit of jargon? Emeraude 21:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

i think i will be continuing to use "debut" as it is completely appropriate within the context. Personally i don't use "sophomore" because i'm not American and it feels slightly false, but that's obviously more a cultural thing. Fortunately we don't write about political administrations or conflicts at the albums project, and therefore don't have to worry that the terms sound jarring when applied to those things. Originality doesn't come into it - there is a small range of stock ways of including a detail like Album Number that would all ultimately reveal a "lack of originality" if subjected to that level of scrutiny. Fortunately we aren't having a neologism contest but just presenting the information clearly, and i think this goal is served by either way. And how on earth can "debut" be jargon, by any stretch of the imagination? W guice 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Debut" within the context is used as jargon. I confess, it is 'sophomore' that really gets my goat. Emeraude 11:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 9 |
Archive 10
| Archive 11 →


Mistake on RX Bandits page?

I think their might be a mistake on the RX Bandits new Album Page (And the Battle Begun), They are listed as a Punk Rock band, but i'm pretty sure they are a Ska band. They have the trombones + sax sections in their band, which is characteristic of a ska band, also they sortve have a reggae feel, I think they should be listed as Ska. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RyanHLewis (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Un(der)categorised albums

I notice there's quite a few album stubs lacking by-genre and/or by-year categories, whether or not they have other categories (besides the stub cat, obviously). Would this project find it useful to have a list of these uploaded somewhere? Alternatively, I could use the same data to populate "year of release missing" and "genre missing" categories (subcats of Cat:uncategorised albums, perhaps), though that would require some coding, bot approval, and numerous additional edits. There's also the issue of the use of very broad genre categories like "rock", but one step at a time, perhaps... Alai 03:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Most album articles will not have by-genre categories. The project's intention is to have albums-by-artist categories be subcat's of by-genre categories instead of having the album article itself be a page of that category. -Acjelen 18:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Most artists aren't going to have their own categories, realistically, so I'm not at all sure the above is true -- or at any rate, it shouldn't be true, in the long run; it may be true by omission at present. In any case, I could produce the "genre" list on the basis of album articles having neither an "artist" category, nor a (if the artist cats are themselves consistently categorised, that is). My real thrust is: is anyone working on album categorisation, or interested in doing so, and if they are, in what form would the above information be of use? Alai 21:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, all artists are supposed to have their own category. This is the course of action for even artists with only one release. To me it seems entirely sensible to stick with that system and putting by-genre cats in the by-artist cat as per Acjelen and current practice. W guice 08:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll believe it when I see it, to be frank, and certainly to describe it as "current practice" is not in line with facts on the ground. However, this is all by the by: the point is, is anyone the least bit interested in addressing the numerous stubby articles lacking either? Alai 01:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone find it useful to have a list of albums that are missing any of the three recommended categories? I'm sure someone would find that useful. But can it be done automatically somehow? Adding by artist and by year categories is almost as easy as adding a stub tag. I'd rather people just added the cats than added a categorization tag. -Freekee 05:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
But the difference is that a worklist of articles missing these categories can be produced automatically, whereas adding the (real) categories themselves cannot. (Other than in particular cases like articles having the data in an infobox, but lacking the categories, which itself is trickier than what I had in mind.) Which what I'm offering to do, if someone feels they can make use of it. Alai 00:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I totally missed this thread when I posted my message "Bot needed to tag Uncat albums" (see below). If you are talking about tagging the articles for the uncat album cat, then, yes, I'd find it useful.--Fisherjs 10:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It's related, but I was thinking in terms of articles missing some categories, rather than all. Something like Cat:Albums missing year of release, or the equivalent in list form. Alai 10:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Template trouble

I just set up an infobox for a new article, and the Chronology wouldn't show up. It was an artist with only one record, so I left the last and next fields blank, but the chron didn't show. I put an ellipsis in one of the fields and it was fine. Does anyone know why that is, and can it be fixed, or do we always have to put something in the fields? -Freekee 23:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To show the information, either the Next or Previous release must be present I think. You could bypass that by adding "n/a" to the previous chronology link, at least until he/she releases a new record. -- ReyBrujo 23:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I put in an & nbsp. *shrug* Thanks. -Freekee 04:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an intentional behaviour of the template. I don't see a point of displaying the chronology in case of an artist with only one record. Jogers (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah. That's different. -Freekee 16:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Chronology for artist with only one record

What does everybody think about including the chronology box in the infobox, if an artist only has one album? What if they only have one album so far? Should the chronology always be shown? Only shown if the artist has more than one album? Only shown if the artist has only one album and could possibly release another (meaning still living)? -Freekee 16:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I always put it, just so it's clear. doesn't hurt anything and doesn't look awkward. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is only one album released by an artist the chronology serves no useful purpose. I find repeating the information which is already available in the infobox superfluous. Jogers (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean repeating the name and date of the album? I think that showing that there is no previous or following album is useful. That something that may or may not be mentioned int he text of the article. -Freekee 16:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not really our job to anticipate the possibility of follow-up releases by anyone. Takes the burden of proof off our shoulders, which is always good. -Unint 16:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, trying to look too far ahead means you get articles with titles like Tori Amos' 2007 studio album. I try to not encourage anything like that. -Unint 16:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Freekee above that it is good to indicate in the infobox that there is no previous and following album. The capability is there, it allows album articles to have a standard appearance, and every musician or band will have a first album (Little Earthquakes) and a last album (Anodyne (album)), even if it's the same one. -Acjelen 22:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Having no chronology at all can indicate that there is no previous or following album as well. I think that saying that an album is the only one by a particular artist in the body of an article is far more straightforward. Jogers (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of the infobox is to show all the main facts at a glance. Showing that an artist has no other albums by having a nearly blank chronology is very straightforward. But what's the drawback to showing it like that? Too many column inches used? You mentioned superfluousness. The only information in the infobox that is never given elsewhere in the article is the album cover . Just about everthing else is usually given in the text - especially, title, artist, producer. Even genre, length, recorded and label are sometimes given. I don't think we should avoid mentioning items in the text, just because they've been shown in the infobox. -Freekee 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
And the purpose of the chronology is to provide navigation between articles about albums by the same artist. Chronology with only "this album" doesn't serve this purpose. Saying that an album is the only one by a particular artist in the lead section of the article is perfectly enough in my opinion. Am I really the only one who thinks this way? Jogers (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I think you're making sense. Space (album) has no chronology for just that reason. --kingboyk 16:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it makes sense. I just think the other issues make sense too, and accumulate to a greater importance. -Freekee 06:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Point of Information. How does the proposed modifications handle debut recordings — which by their very nature are without preceding entries? Also, if it turns out that the debut is from a "one-hit wonder" what purpose does a succession box serve? Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Information: there wasn't any modification proposed. The only direction was to leave the space blank if there was no previous record, or if the current record was the final one. And to place an ellipsis if there was as of yet no later album. -Freekee 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In answer to the question about the point of including a succession box, I think it all boils down to this: Is the chronology box intended to be an informational aid, or only navigational? This sort of question has been coming up a lot for me lately. -Freekee 01:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Though there's not much of a consensus here, I'm going to call it. Like I said a couple of days ago, it's a question of the chronology being for information or navigation. Since including it when there's only one album doesn't hurt anything, and provides a certain amount of information, I think it should be included. If you prefer, you may view this as maintaining the status quo. I added a sentence to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#chronology, by way of explanation. -Freekee 04:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Using the single or album infobox for a non-radio single

Some bands, particularly indie/punk, release 7" singles without any plan for it to get on the radio. For example, "Cough/Cool" by The Misfits. Would the appropriate infobox for this be the single or album one? Because the single infobox to me seems to be about singles that are released to radio and such, vs a single that is released just as a way to put out a couple of songs. My opinion is that the album infobox is the way to go, but what would it get listed as? An EP would seem closest. Joltman 00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Recorded music pre-dates the overwhelming control radio has on popular music, and Wikipedia needs to be able to reflect this. Perhaps the single infobox needs to be altered to be able to handle all kinds of singles, not just those intended for radio play. -Acjelen 01:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how Infobox Single is radio-play specific. It has fields for release formats, and record charts are generally sales-based. –Unint 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. They have two infoboxes. {{Infobox Single}} for songs that were released as singles, and {{Song infobox}} for non-single album tracks. That's all. -Freekee 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

New
New
Oldy
Oldy

Improved Template:Infobox Album

Well, nothing serious actually, just:

  • Changing cover size from 200x200 to 250x250px. The reason: gaining more of the template's current dimenstions, making covers larger, and thus - clearer, for us, the Wikipedians.
  • Changing the existent and pretty obsolete No Cover Available image: (Image:Nocover.png) to: (Image:Nocover.jpg), designed by me.

Example of that done!

I believe it's a pretty necessary improvement for Wikipedia's album-related articles (mostly the 250px expansion). --Aston 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Image:Nocover.png and don't see any reason to change it. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I see a reason to remove the "No Cover Available" image completely. It adds nothing to the presentation, it isn't consistent with other infoboxes (which don't include an image if, for example in a person infobox, an image of the person isn't entered), and it isn't consistent with other missing entries in the template. If the Artist or Release field is left blank, there isn't text that states "Unavailable", it just doesn't show up. *Sparkhead 16:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The main problem with the new image is that the Wikipedia symbol is copyrighted, and thus cannot be used in a free image (it is like using an existing album cover to create a free image). As for the size change, I have seen people changing the cover size to 250 or 256 pixels in WikiProject Computers and video games. The only problem is that, for someone browsing at 800x600 (which are a good amount of the casual users), that would take almost a third of their visual range. -- ReyBrujo 15:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I do agree about the logo issue and thus released a new Nocover.jpg instead (see image at the left), thank you for bringing it up. Now, regarding to the dimensions, the thing is that the template as for now, includes empty spaces in it surrounding the cover (see: Template:Infobox Album), what, in my humble opinion, seems quite stupid, when the same empty space can be used for good! Anyone thinking 50 unused pixels of empty space (current situation) is better than the same 50 pixels, but well-used? --Aston 18:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the size of the image (200 or 250) I think it should appear full width of the info box – therefore if 200 is preferred reduce the info box width (though I prefer 250 images myself). I feel that indentation of an element – either text or, as in this case, an image – should only be done to convey a meaning, such as displaying a list, quotation or some other subordinate element within the main body of information. If it is of equal staus (as the cover image is with the rest of the info box data) then it ought to be the same width. Indentation just for decorative reasons should be avoided.Ricadus 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that there's a third image floating around:
Image:Noimage.jpg
This one
It seems to be a more general-purpose image applicable for non-album purposes as well (though it certainly resembles a CD); however, it has been used instead of Nocover.png, inappropriately, in some articles. –Unint 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
My issue is a "no cover available" image isn't consistent with leaving other fields in the template blank. There should be no image there at all. *Sparkhead 00:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the old no cover image is perfect the way it is. -- Reaper X 00:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if i like how this "Image Not Available" is titled. It suggests that there is an image, but wikipedia can't find it. I'm okay with the current no-image available, even not all albums on this list are CD's. Andrzejbanas 02:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should discuss the three issues here ("image width", "should there be an image?", and "what image?") seperately... --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Especially the image width, I've uploaded a lot of images knowing the 200px limit, and this change is going to make a lot of awkward-looking pictures... ---badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Keeping external links to a minimum.

Hi. Someone over at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Albums has brought attention to this projects current aim to add large numbers of external links to articles in order to attempt a comprehensive linking to professional reviews.

I'd like to remind you all of WP:NOT's comments on this. "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links", "Wikipedia is not a directory". It has always been the interoperation of WP:NOT in the WP:External Links guideline that external links not used as citations are to be kept to a minimum. Specifically "An article about an album, movie, book, or another creative work may have one or two links to professional reviews of the work."

I'd suggest you rectify this conflict with the policy and guideline on the issue. --Barberio 10:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving song usage lists from Trivia section

Can we (did we?) standardize around a heading for song usage in movies and whatnot? These tend to populate Trivia sections (example1, example2), which are counter-recommended for both WikiProject: Music and Wikipedia in general.

Best alternative I have found so far is Song usage, used in Furious Angels, and nowhere else. Tried a buncha other artists and found nothing — most don't have enough incidents to merit a separate section.

I've not found a standard heading under Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs, or in any of the example articles (tho I did remove a Trivia heading from one).

Any ideas? If not, can we standardize around "Song usage"?

If/when we come to an agreement, this should probably be added to both MUSTARD and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs — edgarde 21:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts: Having a song usage section could act to formalize the inclusion of trivia. Most of this sort of factoid still count as trivia. It would just be named something else. -Freekee 03:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, we could delete this information entirely, but I don't think that's desireable. I think having a Song usage section would discourage Trivia sections, which is kind of my goal. — edgarde 16:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure it should be standarized — the gathering of this information seems to completely depend on chance and the dedication of music fans; it tends to encourage the trivia-minded editors, I think, even if by a different name. On the other hand, "filmic" music like Furious Angels is inherently notable for its use in association with films in the first place (i.e. The Matrix). Of course, if the information is relevant in that sense, incorporation of something discussing song usage — in prose format, rather than lists — would be natural.
I'm digging up some examples for reference, once again:
Interestingly, Play (Moby album), the album that's been called the most licensed of all time, has no "song usage" section at all. –Unint 17:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Should song usage listings just be deleted?

This is going in a different direction than I expected. Should I just delete song usage examples on sight unless they seem worthy of proper ("prose format") discussion? My goal is to eliminate a few more Trivia sections, and on pages with many song usage Trivia entries it becomes awkward to replant.

One reason I figured we should preserve these, even (perhaps especially) in list form, is for people searching for "what was that tune in such-and-such movie?" Perhaps an encyclopedia is not suitable for that usage. — edgarde 19:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's up to you. Personally, as much as I hate trivia, I seldom delete any of it. But back to the root issue, it's a matter of notability. Was the use of the song notable? Was it a high-profile usage and/or in a high-profile movie? And where would be the best place to mention this? The movie article, the song article, the album article or the artist article? I think that list is ordered by descending importance. If the song isn't notable enough to warrant its own article, should it be mentioned at all that the song was used in a particlar movie? -Freekee 05:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Album: Should there be a "no cover" image?

As requested above. Forgetting what the image is, should there even be a "no cover" image? I vote no, as leaving any other field blank doesn't populate it with "Not available" text, I see no reason for the image to be different. Note most other infoboxes don't have default images when one is missing. *Sparkhead 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should include the image - it might prompt people to upload and add it to the page. tiZom(2¢) 16:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree we should include an image, both as per the user above and so that the infobox doesn't look like a deflated beach ball. W guice 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If an image is to be included (which as stated, I disagree with), it should say something to the effect of "please add one if you can find it". Worded a bit more elegantly than that, but more than just "No image available". *Sparkhead 18:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I too agree that we should include the image, for many of the reasons already discussed. -Erik Harris 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh...if we wanna do this properly we need to have this in straw poll format. I shall move the votes of Sparkhead, tiZom, W guice and Erik Harris down here.

Straw poll: Should the "No Cover" image be removed from the {{Infobox Album}} template?

  • Support: I vote remove it, as leaving any other field blank doesn't populate it with "Not available" text, I see no reason for the image to be different. Note most other infoboxes don't have default images when one is missing. *Sparkhead 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think we should include the image - it might prompt people to upload and add it to the page. tiZom(2¢) 16:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree we should include an image, both as per the user above and so that the infobox doesn't look like a deflated beach ball. W guice 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I too agree that we should include the image, for many of the reasons already discussed. -Erik Harris 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As per tiZom's reason. -- Reaper X 20:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The placeholder might motivate people to upload the missing image. Equally as well, the sight of a "deflated beach ball" might motivate someone to upload the missing image. It's my view that in either case, placeholder or no placeholder, an insignificant amount of work would get done; if motivating people to upload missing images is really the issue, then a more coordinated effort is required (e.g. devise a talkpage template and corresponding category for articles missing album art). I find it silly to make decisions about the article namespace, designed for readers, based on how editors might react in the future. (Especially since there is no proof, except for one's personal intuition, that editors would indeed react in this way.) Optional parameters have made this self-referential image obsolete, and as already mentioned most other infoboxes do not resort to this practice. Punctured Bicycle 21:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support removal. I don't recall seeing any other infoboxes on Wikipedia that have "no image" images. And I don't think the template would look bad without an image in it. -Freekee 03:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support removal per Freekee and Punctured Bicycle - or was that Deflated Beach Ball? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose 08:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support removal per Ian Rose. --Fantailfan 13:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: does any other template have an image placeholder? I can't think of one. *Spark* 13:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose if it encourages people to join in that can only be good, is this not what wikipedia is about?? --Ehouk1 22:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Rather than a "No Cover" image, why not just use text requesting an image in the space where the image would go?:
This article about an album
lacks an image of the album's cover.
If you can provide one, please see
How to upload album cover images*
*Link to a page regarding image size, etc.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bot needed to tag Uncat albums

I have been spending a fair amount of time recently trying to keep the Uncat albums to a minimum. It might save time for those that tag articles for this category if we were to run a bot to look at all albums in Album stubs and its subcats and, if no cat is found, tag as an Uncategorised album. Could do the same for any article with an album template on the talk page or an album infobox and, again, no category in the article. Anyhow, this is an idea I had, but I know next to nothing about those that do the bot thing.--Fisherjs 19:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a list of album-stubs that have no (other) categories in the Cat:albums sub-tree. (There's also some that have incomplete categorisation, as I noted in the earlier section.) If you don't mind working from the list, feel free to strike out any articles or sections you've categorised. If it's really necessary to put them into the uncat-cat first, something in the way of bot might be possible, though I'd probably need to work out something to take care of the possibility of false positives were I to do that. Alai 00:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not bad, but it would be a lot better if it were dynamic so that a simple reload of the page would remove the articles that had cats added to them (the way Uncat albums works). Striking through isn't too annoying so I'll work on the list bit by bit. I have been only adding the [[Category:YEAR albums]] because I wasn't sure if I should tag an article with a category like [[Category:ArtistXYZ albums]] if the category doesn't exist already. Maybe there's a discussion of this somewhere in the archives. Anyone recall?--Fisherjs 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Bots ought to get approval from the technical committee (of which I'm a member as well as being a member of this project, natch). Anyway, speaking on a personal basis not as a BAG member: Creating ArtistXYZ albums categories might be good, but you ought to have the bot upload a list of the redlink categories it's created, or better still just create the category! These things can be created generically I think if you're confident that you have correct the artist name (yes, false positives again).
Artist name: FKK My Old Boots
Albums category: Category:FKK My Old Boots albums. Should belong to Category:FKK My Old Boots and Category:Albums by artist
Artist category: Category:FKK My Old Boots. Should have a {{catmore}} template, should contain the eponymous article (FKK My Old Boots), and should belong to Category:Categories named after musicians.
All pretty simple stuff, well easy to do programatically I'd have thought. If you wanted to be really helpful, you could create artists categories for all the xxx albums (by artist) categories which don't have one yet. --kingboyk 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is talking about populating the 'real' categories by bot, and if they are, it sounds like a large can of worms to me. For one thing, it's a free text information retrieval problem, which would be tricky to get even moderately accurate (unless one did so on a very cautious basis (such as extraction only from fixed phrases, or better yet, infoboxes)), and secondly, it assumes there's community consensus for having singleton categories for every marginally- (or dare I say, allegedly-) notable band or artist there exists an album article on, which seems to me to be at best an open question (and not something the BAG alone can make a determination on). Alai 22:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Fisherjs: That's not exactly "automatic" either, since it depends on the editor removing the "uncat" cat, but yes, I know what you mean. I'm not mad-keen to create and populate more 'cat-missing cats' by bot, since while doing it without error-checking (principally, for categories that have been added more recently than the dump information) is likely to be fairly accurate, I'd rather not get the complaints about those few errors, and doing it with error-checking isn't completely trivial, since it requires some integration of the category hierarchy, and the bot code, which currently I handle completely separately. (The release date categories would pretty simple to handle, though, so if I do this at all, I'll start there.) OTOH, if it gets more albums properly categorised, I may look at this in the longer-run. Alai 22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It occurs to me that there's a simpler way to do this, at least as a first step: I can use existing bot code to check for there being any explicit category on the current article text (and use a slightly more restrictive input list from the db query). That should be pretty robust to false positives, and requires no encoding of the category tree. It'll miss some articles which have some categories (including just cleanup cats and the like), but not any album categories, but it's likely to catch most of them. I'm going to file a task approval note on this basis, but if anyone here has any thoughts, please chime in (there, here, or elsewhere). Alai 05:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Filed, anyone that wishes to share their thoughts either way at WP:BRFA please note. Alai 03:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Trial run completed, so there's 50-odd additional articles in Cat:uncategorised albums. Assuming the task gets final approval, I'll complete the album-stubs, and gradually progress to other stub categories on the same basis, if people are in favour. Alai 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I'm in favor of this running on any album stub.--Fisherjs 07:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear it. Of course by definition, the more "sorted" album types are somewhat better "categorised", but obviously still lacking a year-of-release category, are probably undercategorised by genre (the likes of "rock" is not usefully specific), and still aren't in the "permanent" category space. Anyway, if anyone has a contrary (or supporting) position before BRFA wends its way to a conclusion... Alai 11:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've finished the album-stubs (there were only a few left by the time my bot's week's trial was over), and it's currently running on Cat:2000s rock album stubs -- not all of those have even a by-year category, somewhat surprisingly. So there's now getting on for 200 articles in Cat:uncategorised albums. Alai 03:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And now the Cat:1990s rock album stubs. Alai 01:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Catalog numbers?

One of the things that bothers me most when using Wikipedia for music is that relatively few of the entries on individual albums, CDs, singles, etc. contain catalog numbers for the records or CDs -- or alternately, they are either UK-centric or Americocentric (ignoring differences between releases in the two major markets). And they are sometimes incorrect, reflecting currently available versions rather than the originals. I know that it could get crazy because of different numbers and release dates in different countries (US, UK, Canada, Japan, etc.) and different configurations (LP, CD, etc), not to mention reissues and remasterings. But if this is going to be a comprehensive encyclopedia, I feel that this information is essential. (Giving credit where credit is due: The Beatles' discography does a nice job at this.) Cheemo 00:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to imply that the discussion is closed, but it has been discussed previously. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_4#Inclusion_of_catalog_numbers -Freekee 05:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
And while catalog numbers are a separate issue, feel free to improve articles on recordings that are too UK- or US-centric. It is also important that articles touch on both the original form and any later changes, but if one is lacking—add it. -Acjelen 15:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox (chronology and producer) questions

Two questions here:
1. Under any condition is it appropriate to include album covers in the chronology section?
and
2. When listing multiple producers, should each producer be separated by <br /> or with commas?
--NPswimdude500 04:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is not necessary to separate names with a line break, in the infobox. I would advise against album covers in the chronlogy for two reasons. First, there is no reason to have two examples of the same cover in an article. Second, under WP:FAIR there is no reason to have an illustration of an album cover in an article about a different album. -Freekee 05:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps Love Spirals Downwards is a relevant example? Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks good. But I meant what I said, that it wasn't necessary to separate them. :-) Though it appears swimdude took my statement as a rule. I might add that if the list is fairly long, giving them line breaks might be excessive. -Freekee 20:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
For multiple producers (or writers for songs, etc) I do either depending on what comes out 'neater'. If I can fit two on a line easily, I separate with a comma. If not, I use a line break. I see FreeKee's point re. line breaks when there are many producers but following my method you could use a combo of both commas and line breaks to keep it neat (i.e. not split names) w/o going overboard. Admittedly I tend to work on 70s and early 80s albums where a maximum of three producers (often only one) is common. From that time on multiple producers for different tracks has become far more common. BTW, also agree with FreeKee re. the chronology covers. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't necessarily take your statement as a rule, but the example infobox is in that format as are a great deal of existing album infoboxes. In some instances, when there are 10 or more producers (as often is the case with hip hop albums) it looks pretty poor when the producers list is that many lines long. Apparently the producers section is still a gray area. As per the chronology and album covers query: After reviewing WP:FU it seems as if there is no justification for the use of album covers in the chronology section. Additionally, WP:MUSTARD states that album covers should not be used in discographies, for the same Fair Use reasons.--NPswimdude500 01:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'd say to list the people in whatever way looks best and is easy to read. Personally, I'd consider saying "see below" if the list of producers was too long, but I haven't had to do that, so that might not really be that good either. -Freekee 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Professional reviews

Appears to be a difference of opinion as to what to do if a review doesn't include a simple, unambiguous star or number rating for an album. I've seen the words 'Unrated' or 'Not rated', I've seen one-word interpretations of the gist of the review (e.g. 'Favourable'), I've seen short/sharp quotes (e.g. "balances on the precipice of..." no, sorry... "stands at the summit of western pop music" - yes, just been going over Revolver), and I've seen nothing but a link to the review. Be nice to gain consensus on what should be done here. My opinion is that the last-mentioned, i.e. don't put anything but the link, is by far the best. Star or number ratings are convenient but their absence shouldn't require that something else has to go in its place. 'Unrated' or 'Not rated' sounds a bit weak and could even be interpreted as saying 'not worth rating'. 'Favourable' or some other word is the editor's interpretation of the review and is always open to question. Quotes are necessarily going to be selective and look a bit clumsy. However IMO both 'Not rated' and the quotes are better than the 'Favourable'/'Unfavourable' concept. That said, imagine my surpise when I went through WP:ALBUM and found that 'Favourable'/'Unfavourable' appears to be encouraged. Is this old policy which hasn't been swept away in the last clean-out or does the project really believe that such one-word interpretations of a professional review make sense? If I'm right the first time, let's get rid of that bit from the project page straight away and if I'm wrong and it really is policy, I recommend a change there for the reasons above. In any case, like to see some discussion. End of rant... Cheers, Ian Rose 09:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Quotations are too selective. "Favorable" could be considered original research. "Unrated" could be wrongly interpreted. I also think that nothing is by far the best. Also, while on the subject of reviews, I'd like to point out that it was brought up that WP:External links states that only one or two reviews are to be linked. -Freekee 15:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I suppose the Idea would be to have a "critical reception" on the page for each album then instead of a "Professional Reviews" part of the infobox. This will probably make a lot of articles seem more biased or unbiased since like it or not most people who create album pages are biased towards the group and will either add tons of negative reviews or add tons of possitive ones. I really just add any reviews I can find that seem notable (from known websites, newspapers, etc.). I think removing the stars seciont might not be the best thing to do though, but putting in favourable or non-favourable sort of is too large. I remember someone suggesting before to make a template for "+/-" that never really put through for these kind of reviews. Bah! This is turning long. I'm cutting it off here. Andrzejbanas 22:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, on thinking about it again, most links arent' really external links for common sense, but are Citations really. Andrzejbanas 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
A "Critical reception" section in articles would be great. Then links would be citing references, rather than stating someone rated a record so here's a link. Aside from that, prose about reviews is good to have. But nobody's recommending getting rid of the numberical, star or letter grades from the infobox reviews - only summaries for reviews that don't have them. You're irght, though about the bias. For that reason, I would prefer to add as many reviews as we can find. One or two is not a good sampling. Makes me wonder if we should even have reviews in the infobox. -Freekee 05:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, FreeKee, I think those review links in the infobox should stay, whether or not they have star/number ratings or not (see Revolver as of today for an example of how I think it should look, Sgt. Peppers is fine too except we should replace the date on the RS review with 'link' - we don't put dates on the others). Yes, 'Critical reception' is in fact a section on a number of A-rated album articles and I think it's a good idea - that's the place to put some quotes from the reviews, or simply in the body of the article if it isn't big enough to justify a separate section. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
What about professional reviews that don't give stars or other quantitative mark? I know Gramophone reviews classical albums, but doesn't give them stars. -Acjelen 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That's what we're talking about. :-) Or at least what started the whole discussion. -Freekee 06:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Care should be taken to avoid confusing original research with the concept of deductive reasoning. Reviews without metrics — which must still be cited — usually contain language to indicate the affect of the reviewer which may be positive (Image:Positive.png), negative (Image:Negative.png), or indifferent (Image:Indifferent.png). --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 13:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To my personal taste stars or arrows don't suit Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. They look trivial and somehow inappropriate. I second a "Critical reception" chapter. A great idea.--Peter Eisenburger 03:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the reviews issue has been hashed over and settled repeatedly. Personal taste does not rule in Wikipedia; while it would be of great importance in Fantailpedia or Fantailblog, this is a project which is charmingly devoid of personal opinion, original research and intuitive reasoning. The sole criteria for inclusion is source validity. Critical reception is a five-syllable term for reviews. Professional reviews are almost always contemporaneous (I can't believe I spelled that correctly the first time) and therefore are almost always coterminous (which I didn't spell correctly the first time) with the album release. That sentence should be towed out to sea and sunk with gunfire. Reviews written at the time are amazingly narrow-minded and parochial but are nevertheless illluminating. Re-evaluations (such as those occasionally found at Pitchfork and which constitute most of the AMG reviews) are almost always illuminating, if often anachronistic. An unoriginal but nevertheless comprehensive gloss on critical reception should be a part of the article, if you get the time and the album is Notable. --Fantailfan 00:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Releases listed on a record label article? Also, band list necessary when all bands are already mentioned in text?

I was working on the Plan 9 Records page, and removed a section that listed every release by the label in chronological order. It has since been put back, so I wanted to see others' opinions on the matter. Is it appropriate for a label's article to list everything the label has put out? Granted, in this case it was only around 20 releases, it still seems a bit gratuitous. And another thing, the label put out stuff by only four different acts, all of which are referenced in the article. There is then a 'Bands who were on Plan 9 Records' section that lists all of those artists again. Should that list be there?Joltman 00:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Both lists seem like a good idea to me. If a release list gets too long it can still be split off... As for the bands list, if people just want to know what bands are/were on a label, such a list is probably the easiest/quickest way to get that information. After all, we also have discographies in artist articles, even when all their records are mentioned in a history section. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Some collectors target certain labels (e.g. Vertigo, Blue Note, Stiff, Factory) rather than particular bands, so in these cases finding a way to show a comprehensive list of titles including useful info like catalog numbers would be a helpful resource. Ricadus 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Uncat Albums

Uncategorised albums is getting close to 40 - might want to give it some attention. Aelfthrytha 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stubs?

Lately, I've been placing or removing stub tags on album articles, according to the following criteria: infobox, track listing, personnel and at least a sentence of text. What do you think about that? Are all of those required, and do you think a more substantial amount of text should be required? -Freekee 04:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems a little light to me. I'd tend to think that if an article were to remain as brief as that long-term, and was regarded as being essentially as complete as it was ever likely to get, it'd be a candidate for being merged into a "List of" articles (at least where there's several such for the same artist). But if people are happy with "finished" album articles being as short as that, this might be an exception to the general rule. Alai 05:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
When I think of a non-stub, I think of something along the lines of say This Time Around or Pink Moon. I think the amount of text on Appalachia Waltz is a minimum for a non-stub tag. Obviously few album articles will reach the length and quality of articles like Illmatic, but if a stub tag encourages improvement and expansion, it would be better to keep it there. -Acjelen 06:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
On the other side of the coin: ideally if an article is of more-than-stub-length (and isn't horribly in need of attention otherwise), but doesn't have all of the above, it'd be moved from the stub category into some more specialised cleanup category. (Infobox missing, release date missing, etc.) Alai 06:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Freekee's criteria seems good to me... They match pretty much what I suggested earlier when we discussed Wikipedia 1.0 Assessments. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Judging by what I see here, Budgie's Bandolier isn't a stub any more. I was wondering what more this minor piece of rock history needed. The whole music project isn't very well signposted. Perhaps we could have a sample entry showing the minimum requirements. Incidentally, Windows Media Player collects album covers, but I've no idea where it stores them on my computer. Any ideas? Patrick Neylan 23:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

EPs

Should an EP count as a seperate album or not? It's made from previously released songs, so I think it should not count. It bumps an artist's album count up to six, when they've really only released five and several other discs* with already released music.

  • One of which is currently being counted as a full-length studio album.JimmmyThePiep 15:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't this depend on the EP? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, we generally count an EP as an EP. What's the artist? What 'album count' anyway? W guice 15:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Some were originally released as mini-albums in their own right, e.g. the UK version of The Beatles "Magical Mystery Tour" that was subsequently bulked out with other tracks and re-released as an album later. I think the original EPs from the late 1950s were 7 inch vinyls but played at 33&1/3rd rpm, but by the 1980s the term was applied to 45 rpm disks containing more than one track per side, including 10 and 12 inchers, especially when the material was never on any albums (e.g. Kraftwerk's "Tour De France" from 1983 being one such).Ricadus 16:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Ricadus. In the late 70s and early 80s many Australian bands released EPs or mini-albums which counted as stand-alone works (Models, The Birthday Party and The Laughing Clowns to name just three). I think the situation was similar at that time in the UK. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we as WP editors should take a position of judging a full-length album or EP as "counting" or "not counting" just because it contains previously released material or someone thinks the band or musician didn't "really" release it. The triumph of the long-playing album of new material is over so we might as well adapt to it, especially since the new situation is very close to the early decades of recorded music (allowing for changes of media and scale). -Acjelen 21:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Separate from what? They're official releases by the band. Albums get articles, singles usually get articles. Why wouldn't EPs? Basically, they have the same notability requirements as albums. If they're compilations, they usually don't deserve articles. If they're original recordings, they do. -Freekee 04:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Auto-cat albums by changing template

If we add [[Category:{{{artist}}]] to the Inforbox Album template, all those articles will bew categorised. Is this a good idea? Rich Farmbrough, 11:45 17 November 2006 (GMT).

The problem is that an artist field in most infoboxes links to an article about the artist. And besides, there is no way to actually create a category automatically, as far as I know. Jogers (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary, since all albums are supposed to be categorized under albums by artist already. Albums should be in that category and not the general artist category. -Freekee 06:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You also have piping issues. -Freekee 06:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability

There is a notability album guideline which would get rid of 90% of the articles covered by this wikiproject - Wikipedia:Notability_(albums) - I suspect people may be interested. Secretlondon 16:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is only proposed guideline so far, I encourage WikiProject members to discuss the matter. I also think the estimation of "90% of the articles" is inaccurate. -- Reaper X 19:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The inclusion points are 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 19:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Please take your comments to the Notability (albums) talk page, not here. -- Reaper X 19:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should discuss it here. We're the album project. Maybe we should write our own policy and present it for possible inclusion. -Freekee 03:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think most any albums that have been featured in review in a few large and notable music sources should be on this site. Andrzejbanas 13:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Proper way to note tracks that are soundbytes?

I was cleaning up The Devil's Rejects soundtrack and it has a bunch of soundbytes from the movie. Is there a proper way to note them as such? Should anything be listed as the 'artist' for these? Joltman 12:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I had (have) a somewhat similar issue with Have a Nice Decade, the difference being that these soundbites are (a) part of the track at the end and (b) refer (however obliquely) to the next track on the CD. I decided to use inline referencing, with smaller typesize and italics:
  1. James Taylor (1970): "Fire and Rain" (Taylor) – 3:54 Sound clip: Interview with a member of the Lakota nation during the Wounded Knee Incident
  2. The Raiders (1971): "Indian Reservation (The Lament of the Cherokee Reservation Indian)" (John D. Loudermilk) – 3:27Sound clip: Description of the "Jesus People" of southern California
  3. Ocean (1971): "Put Your Hand in the Hand" (Gene MacLellan) – 2:57
My solution was, as you can see, to descrbe the clip (with links as they referred to historical or cultural events) in the cut in which they appeared. I could have done it somewhat differently:
  1. James Taylor (1970): "Fire and Rain" (Taylor) – 3:54
However, as only 25 songs out of 160 have clips, I didn't like the visual effect.
On the other hand, if they are tracks of their own and appear between each track, I would use a variation on the second list:
  1. James Taylor (1970): "Fire and Rain" (Taylor) – 3:54
  2. Sound clip: Interview with a member of the Lakota nation during the Wounded Knee Incident

--Fantailfan 12:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

External LInks

I saw your list of review sites. It has many possible review sites, which is great. But, I am seeing these added as external links rather than citations. As a member of the spam fighting wikiproject I am seeing alot of link farming. Would it be possible for you guys to emphasize properly citing your reviews. (As sources no less).

  • Also I noticed a few odd links on your list of review sites. They are
    • Buy.com : has no reviews, but does have a "professional reviews" link on the left side of album pages – it contains brief excerpts from reviews from magazines like Mojo and NME, which do not have searchable online databases, and also includes the date and page of the review. --- Something with the name of the site is striking me as an advert, and not a potential source of information. If a page can only link there, we might as well doubt its notability.
    • iq451.com : has no reviews but has clickable links to many reviews, some of which are professional --- It does not even have any reviews. Thus it is not a good source.

It would be very nice if more emphasis on using citations was made, rather then bare external links which only encourage linkfarming. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. if you want to see how much spam we are really getting please check out #wikipedia-spam on the freenode network. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding citations... that sounds like a good idea. Instead of link, in the review section, it should simply be a reference, by way of citing the source. Actual links should only be given for a couple of reviews, as someone reminded us above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freekee (talk • contribs)
What are these example of these couple of links that should be given? I'm curious. JoeSmack Talk 08:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking. To clarify/expand my statement, the list of review summaries in the infobox should use ref tags instead of direct links to the reviews. There's really no reason to link readers to the reviews, except to enable fact checking. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a starting point for information about things, it's meant to be the source of information. Direct links should be given in the External links section, and we should be careful to make sure they're good ones. And there's really no need to be redundant between External Links and References. -Freekee 09:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Eagle, I think it's clear that both buy.com and iq451.com (as well as metacritic.com) are not sources of reviews to be linked, but review finders. Those sites would not be linked/referenced in the articles, but the sites they link to would be (assuming they meet other criteria). -Freekee 04:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "No Cover" Image

The straw poll above came even basically (5/4 support), but I'd like to make another comment:

No other infobox has a placeholder image. Not (any heavily used) one. Though if anyone can find even one other instance I'd like to see it.

The only argument I saw for keeping it was to encourage a user to upload an image. Available covers on other album pages will accomplish that. It serves no purpose.

What makes the album template unique in this regard? For consistency's sake with other templates, the placeholder image should be removed. Not looking for another straw poll, but an actual argument beyond the "encourage upload" one. Thanks. *Spark* 03:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, what other reasons are there besides conformity to other templates? A user new to Wikipedia might not recognize a "deflated beach ball" and know that you can help out by uploading an image for an album. Neither will the placeholder that we currently have. Some may be fooled by the "No cover available" statement. My suggestion would be adding a footnote below the placeholder explaining this.
It really burns my ass that this conversation is still going on. Its a waste of time deliberating over this in my eyes. We need to focus on reducing the amount of album articles with these placeholders or something. Why not modify the template so infoboxes with blank cover fields are automatically added to a category like "Album infoboxes needing covers" or something? That way some users can just go through it and upload the images.
But besides that, my opinion is just conservatism. Why mess with it if it's not hurting anything? I don't see how it's creating such a fuss over whether we have it or not. Even if we deleted it, there's someone in the future that will bring it up and suggest we have one. It's just a bunch of dancing around the bush. -- Reaper X 03:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Another reason beside conformity is that it looks bad as is. I don't get this "deflated beach ball" comment, it looks fine without a picture. Be that as it may, the conversation can take place while other activity is going on. I have a change ready to go for the template, see talk over there. I also created a new category Category:Albums without cover art. The template is protected now (that's what I get for transcluding the doc) so I cannot make the change myself. But I've tested it in my user space and it works fine. *Spark* 13:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need a category for that. The File links list on Image:Nocover.png already lists all articles that use the image. If someone wants to upload missing covers, they can work from that list. --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That's an unorganized list. Why not make it easy as possible for those looking to help out? *Spark* 15:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I checked out the what links here page for Nocover.png and there are no album pages there as of this post. Is my disbelief justified? Is there seriously no album infoboxes lacking a cover, or is there some kind of strange error? -- Reaper X 19:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
That's just the list of links to the image's description page. The list of articles that use the image is at the bottom of the description page: Image:Nocover.png#filelinks. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah geez I'm an idiot. Well, in that case, I wouldn't see a problem with working from there. A category wouldnt do much else than alphabeticize the list, theres no need to take up more space. -- Reaper X 19:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Any idea why image resources work differently in that respect? If their "what links here" worked like other pages such lists could be worked with far more easily. Is there a way to extract *only* that list from the description page? *Spark* 23:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

After looking through the list, I have to say I changed my mind and now think that a category might not be such a bad idea after all, since so many articles using the image are in fact song articles, and not album articles. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

To do list

-Freekee 03:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Needs album infobox has well over 200, but there seems to be a bug in the counting of large categories. Maybe we should move all these numbers up to the To do list at the top of this page, however?--Fisherjs 12:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That's 891 articles. It seems to be counting only the number of articles on that page, and not in the category altogether.
I thought about putting those numbers on the to-do list, but I wasn't sure anyone reads that on a regular basis. I wanted to get some attention. I wish there was a way to add the category coutns automatically. -Freekee 04:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about track listing

I'm trying to conform the page for The Sweet Escape to standards. One of the writers for the song "The Sweet Escape" is Aliaune Damala Bouga Time Puru Nacka Lu Lu Lu Badara Akon Thiam, commonly referred to as Akon. Should I really include his full name; it would probably take up a whole line by itself. — ShadowHalo 01:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If Akon is common enough, that should be good enough. For decades, composers were listed on records only by their last name, so a single name ought to do it. Besides, you could just link to the article (Akon), and then it will be clear. :-) -Freekee 05:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

More on uncategorisation

I forgot to mention that I bot-populated the Cat:uncategorised albums with the Cat:hip hop album stubs lacking any non-stub categories; next, I can do the Cat:Heavy metal album stubs and the Cat:Electronic album stubs. I also notice that there's a lot of song-stubs lacking permcats; if the album-catters are interested in working on those too, I can set up and populate an Cat:uncategorised songs maintenance cat (I've mentioned this at the Songs wikiproject already). Alai 14:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd think since the weather (in the northern hemisphere, at least) is getting worse, more people would be here, and giving opinions. I wonder why it's so slow around here. Anyway.. .it sounds decent to me. -Freekee 04:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Beats me, but any such category that people are emptying, I'm glad to refill. Talking of which, I've 'botted somewhat over a listings page of the HM&electronic albums into the above. Hopefully there will be another db dump soonish, and I should be able to get more recent data on albums-missing-cats. I notice there's quite a lot of "uncategorised stubs" in the music area in general, instead of "songs", I could just create an Cat:uncategorised music stubs (or Cat:uncategorised music articles, more generally still) cleanup cat... Alai 17:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Adding stubs from all the genre-album-stub categories is definitely a good idea. The song and music sound like a good idea. Try posting about it over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. -Freekee 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I do plan on adding them all, just gradually, lest 'supply' get too far ahead of 'demand'. Didn't get any takers at WPJ-Songs, have now mentioned it at -Music. Alai 21:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible page format

I won't go into the details, but I ran across 30 Something and designed a table to list the albums of a band in a Discography article with basic information given for each album (Title, Release Date, Chart Rank, Tracks). This allows the capture and organization of basic information about albums that aren't important enough to have articles of their own; those that warrant articles can have the album title on the Discography article link to the album article. Have a look at User:Nicer1/Sandbox; note the links for A World Without Dave and I Blame the Government. The table is presented in two different formats; be sure to scroll to the end of the first table to see the organization of the second. There are additional comments about this on the 30 Something Talk page.

I'm not familiar with this project and don't really want to get too involved; this was my attempt to find an improvement to a pretty paltry article. I do notice that one issue here may be that there isn't really a place for an album cover image in the table. I wonder, though, if it's necessary to have such an image for an album that doesn't warrant its own article; the images could be placed in the separate article. The same idea would apply to the Infobox—for use only on album-specific article pages; only basic album info would appear in the table on the Discography page.

Alternatively, a thumbnail of the album cover could be placed under the album title in the first column of the first table example; a smaller thumbnail could be added to the second column of the second table example. I've illustrated both using Image:Noimage.jpg

Thoughts?—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Discographies aren't supposed to have album covers (fair-use, and all that), but if there is no album article, the article that does discuss the album maybe could have the image. 2) I like whichever table that has less deadspace - the second one, I think. 3) I don't care for the use of categories in discographies - only in album articles. 4) In any case, since it's not complete, I think the categories should be removed from your sandbox, so readers don't follow the links to your page. 5) I don't think it's right to link to words in song titles. If the song is a cover version, feel free to link to the original song, and maybe put a link in that article.
Did you plan on maing this a stand-alone article, or including it in the band's article? -Freekee 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1) Don't know if there's a way to include enough commentary in the discography table to justify using the images or not; it would be a good thing to do, I think. 2) I like the second table version as as well. 3) The track lists were copied and pasted from the existing articles about the albums (which are basically just track lists). I didn't link back to those articles in the draft to illustrate how a link to an expanded article would work. I'd like to see all the other "track list" articles deleted in favor of a single article with this table. You can find those links at Carter USM). The categories were included in those articles, so got copied and pasted as well. 4)I've added the leading colon to the links so as to make them a link to the category page rather than having the page included in the category. 5)I would tend to agree about not having words linked in the song titles; however, if there isn't to be an article about the album, it would make understanding the song title easier (I had never heard of Domestos, for example). Again, I just copied and pasted what was there.
What I had in mind was that the Carter USM Discography section heading would be a link to a separate article that looked like this draft. Including it in the band's article gets a bit unwieldy, in my opinion, but it's WikiProject Albums' to do with as they please. Or do nothing with as they please.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
My first impression is that both designs look pretty ugly – kind of clunky looking – is there any way they can be made more elegant? Do the table cells need to be a solid black line – or even visible?
Cover images could be very small, 60 or 100 pixels perhaps – users can click on them to see the image at a larger size if they want.
I think separating the chart info, cover picture and record label info is better – otherwise how would you clearly and concisely display multiples, such as US/UK/German/French/etc entries in the charts (as will happen with major artists). The first table also makes better use of the screen width.
This design assumes readers are interested in an overview based on album releases, yet some musicians simply record stuff pretty much continuously and pick and choose what gets released on albums, sometimes not at all according to the dates of recording. There was an interesting Miles Davis discography design in one of the Columbia box set releases that listed all the tracks chronologically (according to recording sessions, rather than commercial release packages) and used thumbnails of album covers as icons to show which albums the fruit of the recording sessions ended up on. Some sessions had 3 or 4 of these thumbnails, so they were a useful device rather than just a decoration. Ricadus 20:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ricardus had a good point about using up the horizontal space. How about three columns? One for image, one for track listing (including authors and times), and one for all other text (see the album infobox for the list of important info)? A suggestion about how to use this is for it to be a stand-alone discography article. The band's article should include a link to it along with a list of studio albums (just so people don't have to go to far to get the most basic info). If this discography is the main source of info about the albums, it will be fine to include the artwork. -Freekee 00:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a much better format available on the Eminem discography article. I was unaware of its existence until User:Punctured Bicycle clarified the retention of the Carter USM albums here. As I said on that page, I will bow out of the discussion; those with more knowlege about what should be presented can decide how to present it. Thanks.—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Needs album infobox conversion

It may be possible to create a bot to automatically do the infobox conversions for us. Could someone please enlighten me as to what needs to be done? Thank you. (Radiant) 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the articles in that category are Wikitables (and also happen to be songs, not albums). So there doesn't appear to be an easy conversion. I just paste in the table formatting and drag the values from the table to the template. -Freekee 02:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There would be an easy conversion if the order is always the same? (Radiant) 09:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to verify that the order is the same in each case? Or would an automatic conversion just quietly "go wrong" in such cases? Alai 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I converted all of the ones for U2 songs, and they all seemed to be the same (except where there were extra chronologies). Also, if they converted wrong, it would probably be obvious. The main thing is that there are different infoboxes and tables for songs than albums. I don't see many albums on the list, though. -Freekee 04:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I just went through the list and converted the three remaining albums manually. Now only songs are left, and I'm currently writing some regex to convert them with the AWB... I think it'll be better to do this semi-automatic/assisted than to have a bot blindly go through them, in case something gets messed up. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That was my thought. Basically if it's possible to write a regex to do this automatically, it should be possible to do it in AWB, with a human in the loop. Alai 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cat:Uncategorised albums

Back up to just over one listings page. (Don't blame me, blame my bot!) Alai 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you gone through all the stubs? If so, I'm wondering if you can do something similar for those articles that don't have album stubs but do have Album Infoboxes.--Fisherjs 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The category is starting to get up there again in number of articles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.133.221.27 (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Category:Albums without cover art

Hey, do you think that it's worth changing that caegory to Album articles without cover art? It looks like it's talking about the albums themselves. -Freekee 05:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pedantic git, aren't you? To be honest, I agree (I'm a pedantic git too). ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose 07:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Fellow pedants, technically it's Album Infoboxes without cover art. *Spark* 12:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
While you're correct, in that the category is populated by instances of infoboxes without images, an article missing an infobox and an image could be added to the category by direct use of the category tag. -Pedantic Git #1 03:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Style guide for track listing

I haven't found style guide for track listing. How should I format it? Geevee (talk|contribs) 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at this? Jogers (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, how stupid am I. Thank you! Geevee (talk|contribs) 20:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When tracks are sets

This problem is applicable really only to some genres — I've noticed it with Celtic music albums. It's "specialty" nature may be why it isn't addressed in the style guide. Said problem arises when several (short) tunes are rolled up into a single set. The set is given a title as a whole and, being only one set, is only one track. Several examples of this appear on Cherish the Ladies' album, The Girls Won't Leave the Boys Alone. Track 5, for example, is made up of three tunes: "Mullin's Fancy," "The Raveled Hank of Yarn," and "Gilbert Clancy's." Yet the tunes make up a single track, called "The Raveled Hank of Yarn Set." The same thing happens for track 9 ("The Colliers' Set") and track 13 ("The Last Night's Fun Set"). Is there a policy for such cases?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 16:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I brought this up a while ago. For reference, the answers I got: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 7#Track listing display issues. Probably worth drafting up some guidelines for the main project page, but nobody's ever gotten around to it. –Unint 17:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Translations

I have noticed that many artists popular with Spanish speaking music fans (Celia Cruz, Marc Anthony, Tito Puente, etc.) have discography deficiencies. Have you ever made a broad task of translating info from Spanish wikipedia? TonyTheTiger 15:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry

Should List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums tag? TonyTheTiger 15:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, I say "sure, why not?" On the other, I say that not all of those recordings are albums. -Freekee 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Subgenre?

Can we put subgenre(s) of the album? I have made some example. See Get Rich or Die Tryin'. Could we carry this on? Marhadiasa 12.25 10 December UTC

Do you mean another field or just listing multiple genres in the existing field? --*Spark* 13:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
He set it up with Hip hop as the genre, with East coast and Hardcore indented underneath, showing them as subgenres. I wouldn't split up the field. I think there are more advantages to showing the subgenres, than disadvantages. Though in this case, I'd probably leave out the first line and go directly to the subgenres, since it's pretty obvious that East coast hip hop is hip hop. Showing the subgenres would eliminate some edit wars over genres, but it runs the risk of people putting in every last genre that might apply to a band. There are other ways to show it than indenting, as well. You could just list them (vertically or with commas), or you could put the subgenres in parentheses. I woulnd't recommend standardizing on one way. -Freekee 16:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Methinks listing the genre as the only entry is best; for the subgenre[s], use the appropriate category tag[s]. Infoboxes are intended to be as concise as possible; cluttering them with information about subgenres could be quite counterproductive. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 18:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
How about separating them with commas? -- ReyBrujo 18:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Genre wars and the distinguishing of genres and styles that relates to this.
It would involve distinguishing genres and styles, a "style" being a subgenre in this case. As part of the proposal, i asked that {{Infobox musical artist}} be modified so it also has a Style(s) field. Perhaps the same can be done for {{Infobox album}}.
I would appreciate feedback on this proposal. I am going to push hard for this proposal to be put into action, and I appreciate any supporters in helping me do so. Thank you. -- Reaper X 01:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Image naming conventions

Hi, I just joined this project.

I would like to know the naming conventions (if any have been established [I haven't found any]) for images of album covers? Normally, this does not pose a problem, as I use this template: Image:Title of Album (Artist Name album), following Wikipedia's suggested convention. However, I am now at a road block because I want to include alternative album covers in some pages I will be creating/editing, and there is no convention for alternative covers.

Here are two naming conventions which make the most sense to me:

Notice the capitalization of "Alternative" in the first, but not the second example. Also notice I use alternative not alternate.


Any comments or other suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twas Now (talk • contribs) 01:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Personally I prefer small image names, just for how it looks while editing. I don't know that the naming conventions apply to image uploads. I see no reason to not simply append a number to the original name. --*Spark* 01:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do you feel it's important to have standardized naming? -Freekee 05:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that as long as you give a title that's clear, and preferably uses whole words, it's good. I know I failed that practice myself in the past. (I haven't uploaded an image in ages) I don't see any reason to spend effort standardizing image names. ~Gertlex 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thunder and Lightning

I think the Thin Lizzy album Thunder and Lightning should be moved to Thunder and Lightning (album) and a disambig page should be put in its place as already there are 4 other things linked away from it including the Book, Tag Team, and Comic, not mention the physical phenomena itself. Anyway, i was hopping i could leave it with you guys to sort out and do as its your area an all. --- Paulley

  • I wasn't sure whether the album should be moved or not, so I just made a disambig page and linked it at the top, replacing the multiple links with just one. Joltman 13:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, looks good to me. Thanxs -- Paulley

Article list

A few projects have started article lists which, when finished, will allow members to keep up with recent changes to their articles through using a recent changes program. I am in the process of beginning such a list for this project. Please inform me if you would find such an effort either a duplicate of current efforts or otherwise pointless. Thank you. Badbilltucker 20:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Something like a filtered watchlist? -Freekee 15:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Should EP articles that need to be disamgiuated use (album) or (EP)?

When an EP's title needs to be disambiguated, should the article title be Title (album) or Title (EP)? Joltman 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there are instances of an artist releasing an album and an EP under the same title (Magical Mystery Tour is almost an example), I think Title (EP) would be the best disambig for EP's. — edgarde 13:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Upcoming albums

Hey all, I was going through this category just now with WP:AWB in order to check if all articles were tagged for the Project when I can along to a couple of band pages in the category, such as U2 and Maroon 5. Before I did anything either way, is this a correct category that artists should be a part of? Am I missing something? -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The cat is for albums only. I hope there's not a category for bands with upcoming albums. And U2 doesn't even have an "upcoming album," as far as I can tell. -Freekee 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for a new rating category

I would like to request a new rating be created to allow categories to be rated as a category like the one that is currently used by WikiProject Songs. Artist Specific Categories don't really fit in any other ratings. Thank you. Rainer1 06:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There already is a "NA" (non-article) category for the assessments. Maybe that one would be the one you're looking for. Badbilltucker 16:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Query

I have a question and I figure this is the best place to get it answered. My question involves the credits section in the album Things Fall Apart. (Things Fall Apart (album)#Credits) Is that too long? Should the technical credits be removed so that only the performance credits are left? KOS | talk 15:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is what I usually do; pair up people that do the same thing. ie.:
  • Steven Stevenson, John Johnson - violins
  • Ellen Elly, Michael Mitch, Patty Patrick - engineers
Instead of:
  • Steven Stevenson - violins
  • John Johnson - violins
  • Michael Mitch - engineer
  • Patty Patrick - engineer
  • Ellen Elly - engineer
I ran into the same problem in one or two Grateful Dead albums that were remastered. I hope this helps. Cheers! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it looks fine. Ron's suggestion works too. Definitely leave the technical credits in. You could change it to two columns (I forget how to do that, offhand). One question, though. Why is The Roots listed as "primary artist? What does that mean? Doesn't The Roots have members? Shouldn't they be listed? -Freekee 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The band listed as the "Primary artist" is possibly to avoid confusion. From what I gather, the artists mentioned by name – D'Angelo, Erykah Badu, et al – are part of a musical collective known as soulquarians. The Roots also has members who are part of the collective. I hope that helps. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Um... not really. If... never mind. -Freekee 04:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Extra album Covers

Is it possible to show more than two album cover images in the infobox?Justin Foote 18:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. See The Dark Side of the Moon for example. Jogers (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
They ought to learn the difference between ‘alternate’ and ‘alternative’ though! Ricadus 02:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Uncategorized albums

It is starting to fill up with 70 or so articles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.131.124.22 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Extra chronology won’t appear

I have just added an extra chronology to The Pearl (album) but only the chronology that comes last will appear. Could someone take a look and see what my mistake is? Justin Foote 23:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The album template only supports one "Misc" field. So if you use two Extra Chronoloy templates, they both must be in the same "Misc" field. I did this to fix it. However, since you only have two chronologies, you'd be better off using the standard template's chronolgy fields, and adding only one Extra chronology. -Freekee 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nocover.jpg

Image:Nocover.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 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nocover.jpg

Image:Nocover.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 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nocover.jpg

Image:Nocover.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 (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nocover.jpg

Image:Nocover.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 (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 10 |
Archive 11
| Archive 12 →


Album covers and fair use

With fair use cleanup going on in other areas. It is time to look at album Covers. The problem is that so many articles do not include comment on the album cover art makeing any fair use claim somewhat weak. For example I tend to feel that it would be very hard to make a decent fair use claim on Image:21737.jpg as the Live: P-Funk Earth Tour includes no discussion of the cover art. By comparison I feel the use of Image:Beatles - Abbey Road.jpg in Abbey Road (album) is pretty safe. Some form of cleanup is needed idealy involveing adding comentry on cover art to album articles.Geni 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In that only article, though, as most of the fair use claims of the image can be considered unnecessary (illustrating an album, in example). What do you think about replacing covers with home made images of the album cover, the media, and the booklet? If the focus of the image is the full set instead of the cover, I think it is possible to release it under a free license, just like Image:Encyclopaedia Britannica 15 with 2002.jpg. -- ReyBrujo 15:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The covers are used to illustrate the albums, and that's perfectly fine. There's no need to specifically discuss the artwork in order to have the cover in an album article (that's what the template says). Jimbo recently said that fair use covers of albums in article about albums are absolutely okay: "The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example." --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
ReyBrujo it is imposible to make unfree material unfree.Geni 17:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Fritz Saalfeld Useing album covers to illustrate albums is somewhat questionable as a fair use claim. Remember jimbo is not a lawyer. The ocvers are fine as long as the article talks about the cover art. If the article does not it is going to be hard to come up with a fair use justification.Geni 17:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Album covers are widely used to illustrate albums, not just on Wikipedia. Our use is perfectly within both the fair use law and Wikipedia's fair use criteria. I really don't see a problem here. --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please provide evidence for you claims.Geni 17:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
He did—read the fair use law and Wikipedia criteria. Using an album cover to illustrate the corresponding album article is compliant with both. Where do you get the idea that one must comment on the cover art itself? Punctured Bicycle 18:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair use claims require some justification either based on case law or on the principles of the law. In this case the first problem is the use. Normaly we mess around with the criticism and comment area but in this case that does not apply.Geni 18:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Punctured Bicycle 18:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair use is based on USe. My contention is that unless the article inludes some comments about the cover art any fair use case is unlikey to get very far.Geni 19:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Your contention is unfounded unless you can point to some criteria of fair use law or Wikipedia policy that is violated when album art is used in a corresponding album article without commenting on the art itself. From the angle of the four points of U.S. fair use law, an album cover is (1) used for nonprofit educational purposes to identify the subject, (2) the copyrighted work is the only sensible way to represent the subject, and album covers are widely used in this way by various organizations outside the record company, (3) the album cover is low-resolution, (4) use here does not affect the potential market or value of the copyrighted work. From the angle of Wikipedia policy, (1) free equivalents are impossible, (2) the image does substitute for buying the product, (3) because it is of low resolution, (4) it was published previously, (5) it meets our content requirements (6) and media-specific policy requirements, (7) it is used in at least one article, (8) it contributes significantly to the article, (9) it is used in the main article namespace, and (10) proper attribution and tags are given. Perhaps you are thinking of "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)" within the FU guidelines. But the critical commentary is the album article itself. That is to ensure that covers aren't being used for purely decorative purposes, such when someone includes 10 covers in a band article without discussing any of the respective albums. Punctured Bicycle 20:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You missed the bit before the the criteria. What is the use? How does that qualify? Until you establish that anything else is a waste of time. Still to continue with your other points 1) We don't like to rely on that one. 2) Isn't the only way to represent the subject. You can also use the title. We have no idea what agreements other uses have reach with the RIAA so speculation about their use is pointless. 3)fails. Most publishers also produce low res versions. 4)the most obious market we are competeing with is the market for online galleries of album cover images. And yes that market does exist. Aside from that there are various encyclopedias of music which we are directly competeing with.
So to wikipedia policy. 1)eh mostly true. 2)Problem is the product in this case is the image not the music. Album cover art is seperate from the music. 8)is clearly fase if you can't even write a couple of sentaces about it. You final point again makes the error of not seperateing the image from the music.Geni 21:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The use, like I said, is in the album article corresponding to the image. Image:Neu albumcover.jpg, for example, corresponds to Neu! (album). Obviously there are illegitimate uses of album images but for the sake of argument we're assuming that the use is legitimate. In response to your responses: 1) Who's "we"? The courts? Of course they rely on it in determining whether something is fair use. 2) True, we could represent an album using only the title. We could also represent Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima using only the title, but the article would be seriously harmed because of it. You are essentially arguing that fair use images should be abolished from Wikipedia, as any of them can be replaced by text. 3) What are you talking about? All we need to do is make our image reasonably smaller than the real thing, such that there is less "used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." 4) Those various encyclopedias of music don't own the rights to the images; they use them under fair use just like us. If they are profiting specifically from the images without some agreement to the copyright holder, as in the case of those image galleries you speak of, they are doing so illegally. I have never heard of a record company setting up such a deal with an online gallery.
Wikipedia policy: 1) It's very strange that you agree on this point but argue above that album images can be replaced by the title, which you consider equivalent. 2) Yes the image is separate from the music but the markets are exactly the same. When someone buys music, they are also buying original packaging. 8) Album covers directly represent albums. So, while an image of an album cover doesn't show the jewel case, show the disc, or "show" the music, we pretend it does; it represents the album as a whole, not merely the art itself. For all intents and purposes it is the album, and we write articles about albums--more than a couple of sentences. Punctured Bicycle 22:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

de indent

I see no reason to assume the3 use is legitimate. Untill you have shown it is legit then none of the other arguments are work the elections used to store them. But so to the ohter point 1)we is the wikipedia community since we stopped accepting "non comcercial use only" images only images some time ago. 2)That would be strawman since the article on that photo includes comments on the photo it is pretty safe under fair use. 3)The problem is with your defintion of the real thing. Record companies also publish low res versions of the album covers. 4)Please provide evidence of your claims we know the RIAA took action against one image gallery site[39].
To continue onto the wikipedia policy elements. 1)They are not equiverlent if the article talks about the artwork on the album cover. 2)The markets are not the same. I can buy music without looking at album covers and I seem to recall some album covers turning up in poster forms on student's bedroom walls. 8)The album cover artwork is not the album in either the de facto or de jure sense. Indeed I the UK it is posible to have albums on which the copyright on the music has expired but the copyright of the art on the album cover has not.Geni 23:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm done trying to argue against this confused, unedited interpretation of policy. Anyone else is free to try. The fact of the matter is, album art is considered a model case of fair use within album articles, with or without commentary on the art itself. You have not yet established why we are required to have commentary on the art itself in order for the use to be fair. Punctured Bicycle 23:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You are makeing the fair use claim you have to back it up. So far you have completely failed to do so.Geni 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If I am failing in doing so, then I will continue to fail happily, along with all the other Wikipedians who find no problem with album covers and fair use. If you want to change well-accepted practice, then you better start giving reasons more substantial than "jimbo is not a lawyer". Punctured Bicycle 00:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I did. Which ones would you like clarfied?Geni 01:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
What about using an album cover in a band article? Where the cover is used to show the artist? -Freekee 16:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Such a us is not covered by the album fair use tag and should be avoided. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Come back to us when our fair use policy is based in law, and then it'll be worth arguing out. As it stands, we have no problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I work with big publishing corporations and my experience is that it is commonly accepted in publishing that an image of a cover, or an extract of writing, may be used to supplement an article or review so long as it constitues only a small part of the overall piece. After all, why would an author or band object to having their work promoted? The problem comes when images of their work are the main element, such as in a coffee table book of record covers, in which case they can justifiably claim that they ought to be paid for use of the images since they are the reason the item exists at all. The situation is different for portrait photos, where copyright will have been specifically reserved by the owner/photographer for the purpose of future income, and is probably one reason why people are using album covers to illustrate band line-ups and other things in general articles. Ricadus 20:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Album covers currently has this at the top of the page: "Please remember that according to Wikipedia fair use policy every fair use image must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.. Images that have purely decorative purpose may be deleted."(bolding emphasis in the original) Thought this might be relevant to the present conversation. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 02:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

When images I had uploaded were removed, I starting using the following, ludicrously written verbiage--
Reduced-size Facsimile digitized representation of cover art of long-playing recording album <name_of_album> of music created by <<musician> initially released in the United States of America in <year>. All rights owned by copyright holder(s) of said artwork, reproduced for Wikipedia under fair use provisions of United States copyright law.
Since I am not a laywer (just married to one) this is probably legally invalid. Fantailfan 18:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
more like meaningless. It is an assertion made without putting forward an argument to back it up.Geni 00:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
What are you expecting to accomplish here, Geni? This is the talk page for WikiProject Albums, which has little to do with Fair Use. Until there is a consensus, expressed in policy, that it is not fair use to include an image of an album cover without specifically discussing the cover itself, then no "cleanup" can take place. Consensus regarding fair use can only reasonably be established at a place like WP:FU; so far, no such consensus has emerged. Punctured Bicycle 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
the memebers of the project are one of the main uploaders of album covers thus it is likely in your interests to understand our fair use policy and fix the current situation. At the present time I feel that the ideal solution would be the attidtion of commentary on album covers to the relivant articles. WikiProject Albums would appear to be the best place group to do this.Geni 14:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that there is rarely discussion of the cover art itself in the article is, in itself, insufficient reason for removing the image from the article. The assertion that, "the image [is] not the music. Album cover art is seperate [sic] from the music" is correct. However, this is not WikiProject:Music, it is WikiProject:Albums. Within the scope of this Project, representation of album cover art is inseparable from the album itself. If use of degraded images within the project is not inherently fair-use within the scope of the project, the entire project should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fantailfan (talk • contribs) 15:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
Sorry. Fantailfan 16:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I have stated that at this time I do not belive deletion to be the ideal course of action. I fail to see any reason why the members of this project cannot write about album covers. Of course it is posible that they can't but in the meantime I feel that the best course is to encorage people to write about ablum covers while at the same time finding out how extensive the problem is. This is the purpose behind Template:No commentary on cover picture.Geni 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see any reason why members of this project should do anything until there is consensus that this is a problem to begin with. There is no consensus here that this is a problem, and no consensus at Wikipedia talk:Fair use that this is a problem. You admitted at WP:FU that you have no case law to show that this is a problem; the problem you see is based on your personal interpretation of the law. On the other hand, Postdlf, who seems to be a lawyer, doesn't see it as a problem, our benevolent dictator Jimbo Wales doesn't see it as a problem, and several others including myself don't see it as a problem. Why should we attempt to fix something when there is no consensus that anything is broken? That said, I find the idea of going around and slapping some template on each page completely ridiculous. Punctured Bicycle 20:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Consensus over "fair use" images at this point? No I think not. As for my being unable to produce any case law it would appear that we are level in this area since you have also failed to do so. Why are you so worried about attention be brought to this issue.Geni 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think that there really isn't anything notable to say about many album covers, and asking/forcing editors to write something about them seems like asking someone to add uninteresting, unimportant information to articles. --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
So you take the position that many album covers are not significant?Geni 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
As a subject, yes, I think most album covers are not significant, but we use them to illustrate audio recordings, and that they do pretty well (while meeting WP:FUC that is, so I really don't see what your problem with them is). --Fritz S. (Talk) 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
No that would mean that by defintion your use fails FUC 8 (and likely 5). You see idenitifcation can be done by the title of the article. The album cover is not needed to do that.Geni 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So, Geni, you have created Template:No commentary on cover picture and a new user, Genidealingwithalbumcovers (talk · contribs) to start dealing with this even though there has been no evidence that anything is being misused both here and at the talk page at WP:FU? This seems like you are stepping into the realm of WP:POINT here ... my $0.02. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 20:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see your logic. Could you clarify?Geni 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you want me to clarify? I was just stating a fact and then an opinion. No logic behind it. Cheers! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 03:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
an opinion without logic behind it has no value.Geni 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, you should change the wording if you are going to be using that template a lot so that it says that articles don't have to mention the album cover to use due to policy, just someones opinion that it would be a nice thing to do. This way, people won't think they are breaking policy by using the album art on the page without mentioning it. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 03:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't add that wording.Geni 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, then there is probably going to be a problem due to scaring the newbies. Also, there will then be no problem with removing your template from talk pages either, since there is nothing in policy that says album covers have to be mentioned in the album articles. Just to play safe, I will bring this argument up at WP:FU because the wording seems faulty. You know you can not just address album covers, but also have to defend why your theory is valid against video game covers, movie posters, DVD covers, book jackets, ect, right? -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 18:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You remove them I put them back what do you hope to atchive by that?. In any case per WP:OWN they are not my templates. The templates are meant to inform newbies rather than bite them. Copyright is an extreamly complex area so it is not fair to expect people to understand it from the first (seen our upload page untill recently? If they survived that I don't think the template will be a problem).Geni 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've not yet cycled through the above text and related issues. But straight away this strikes me as an argument such as "There is no critical commentary on Syd Barrett's face. Nowhere is his appearance discussed. Let's delete all images of Syd Barrett." Album covers are as important recognising features to an Album, as a photo is of a person. You don't have to write a commentary on Kurt Cobain's face to be able to use a fair use photograph of him, just as we don't need to comment on Blue Monday (New Order song)'s iconic cover art in order to use it on Wikipedia. Seriously, for the Wikiproject guys, please just carry on as you were before. And for Geni, how about a Template:No commentary on person's face and User:Genidealingwithfaces? - hahnchen 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Geni would argue that discussion is required for fair use provisions. His/her presence here is unhelpful, at best. Since I have a day job, I will not suggest that her/his presence in this Project is disruptive and uncollegial and take appropriate WikiAction (I'm not an admin, etc.). Someone who cannot spell (or trouble to use spell check), uses sock puppets and incites what is a diverse and usually friendly group into argument over the usage of copyrighted images is charitably speaking a provoker and at worst a troll. Fantailfan 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
My use of sock pupets is in keeping with WP:SOCK. As for the rest of your alligations WP:RFC is that way.Geni 17:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
No one would argue against the adage of a picture being worth a thousand words. What would take an extra paragraph of text can be solved with music and picture samples. If these images and their captions assist the reader in understanding the topic, then Jesus Christ, let's stop hiding in bunkers and breaking cold sweats about copyright protection. Just add a healthy fair use rationale and exercise constitutional rights. --Zeality 02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to launch a music wiki, where articles without the sleeves will be considered "naked"

I've argued in favour of fair use of album covers in articles here many times (and lost a Featured List nomination over it) but, despite what I think is a good legal and moral case backed up by the near universality of this practice across the web and the printed media, we may have to accept that Wikipedia culture is to an extent against "us". There's a fair few people here who'd rather not use any content which isn't "free".

Indeed, it was once suggested to me that if I felt this way about fair use of album covers I should start my own wiki. At the time that seemed laughable. However, I think popular music is a topic which needs a little freedom to breathe, freedom which a general purpose encyclopedia can't provide: slightly lower notability requirements, some scope for editorial opinion, a community focussed on music, and so on, not to mention special features in the wiki software to suit the topic. So, I'm currently working on starting such a wiki, and illustrating articles and discographies will be the norm there. The wiki will of course feed off Wikipedia to start with and send material back to it, and we'll work alongside Wikipedia rather than against it. We will though be using images where it's legally and morally fair to the full extent allowed by applicable law!

I have some special features in mind which I don't want to say too much about yet, and they'll require some programming. I also have configuration and infrastructure to take care of. If however any folks want to get started before that infrastructure is in place, or help me out, I could put a Mediawiki up. At the very least I think we'd need a script to import music-related articles from Wikipedia before even thinking about going public, even if other features can wait.

Assuming I don't get deluged with inquiries and offers of help I'll be posting to the music WikiProjects when I have some news and also inviting a few folks to become admins. Work is underway, but I have some ambitious ideas here (which I don't want to detail just yet, cos somebody will pinch them :)) and am quite a plodder. --kingboyk 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Heck, I'm a plodder, too, with 896 albums in my collection. Onward the B student! Fantailfan 00:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It may be the case those who desire more breathing room when it comes to fair use content should start their own wiki. But the same is true for those who want to suffocate fair use content altogether. If you want a completely free encyclopedia devoid of fair use images, you are free to start your own wiki. The English Wikipedia has deemed fair use acceptable so that freeness does not undermine comprehensibility. I believe that removing the main album cover from the relevant album article undermines comprehensibility; album covers are an essential aspect of popular recorded music even if commonly one cannot find much to say about the cover itself. I agree with you that we are legally and morally justified in using album cover images, and the widespread practice of this supports us even more.
A long time ago there was an Albums sister project, like Wikiquote or Wikibooks, but it failed because it did not have a clear mission statement and could not distinguish itself from Wikipedia album articles. Hopefully your special features will distinguish it sufficiently. Good luck. Punctured Bicycle 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Where to get album cover images

Apologies if this is already mentioned somewhere, but where are the album cover images supposed to come from? Are you supposed to scan them yourself, or what? Eric Mushroom Wilson 17:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

By claiming Fair use, you can obtain it from web, or make them yourself. In any case, you must use the {{albumcover}} license. If you download it from the web, I suggest adding a link to the page containing the image, and a direct link to the image itself. If you download it from Amazon, add an {{amazonimages}} tag. Remember to add a fair use rationale in the image page. Finally, note that album covers may be deleted in the future, according to the discussion above this talk. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 17:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
You could also check out the All Music Guide, thats where I snatch all mine from. They are the perfect size; small enough to be considered low-resolution, but big enough that they dont pixelate in the {{Infobox Album}} template. Still remember your tags and fair use rationale as ReyBrujo said. -- Reaper X 17:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I have also found large images (which I reduce in size) at rateyourmusic.com which, despite my earlier disdain for them, useful as a third source of album info other than allmusic and amazon. Also, despite my refusal to market there, walmart.com has large-size pix as well. Keep in mind they should be reduced in size to conform to fair usage and used only in the album cited. --Fantailfan 01:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course to be really fair to the musicians and other copyright holders you could consider actually buying the albums yourself and scanning the covers – thereby ultimately contributing a royalty to these people - rather than just lazily thieving the images from someone else's website. ;-) Ricadus 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Idea for album infobox

Would be really good to have a field for awards that the album has won, e.g. best album of 2006, or other music awards. When this applies (which is only obviously to some albums) it's probably more important than the professional reviews as it puts the album beyond good, and actually as the best, or one of the best, from a particular year, or catergory. Brendanfox 00:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It depends on what level of awards are considered... Sure there's the nationally known stuff, but there are hundreds of lesser awards that can be won. These sorts of awards should be discussed in the album text, and the album should be included in a category for "albums winning this award," if such categories exist. ~Gertlex 01:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Illmatic FAR

Illmatic has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Trying to avoid an edit war over individiual Capitol Steps albums

A user has recently flagged six album articles, one which has existed for a while and five more that I created this morning with the most basic information, claiming non-notability and lack of references. I did not flag the articles as stubs, though I suppose I should have done. I've started with track listings and an infobox. I have many of the CDs myself, so I could also add cover art. Other production information, such as songs parodied and performers are included within the individual CDs, thus being verifiable. Topics of the songs could also be added, as in Tom Lehrer's That Was the Year That Was What is NOT available are sales-figures, as the albums are self-published and largely self-distributed. What I guess I don't understand is why single out a political parody group known throughout the United States (though admittedly not outside the US, as much of the humor is based on specific incidents in US politics), and not flag, say, Lehrer's albums, or P. D. Q. Bach albums, and so on. --JohnDBuell 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Four of these articles have been tagged as comedy album stubs. Two of them I have "filled out" with lists of parodied songs and other credits, and the album cover images. I'd still like another opinion on the above, though I gather from the Notability guideline for music that album inclusion (probably much like middle school/elementary school/grammar school inclusion) is currently a hotly debated topic. I've also added comments about the troupe's notability on their talk page, at Talk:Capitol Steps#Notable or not? --JohnDBuell 20:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouildn't say album notability is hotly contested. It's more like, some people complain, but nobody ever tries to gain a consensus. I'd love to see album notability guidelines fleshed out and agreed upon. I think the way most (but not all) people feel about it is that any original album by a notable group deserves an article. Also, I think the majority (of seasoned editors) believe that compilation albums do not. That's probably the most widely violated "consensus opinion."
As for as your articles... in my personal opinion, Capitol Steps is definitely notable. I'm not sure we need to have articles on all of their albums, though. But that's just me. And I would certainly not complain if someone did create them all. There are more important battles to fight around here. Even regarding album notability. -Freekee 03:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Here, here. Although I empathise with the concerns laid out here, this issue is hardly worth expending energy on, IMHO. (Of course, I might feel different if I had a dog in this fight.) In any event, methinks 'tis of greater import to conserve one's vigour for more salient matters. Good luck. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 15:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I can understand someone wanting to say "Try to keep albums to the largest sellers or the award winners and nominees" but that's so subjective, especially for a group that never or rarely had a best seller or an award. Take for instance Aerosmith, who never had a big hit single until the late 1990s, or Weird Al, who finally got his big hit single off of his current record. In another example, it would be VERY easy to justify album writeups of the four P. D. Q. Bach recordings that won four Comedy Record Grammy Awards in a row, but what about the rest of the discography? Another point to be made about political humor, which I probably should have made sooner, is that being so topical, they are doubled-edged swords: either no one will remember what they're about, or they can wind up being used to educate those who didn't live in that era, about the issues of that period, provided you can see through any bias, be it in song, story, or cartoon (animated or drawn). The trouble is, getting back to this specific example, that there have been no award-nominated albums (or award-winning ones) - certainly none that I could find with some quick Internet searches, and as mentioned before, there are NO published sales figures. There are certainly no lack of reviews, however.... One thing I attempted to suggest, and got rebuffed on, was that I myself would have no objection of merging the six existing articles and any future details into a list article, but I still see no harm in having articles as a starting place and giving them room to expand (rather than attempting to cut them off shortly after creation). Anyway, sorry for the rambling, but I was hoping to make some points clear. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. --JohnDBuell 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
If there's agreement, would someone ELSE be willing to remove the tags so I'm not accused of edit-warring? Thanks and thanks again for taking the time to register your thoughts here. --JohnDBuell 02:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't really have much to worry about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Field for album format in the infobox

Forgive me if this has already been discussed; I went through the talk page archives using my browser's find feature and didn't find anything quite like it, but I could have been mistaken. I brought this up previously on the infobox's talk page and a user suggested I bring it here. I think a field in the album infobox reserved for the format(s) (e.g., cassette, compact disc, DVD-audio, etc.) that the album was released in would be a good addition. Sam 03:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, and I'm sure there would be plenty of Wikipediholics willing to dedicate weeks of their lives to updating existing album infoboxes. Albums are often released in multiple formats, such as
  • vinyl / 8-track (60's-70's) [?]
  • vinyl / cassette (70's-80's)
  • cassette / CD (80's-90's)
  • CD/vinyl (current trend, especially among independent artists)
I may be jumping the gun, but if this goes through, it might be good to have two fields – one for "Original release format(s)", the other for "Subsequent release format(s)".
Twas Now 01:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that was sarcasm, but yes, I would be willing to update pages. ;)
I wasn't thinking along those lines, but that's a good idea to consider. I pictured it more like "Vinyl (1979), CD (1991)", and so on. Sam 02:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It might get a little unwieldy depending on the album. Especially with different releases by different labels. I could see, for instance, an album release that was originally on LP and cassette in the 70s or 80s, re-released once on CD by another label in the 1990s, and re-released again by a third label in the 2000s in a remastered version.... --JohnDBuell 02:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
How often is release information known and available? -Freekee 05:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That may depend on the collector and possibly how forthcoming the labels would be. Dark Side of the Moon would be a good example of multiple releases. The example I was thinking of earlier was the direct-to-audio drama Doctor Who and the Pescatons, originally released by Decca in 1976 (I don't own the LP or cassette, but the original copyright is on the notes of both subsequent CD releases), 1991 CD release by Silva Screen Records, and 2005 CD re-release by BBC Audio (with ISBN). --JohnDBuell 13:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Put a table in the main body of the article, towards the bottom, rather than adding more clutter to the info box. Some albums get released in the various formats at different times (i.e. years) in different territories, so there will be potential for getting into a mess, especially for any bands that have a huge fan-base of pedantic obsessives who will want to list everything. If put into a separate table you can include other specific info such as release dates for various territories and original catalog numbers, such as the example in the Ralf_und_Florian article, an album that was only widely released after the international success of a later album. The formats/release dates info in the table also illustrates the emerging international prominence of the band over a two-year period. Ricadus 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, bear in mind that some recordings have been issued multiple times on the same format, especially CD: sometimes with different tracks, sometimes remastered or remixed, sometimes just a slightly different pressing. This level of metadata isn't necessarily well presented in an encyclopedia article nor in plain text. Also remember, we're writing for a general readership here. --kingboyk 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

'&' or 'and' ?

Black Sun Empire released an album/LP called Cruel & Unusual in 2005. In a case like this where the title of the album has the '&' symbol should the article be created at Cruel and Unusual or Cruel & Unusual? --OriginalJunglist 16:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read a guideline about the ampersand in titles. However, you should provide alternatives. Personally, following the advice at the naming policy (which, by the way, may be a good place to ask), I would provide alternatives: create the article at Cruel and Unusual (album), create a redirect from Cruel & Unusual, and an inline disambiguation link at Cruel and Unusual. Note that many, many, many anonymous will copy the contents from Cruel and Unusual (album) to Cruel & Unusual, so if you follow this approach, you will have to keep both articles in your watchlist to prevent splitting the history. -- ReyBrujo 16:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, there is a !!! article, so you may just create it at Cruel & Unusual to prevent all that "battle" with anonymous. It may not be worth the trouble. -- ReyBrujo 16:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I would say it should be spelled the same as it appears on the album. Besides, it is a good disambiguator. I would suggest moving Cruel And Unusual (album) to Cruel & Unusual. Then set up a new redirect page at Cruel and Unusual (album), because the old page was miscapitalized. Maybe put a For the album, see... at the Cruel and Unusual page. -Freekee 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that Cruel and Unusual (album) is considered a "unfeasible typo". While a user may type "Cruel And Unusual" and another "Cruel and Unusual", no user will type "Cruel and Unusual (album)", nor he will type "Cruel and Unusual (Black Sun Empire album)". So, while converting the existing article in a redirect is fine, there is no need for creating a disambiguation link for the "and" version, as it is not likely to happen. -- ReyBrujo 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Seeing how as the name of the album is "Cruel 7 Unusual", I would say to use that. $wingin' Utter$ has the "$" in the wikipedia : $wingin' Utter$, so I'd say to put it in. Violask81976 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
What? Image:BlackSunEmpire-Cruel&Unusual.jpg -Freekee 17:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

DVDs?

In the process of categorizing albums, when we come upon singles and Dvds, should they be put in with the artist's albums? For example: the Feelin' So Good (DVD) release by J.lo, should that be put in under [Category:Jennifer Lopez albums]? I'd say yes. Violask81976 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

DVDs I've come across lately have all been classified under artist's album categories. Bubba hotep 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't. Category:Jennifer Lopez videos, maybe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freekee (talk • contribs) 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

EPs, etc in Infobox chronologies

How strong of a guideline is the recommendation on excluding EPs and compilations (WP:ALBUM#Chronology) in Infobox chronologies? The current documentation says "only studio albums, usually excluding". I can see situations where certain EPs would be appropriate to include, but mostly they unnecessarily clutter a lot of chronologies. I imagine that removing them has the potential to start edit wars (given the passionate nature of fans), so I was wondering if a more detailed consensus has been reached previously on what "usually excluding" entails... --Fru1tbat 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I always include them because I see the chronology as a handy navigation aid through the whole discography without referring back to the band article. This has a lot to do with the genres that I specialise in – mainly punk and metal, the former tending to release a lot of EPs. However, there aren't that many EPs out there, so I don't see that they would clutter the chrono that much. Bubba hotep 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I overstated the clutter, but when I'm jumping along a band's discography, I do find it fairly inconvenient to have to go through the EPs (which I don't care much about, generally) to get to the major works (which is what I'm generally looking for), and I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that most users would want/expect the same behavior (i.e. for the main chronology to link major works, not to be comprehensive). TMBG, for example, uses extra chronologies for every type of album (see They Might Be Giants (album)), and uses the main chronology as a comprehensive path (which is a nice compromise), but it makes sense there because TMBG has so many releases of each type. For bands with a more limited catalogue, it seems like it should be sufficient to leave the minor works to the main article or something... --Fru1tbat 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it would have to be done on a case by case basis. Like the idea of using the extra chronology though. Bubba hotep 08:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
agree with Bubba. In many cases eps, lives and comps are repacking and cash-in by the label. In some they are vital to the discography of an artist's career. Fantailfan 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't like to see the "extra" albums in there. Live albums are okay, if they're significant releases. Greatest hits, generally not. I like the TMBG solution. As for EPs... it depends on the record. Some EPs are more like extended singles, and some are more like short albums. I would say if the EP is all original songs, include it in the chronology. If it leads off with songs from a full album, don't (and maybe include it in the singles chronology). -Freekee 17:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Good call. I was thinking of EPs from the punk genre point of view where they are almost always mini-albums with tracks not found on any other albums (or if they are, they are re-recordings). They are generally not singles in the traditional sense. Bubba hotep 19:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Album stubs category

In case anyone's wondering where all the entries in Category:Album stubs have gone – for the last couple of days I have really been hitting these and putting them in the proper sub-stub categories (and adding album tags and other categories, and maybe a bit of wikifying along the way). Progress thus far:

  • A to Z – complete
    • A to K – 02/01/07 (UK date format)
    • L to Q – 03/01/07
    • R to S and U to W – 04/01/07
    • T – 05/01/07 (with help from User:Alex valavanis at the end)

Hopefully will have the rest done soon, then I can go back and work on them properly. By the way, I have done this without the aid of a bot or any semi-automated process – just a lot of finger-work! Bubba hotep 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed they were vanishing. When you're done, wanna help me add infoboxes?--Fisherjs 16:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly. :) Bubba hotep 17:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

All done. Bubba hotep 11:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's about 800 albums in this cat now (>L). Any idea how many were in there in the first place? Bubba hotep 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
No clue how many there were. But it raises a question I've been having: Is there any way to figure out the size of a cat w/o paging through and counting by 200s (certainly wouldn't want to do it that way for Category:Albums without cover art)? Seems like Category:Wikipedia backlog has a tracker bot though I don't know if it can be applied to any cat.--Fisherjs 08:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You're not the only one to wonder the same thing. It crossed my mind (more than once) when I was stub-sorting. There were 177 per page for some reason. I will do some investigation. Bubba hotep 09:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I use AutoWikiBrowser to make a list of articles from a category. It takes only few seconds this way. Category:Albums without cover art contains 3426 pages at the moment. Jogers (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think of that! Only just got AWB. Haven't used it yet... Bubba hotep 09:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you are doing a great job here! Jogers (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Who, me? Shucks, it's a hobby-job really. I created 190+ album articles before I joined up and it's a good place to be. You lot on here aren't doing such a bad job either. Fisherjs is probably glad for the help though! By the way, Category: Needs album infobox is at 716 according to AWB. We will have those cracked by mid-week, I reckon. Bubba hotep 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant both of you, you and Fisherjs. May I make a suggestion about adding infoboxes? I've just moved the "longtype" field to the advanced usage section in the album infobox documentation. It's rarely used so what's the point of adding it everywhere? Jogers (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It's added everywhere because it is part of the template which comes up on Category: Needs album infobox, where I presume we copy and paste it from. I personally wouldn't care if it was dispatched with completely. Messes up the formatting of the box sometimes. Bubba hotep 13:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the longtype from that page as well now. Used it maybe twice in the last few days and nearly had an edit war with someone who insisted on using "Type = promo" so I added "promo" in longtype as a compromise! Bubba hotep 13:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
If it is useful to monitor a cat you could consider User:Dragons_flight/Category_tracker Rich Farmbrough, 19:58 17 January 2007 (GMT).

Spoken word

Is there a need for a Spoken word album stub and/or category? I've come across some (not many) in my travels in the last few days. Bubba hotep 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you name a few for us? -Freekee 17:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Certainly. I stub sorted Talk Is Cheap Vol III and Talk Is Cheap Vol IV – two of many from Henry Rollins' spoken word discography. There were a few interview discs I came across as well. Bubba hotep 19:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Strictly speaking, those records can be covered by the studio or live types, as appropriate. Comedy albums are done the same way. The current categories are studio, live, comp, EP, tribute and soundtrack. All of them (except EP) are for albums that don't always fit in any other categories. I think spoken word albums can always go in one of the existing ones. -Freekee 06:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
According to information at the All Music Guide website (AMG), there is a subgenre of comedy albums known as Spoken Comedy. This is quite different from the Spoken Word category. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
There are also interview discs and cassettes, but I really hope we never get to the point where people start writing articles about those.
More seriously, how about The Conet Project? –Unint 20:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should say about interview discs. I must have seen at least 3,000 albums in the last few days and I have come across some of these. Not only did I not know how to stub them (I stubbed them {{YYYYs-album}} in the end), I did not know whether to hit the {{db}} button! So yes, I would say people have started writing about them. As for The Conet Project... erm, strange at least, scary at most! :) Bubba hotep 20:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-standard album infoboxes categorization

Strange... Category:Non-standard album infoboxes doesn't serve its purpose anymore for almost two months (since this edit) and nobody noticed this or have I missed something? Jogers (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I think I visited it in December or so, and thought you had done a great work there :-) Adding it back. -- ReyBrujo 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Done, the articles are being refreshed. This will make the server work some. I will add a note after dinner about not removing it from there. -- ReyBrujo 01:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, methinks that category has quite some life left in it. As it stands, I am concerned with Optic Nerve (CD-ROM) being considered a studio album. (Come to think of it, I doubt if it qualifies as an audio CD; I will have to look into that...)
As much as I am loathe to introduce further bureaucracy, this project would be better served by more accurate descriptions. Proposals of new categories are welcome. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 18:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree - I've been hammering away at these today and there are many situations where the exiting types are not adequate. I've been trying to use the Longtype field, but even this isn't an ideal solution. Even if there was just an "other" type available, it would be useful. Alex valavanis 19:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The Optic Nerve CD-ROM fails to qualify as an audio recording; while there are a few music videos on the disc, none of the tracks will play on a audio CD player. For that reason, I question the "Studio Album" classification... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 20:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Based on an offsite description of the aforementioned recording and information gleaned from the All Music Guide website (AMG), I propose the creation of a "Spoken word" category.
Strictly speaking, this recording is a documentary; however, the information provided by AMG considers documentaries to be a subset of "Spoken word" recordings — even though there is music included on the "Optic Nerve" CD-ROM. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Albums without cover art

Anyone know why this category is no longer populated with all the articles where Cover is missing in the infobox?--Fisherjs 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was about to ask ReyBrujo why he removed it from the infobox code without any comment. Jogers (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think it should be Album articles without cover art :-) -Freekee 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Jogers (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I remember the days when vinyl singles came in a paper bag with a hole cut in it so you could see the label... horrible, savage, uncivilised days. :( Bubba hotep 14:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
So, we agree with this name change? Remember that everytime we change something, the server needs to update over 30k articles. -- ReyBrujo 17:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds rather grave. Perhaps you could post this reminder somewhere so you avoid sounding like a "broken record"? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 17:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Not a massive problem. I changed a temp recently (12k memebers), and the job queue was 50k. Looked a little while later and it was 0. Rich Farmbrough, 20:02 17 January 2007 (GMT).

Chronology formatting

Copied from Template talk:Infobox Album for further discussion

Don't know whether this has ever been asked, but is it possible to code-in the formatting in the infobox (italics for "last" and "next", bold italics for "this") so that these fields can be entered sans-wiki-formatting? It might mean the year would need another field, but I don't see a problem with it having the same style as the album name. Just a thought. Bubba HoTep 15:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is done this way on Polish Wikipedia. I like the idea. However, the implementation would be somewhat problematic because it requires updating thousands of pages. Jogers (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Polish one isn't bad. And, yes, very problematic to implement for relative low gain. Maybe my @/' key could do with a little more bashing after all! Bubba HoTep 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it may be worthwhile. Filling the infobox would be so much more straightforward... It would require a bot assist, without a doubt, but few other nice things could be done by the way - e.g. finally standardizing the type field. How about bringing this to WP:ALBUMS? Jogers (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

While I have no objections to how it is now... well, I didn't when I was creating my own articles, at least... now I am doing the rounds with the Category:Needs album infobox task (with others), I think it would make input easier. Not only for us, but for users who are totally baffled by the infobox in the first place. Bubba HoTep 20:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Standardizing the prev/cur/next fields would be great, but I'd object to extending the formatting to the year, or using separate fields for the years. The former doesn't seem appropriate per the MoS, and the latter, well, I guess I prefer to keep minor fields to a minimum when possible. If line breaks are used as recommended in the chronology fields, it should be possible to parse it correctly and apply the formatting to only the album titles, shouldn't it? --Fru1tbat 20:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The latter I think would be preferable over the former, agreed. Although it may be a minor field, the entry of it would be so much easier. By the way, wasn't this tried back in Aug/Sep maybe – I seem to remember something going wrong in the chronology fields then (adding the wikiformatting marks sent it a bit doo-lally), or was I imagining it? Bubba HoTep 20:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I remember the same thing. Single-quotes started showing up in the infoboxes or something, IIRC. I don't remember the exact change, but my guess is that it could be implemented differently, in a way that would work. I have another idea, though, which has the advantage of not requiring any change to current uses of the template, but the disadvantage of making the syntax much less obvious... It's probably not a good idea, now that I think about it, but here it is anyway (feel free to crush mercilessly as needed):
| Last album = {{lastalbum|AlbumTitle|Year}}
| This album = {{thisalbum|AlbumTitle|Year}}
| Next album = {{nextalbum|AlbumTitle|Year}}
"lastalbum" and "nextalbum" could be redirects to the same template, of course. Not exactly an ideal solution, though. --Fru1tbat 20:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the look of it, and what it does, but you do realise you just made it more complicated with more keystrokes per function! :D Bubba HoTep 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC) No, it isn't though is it? Not if it is included in the template. Silly me! Good idea. But still not n00b friendly... Bubba HoTep 21:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I'm just thinking aloud. About the n00b-friendly thing - they don't even use infoboxes anyway! Is it possible to do a mock-up of this to see if it is practical in real-use? It's beginning to grow on me already, Fb! Bubba HoTep 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, it's probably over-geekifying something that should probably remain simpler, which is kinda why I downplayed it so much. :) It seems to me the current options are as follows:
  • Automatic formatting, extended to entire field including year
Style not ideal, requires all existing box uses to be updated
  • Extra field for year
user-friendly, but requires either update to all existing box uses, or code to check for empty year field(s) and apply formatting differently as needed (with potentially subtle problems if fields do not conform)
  • Sub-templates (which I will humbly and perhaps unwisely call "the Fru1tbat solution") :)
Not user-friendly at all, but makes standardization easy, and would not require any existing transclusions to be updated
Any better ideas? --Fru1tbat 21:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the second option with massive update. Jogers (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to throw another spanner in the works, people. But it depends on your views on red-links. Personally, I don't like them. I would rather go back in to the previous/next album and update the chronology when an article is created than have one. With auto-formatting, you would have a proliferance of red-links. If I stand alone in my preferences, tell me, and I will go for option 2! Bubba HoTep 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow. How does it affect the number of red links? Jogers (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the auto-formatting will convert the title into an wikilink without the brackets? Or am I off-course with that one? Bubba HoTep 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC) I am off course, aren't I? It would be the same sort of thing as adding the genre where the [[]] are optional. Silly me, it was late last night! Bubba HoTep 12:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was sure that Fru1tbat meant only italicizing and bolding. I'm afraid that automatically wikilinking the title is not possible. For example there are several albums named Time. About the optional brackets - don't you mean the album type? Jogers (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, any field where we currently wikilink the contents. I obviously (now) realise this is not practicable and it should only be used for text formatting – which was my original suggestion all along, I just got lost along the way somewhere! :( Bubba HoTep 13:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Implementation

Here is the example of how it works. An user doesn't have to care about italicizing the last and the next album, italicizing and bolding this album, putting the line break and placing release years in brackets. As most of you probably noticed many new users have troubles with this and there are thousands of infoboxes around which don't have these fields entered correctly. Please share your thoughts. Jogers (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. Just what I was getting at (honest!) Bubba HoTep 13:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks great! My only (minor) quibble is with the field names... "This year", "next year", etc seem like awkward choices. I guess I'd prefer names like "next album year", even though they'd be a little longer. --Fru1tbat 14:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I named them like this only to preserve the current spacing. Jogers (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Release year" > "This album year" for uniformity? Bubba HoTep 14:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about that. If the full release date were unformatted, you could use {{#time:Y|{{{date}}}}} to extract the year and forget a duplicate field for "release year" or "this album year" entirely. It won't work with linked dates, though, and I can't find a parser function that translates a linked date to a raw date, though. If there were some way to accomplish this, it would be really slick. --Fru1tbat 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, many infoboxes list release dates for different countries (against the recommendation on the Project's page). I thought that "release year" may be more straightforward than "this album year" and that uniformity isn't that important if there is no "this album" field anyway but I'm not particularly good at naming. Jogers (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm, good point about the release date field usage. I guess for uniformity and clarity "this album year" is better, especially if the field is grouped with the other chronology fields, even though it's a little more clunky than "release year". I really wish there were a way to parse out the year from the release date field, though. Frustrating! --Fru1tbat 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking if we are making the field names clearer for the "average" user, then "This album year" would be more explicit. I really don't mind what the fields are called. :) Bubba HoTep 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've changed it. Naming is not the most important thing at this stage anyway. Jogers (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
So... what happens next? Bubba hotep 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. Have we ever had any particularly weird use of the fields? Multiple chronologies solved a lot of potential weirdness, but I'm particularly paranoid about unforseen problems.
  2. Is this going to be migrated to Infobox Single? Because that one is definitely going to have problems. –Unint 05:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. It's just too complicated to use now. People forget to italicize album names, boldface "this album" or put a line break.
  2. It would be a good idea since the situation is even worse there. Jogers (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I like it, solves a lot of style problems. -- ReyBrujo 05:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems like occasionally albums in the chrono fields have words that aren't part of the title, and therefore wouldn't be italicized. But I can't think of any offhand, and maybe they shouldn't need those words. ??? -Freekee 05:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you give some examples? I remember some articles with covers thumbnails in these fields but it was agreed a long time ago that they shouldn't be used. Jogers (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe referring to the addition of the words "EP" or "Live"? I've come across those. Bubba hotep 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Right! Good point. Any ideas how to deal with these? Jogers (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Difficult one because in some cases it is part of the title, e.g. Metallica's The $5.98 EP isn't called The $5.98 with EP erroneously tagged on the end. (Yes, in fact it is called The $5.98 E.P.: Garage Days Re-Revisited, but it is the only one I thought of off the top of my head!) What I'm saying really is, it would probably be down to manual corrections and removals. Erk. :( Bubba hotep 10:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a possibility to make additional fields for comments like "(EP)" or "(Live)" that wouldn't be italicized. It would work similarly to the longtype field. The question remains - should these comments really stay? Jogers (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No. Bubba hotep 14:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Getting rid of the cover thumbnails and parentheticals would be a good thing, yes.
What I was thinking about in reference to the single infobox is that sometimes parentheticals are used to denote multiple releases, or a link to a double A-side is needed where both songs have separate articles. (Granted, "Song 1 / Song 2" combined articles are also common, but I think the idea is to encourage articles about songs as entities, rather than single releases as entities.) –Unint 20:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category summary box-thingy

Would this be any use to anyone? User:Bubba hotep/ALBUM Figures would be updated manually with AWB if necessary. I would find it useful (obviously!) because I think it is good to see the numbers go down. Of course, there is also the danger that the figures going the other way would be disheartening, but hey! it would make me work a little harder! Anyone can update it (obviously!) by clicking on the word "updated" which will take you directly to the sub-page edit screen. Update timestamp with 5 ~. The only ones which would need counting with AWB are "without cover art" and "without infobox" - the others seem perpetually small. Notwithstanding cats I may have forgotten (I just did them in the order they appear on the To-Do list). Feel free to use and abuse. :) Bubba hotep 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it's at User:Bubba hotep/ALBUM at the moment. Bubba hotep 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been waiting for just the thing. Any way to feed that into a simple graph that tracks these numbers over time at regular intervals? Any way to not count the templates (in the stub cat, for example)? Or is that best dealt with by modifying the templates themselves?--Fisherjs 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a way to do all those things... I just don't know how at the moment. It's all very manual at the moment, but it's a start. Are those templates supposed to be in that category anyway? I have been wondering that as well. Maybe they should be taken out of the category as they seem to be the only two in there? Bubba hotep 19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC) I just updated the stats and added an important category I forgot (I knew there would be one). Time I got a new PC, I think, because it nearly overloaded when I asked AWB to count how many album articles there are in total – don't think I'll be doing that one too often, but it is the only one which is allowed to increase! Bubba hotep 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea! It would look nice on the Project's main page. There must be some way to automatically update the data. How about trying a bot request? Jogers (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a question at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, but not many people frequent that page! Obviously, bot would be good, but to be honest it doesn't take that long to do it manually. NB: WP:ALBUM articles = number of articles with the album tag on them, so doesn't include those we haven't got round to tagging yet. Bubba hotep 13:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
But a bot would save you some effort anyway so why not? You could add some infoboxes instead ;-) Jogers (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely! I didn't say I enjoyed updating it :D. Will make enquiries. Bubba hotep 13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The question has been raised. Bubba hotep 13:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
If it is useful to monitor a cat you could consider User:Dragons_flight/Category_tracker Rich Farmbrough, 19:58 17 January 2007 (GMT).
That's where I stole borrowed the format from! I must admit, I'm a doofus with bots. Will have to read up on them. Bubba hotep 20:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not this is automated, can't you just run it on the main namespace so that Templates and such aren't included in the count? (also, has the question been answered as to IF templates (in this cat for example) should even be in the cat?) It's a pretty minor point but consider how many cats are here in the "top" album cat.--Fisherjs 15:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The large number categories I run through AWB and it has a filter to only count talk pages carrying the {{album}} template. And no, no answer on whether templates should even be in the category. Bubba hotep 15:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
{{song-stub}} seems to be in Category:Song stubs so I assume the two templates in the album category are supposed to be there. However, I will exclude them from the count of Category:Album stubs from now on. Bubba hotep 15:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You will notice that {{Ep-stub}} has disappeared from the category. This is because I reclassified it as a music-stub. The album one will be a bit trickier because it seems to be protected and only an admin can edit it. Oh well, one less than two is half of what we started out with... or something. ;) Bubba hotep 12:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way

Why are people still updating/using this page? Didn't the introduction of the category deprecate this list? Bubba hotep 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about this once. This page doesn't seem to be very useful now. Jogers (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've at least removed it from the Category:Needs album infobox. People are using it all the time, though. Maybe it used to separate the ones that need them from the ones that really need them, i.e. special requests? Dunno, it will be obsolete soon... hopefully... if I can get past "T" without having a breakdown! Bubba hotep 21:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the list is deprecated. I have changed the information on the page, so people will add articles to the category instead. The old articles still need moving. I've been working on it. After that, is it worth considering deleting the list? Alex valavanis 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Where do people find it from, I wonder? Bubba hotep 12:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
From WikiProject Albums, perhaps? :-) I've just removed the note from the Project's page. Jogers (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that it should be deleted just as needs infobox conversion list. Jogers (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Are we still using List of albums? Surely we should be moving to Category:WikiProject_Albums_articles instead? If this is the case, maybe we should check that everything in the list has an {{album}} tag and then delete the list. Alex valavanis 12:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
With over 37,000 (registered) articles (checks category summary above ;) ) lists are inherently unmaintainable. Next, people will be adding a new parameter to the album tag, something like "needs-adding-to-list-of-albums=yes"! Categories are the only way now with the speed the project is growing. Delete all the lists. Bubba hotep 12:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
If the remark about list deletion is a motion, then I second. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Once they are cleared, yes, deleto. :) Bubba hotep 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Current Collaboration?

Is it worth having a "current collaboration" set at the top of the project page, like they do on some other projects? It could be one of the housekeeping tasks that is getting a bit out of hand, making improvements to an FA/GA candidate etc… If everyone focused on a particular task, we could see some real results rather than spreading our efforts over some 30,000 random articles! Alex valavanis 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We had this once but it didn't work very well. It may be worth trying it again though. Jogers (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
What went wrong last time? Is it something we can improve on, or would the same thing just happen again? Alex valavanis 12:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just remember the Project was "collaborating" on Revolver for over a year and people were complaining that the article didn't receive any extraordinary attention at the time. Jogers (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I misunderstand the question, but it seems that the proposed idea goes against the spirit of this Project. Any encouragement — real or perceived — of herd behaviour is fraught with peril.
When you speak of "real results", could you please clarify what you are referring to? Speaking for myself, my motivation for contribution is devoid of any desire to be acknowledged or validated by way of FA/GA candidates. As the incident related by Jogers suggests, this source of inspiration leaves much to be desired. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts on collaboration. I have no problem. If anyone asks me to help them with anything, I will try my best. That's as far as it goes though. It could be a stub or an FA-candidate, a thorough copyedit or a comma. That goes for any article, not just an album-related one. I recently helped someone out with this article, which is now an FA, but I would take no credit for it. What I'm trying to say is: I will do my best to help anyone if asked. Worth bearing in mind. :) Bubba hotep 15:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking of it as some form of project management, which is very much in the spirit of a WikiProject (rather than advocating "herd behaviour"). When there are around 100 listed project members working on over 37,000 articles, I just figured it would be better for the encyclopedia to focus our efforts a little. I doubt anyone is doing this for personal acknowledgment! My main idea was to collaborate on housekeeping tasks which have been sitting on the to do list for months. It would be great to finally kill off the old-style infoboxes, assess the thousands of unassessed articles for WP:1.0 etc… If people think it would be better just to ask for help on a task then that's fair enough. I just felt the to do list was too big to get anything done fully. We could just choose one of the To Do items each day and list it in bold at the top of the list maybe? Alex valavanis 15:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I echo the remarks put forth by Bubba hotep. My previous missive was deliberately crafted to assume good faith; as it was hard to determine your point of view. Initially, I was under the impression that your remarks were to dismiss the work of those who contribute [to] a stub as opposed to a candidate for FA status.
You might be suprised at the number of ostentatious characters involved with the project... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, shall we trial this with the effort to clear out the old Needs Infobox list (see previous discussion)? It shouldn't take too long. I don't think FA collaborations are a good idea either. They generally require a bit too much expertise on the subject for most people to get involved, so I'd prefer it to be a general housekeeping task, personally. Alex valavanis 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how much of this effort can be automated? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
As we're purging a list rather than a category, I don't think we could use AWB to do the job (does anyone know if it is possible?) Maybe we could write a bot, but I have no idea how to do that. The list's not too long anyway, so if automating it would take a lot of effort, it would be quicker to just do it manually. Alex valavanis 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


As no one seems to object to trying this out, I've set the current collaboration in the to do list. If it seems like a bad idea, we can always remove it. Alex valavanis 02:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm dipping into this as well as what I was doing before because most of them have ended up in this category anyway. Bubba hotep 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I point to WikiProject Computer and video games as an example of productive collaboration. Some highlights: an active weekly article collaboration, and — I think this is a first — an archive of print sources owned by editors, available for research and citations.
That's just video game magazines. Think of how many music magazines have been published in comparison (and yet All Music Guide remains the most ubiquitous source for album reviews for us). Some topics you just can't find online. –Unint 02:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps compiling a list of resources which rival the quantity of information available via AMG – while surpassing the quality – would be a good starting point? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 15:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How to include article in Cat:albums w/o cover art

Recently, I noticed that some infoboxes have "Nocover.gif" for the cover, which gives the right image in the infobox, but doesn't include the article in the Category:Albums without cover art. Before I search through all of Wikipedia for cases where Cover = "Nocover.gif", and making that edit on each article, I'm wondering if we can change how pages are included in the cat by saying if Cover is missing OR if Cover = "Nocover.gif"? It's just that I have no idea how to do such a thing.--Fisherjs 15:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be an adjustment to the infobox code in much the same way as something other than a recognised "type" puts it in the Non-standard infoboxes category. I must confess, I'm not much good with template code, although I am working on it. Bubba hotep 15:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It would need two {if} conditions. Looks simple in practice, but I wouldn't want to try it! Jogers or Fru1tbat are template wizards, aren't they? It's either that or a job for AWB to replace all instances of "nocover.gif" to null. Bubba hotep 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point! There must be plenty of infoboxes still using "Nocover.gif". I've already requested a change to the infobox. Jogers (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
So whatever happened with this? Can you provide a link to where this request took place (and was the request to deal with gif or png, now that I think of it)? WP is a big place, yo! Hard to find my way around sometimes. Related question (as I just spent a few minutes replacing this gif image with the png version in the mainspace): what ever happened with this IFD? --Fisherjs 20:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It was dealt with at Template_talk:Infobox_Album#Album_articles_without_cover_art, and indeed the modification was made. The IFDs look to be more or less done as well, though I have yet to receive feedback on the particular ones that I'm personally dealing with. –Unint 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Definitive Collection"

I notice at The Definitive Collection, the Abba album gets this title, everything else (presumably) with this title has to be The Definitive Collection (Partridge Family) (for example). The talk page over there seems to state that Abba has rights to it and no one else. I think there should be a disambiguation page for this title (I notice Donovan has one without the "The" at the beginning). I'm pretty sure there are others besides Abba, Donovan, and the Partridge Family. It says at the Abba page not to create more disambiguation pages without bringing it to the project. I'm bringing it here and requesting the disambiguation page.Squad51 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You can find all pages that start with "Definitive Collection" or "The Definitive Collection" with the Special:Allpages tool. Those statements were probably made without awareness of these other articles; if there are many "Definitive Collection" articles in existence, then nobody will complain about a disambiguation page being created. –Unint 20:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard to define album types.

Take an example like Film Music by Mark Isham. It is a comlpilation of soundtrack material from three different films but is considered by most to be a significant part of Isham's discography, unlike Isham's other soundtrack albums. Should this album be considered a soundtrack, a compilation or an be treated as a studio album? Justin Foote 20:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Simple answer: Compilation album.
Rationale: Consider the Now That's What I Call Music! series, which features studio recordings from several artists. The releases are still regarded as compilations, even though most (if not all) tracks were from previously released studio albums.
An argument could be made that most film score and soundtrack releases are compilations; however, there are so many recordings of this sort that it easily falls into a class onto itself.
For the album in question, the songs – which were studio recordings – have been previously released, as is the case with many Greatest Hits albums. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Needs Infobox" list

Now that it has been emptied, shall we go ahead and delete it? As far as I can see, the only links to it are a few User Pages. Alex valavanis 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We can also just redirect it to WP:ALBUMS. Jogers (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. I'll do that. Alex valavanis 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Single/Song Infobox Conversion

Has anyone else noticed that the {{needsinfoboxconv}} tag is being used mostly for singles and songs, and yet it places articles in Category:Needs album infobox conversion. I feel that something should be done about this. We could possibly do one of the following:

  1. Edit the template so that it adds articles to a new category instead: Category:Recorded music articles needing infobox conversion.
  2. Edit the template so that it has a type parameter, which places the articles in either Category:Needs album infobox conversion, Category:Needs single infobox conversion or Category:Needs song infobox conversion. The three categories can be placed under one parent category.

I favour the latter, as editing will be simplified if all articles in a category need the same infobox conversion. Any thoughts? Alex valavanis 09:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice. And I thought it was rather strange! I would favour the latter, also. Bubba hotep 09:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. I prefer the second option, too. Jogers (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
How about modifying {{newinfobox}} instead? Jogers (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Have a look at the newinfobox page for details. I could use some help replacing all the transclusions of {{needsinfoboxconv}} so we can get rid of the old template. Alex valavanis 10:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Consider help forthcoming. :) Bubba hotep 10:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I found one EP and converted the infobox there and then. Rest were singles and a couple of songs. Bubba hotep 12:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Great stuff :) Thanks! I'll put a note on WP:SONGS project page suggesting that they should look after the singles/songs conversions now Alex valavanis 12:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job! This is exactly what I meant. Jogers (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Another album type question

Hi I am new here and I have another question on an album type. A band who's pages I am working on put out an album that takes tracks from their earlier releases yet re-records them with their current (and mostly different) lineup. The vocal tracks sound close to the original songs but many other parts are in some cases subtly, in other cases obviously, different. I think this should called a studio album but I would like to hear opinions just to be sure. Also other than a Night Ranger album which hasn't been entered here I can not recall another instance of this so I could see how those pages were handled. Anyone know af some? Any help you can give would be appreciated. Thanks Solonyc 05:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I can think of Still Cyco After All These Years by Suicidal Tendencies. It was a 1993 re-recording of a 1983 album. It is down as a "type=studio" and my rule of thumb is: if in doubt, if it was recorded in a studio, the type should be studio. Of course, there is the "type=remix" option, but I'm not sure whether that fits in with this type of album. I would say not. It's not strictly a compilation because they are re-recorded versions. I would say stick with "studio". Any anomalies can be dealt with in the body of the article anyway. Bubba hotep 08:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Washington D.C. record labels

Just a heads up that there is a cfd for Category:Washington D.C. record labels]. The main question being asked is if Category:American record labels should be subdivided into states because of its size (it's a really big category). I don't work much with record label stuff, but I thought you guys might want to give your input at the cfd. Dugwiki 20:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment Backlog

Currently, there is a backlog of albums which need to be assessed at WP:ALBUMA. Could more people participate, please? Thanks. Real96 04:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not add it as the collaboration task? I'll help out later if I get a chance Alex valavanis 08:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment: stub, start, etc.

Funny you should mention that, Real. I was just on my way here to discuss ratings. The subject has come up before, but we never come up with any guidelines for the different ratings. Maybe others have no trouble rating album articles using the general criteria, but I'd like something a little more specific for our uses. And maybe more people would rate album articles if there were better guidelines.

So what do you think makes an article?

Personally, I feel that if an article has a reasonably complete infobox, a minimal list of personnel (band members, at least), a track listing and at least a paragraph of text, it has transcended the Stub class. If the article meets these four criteria, it can be labeled Start class. Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded. Here's a question, though... How much information needs to be given in the text to meet Start class? And would it be worth mentioning what sort of information might be expected?

Does anyone have any opinions about B class or Good articles, as regrds this project? -Freekee 06:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say Start class is an oft overlooked status. I agree with your definition. With all that information, it can hardly be called a stub, which, to me, suggests that it is the bare-bones of an article with only the smallest intimation as to what the album holds. That's my thoughts for now! Will have a look at the other assessment ratings soon. Bubba hotep 08:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I have been using the following loose rules when assessing articles:
  • Stub: (not good enough for start class)
  • Start: Contains an infobox with an image and most of the information, an introductory paragraph and a tracklisting.
  • B: Contains all of the mandatory sections listed by the project and at least an additional paragraph or two of relevant material
  • GA: Should not be reviewed directly. Check that it meets all the GA criteria and list as a candidate. Add the {{GANominee}} tag to the talk page.
  • A: Should not be reviewed directly. Check that it meets most of the FA criteria and request peer review before setting to A class.
  • FA: Should not be review directly. Check that it meets all of the FA criteria, request peer review and list as a candidate.

Alex valavanis 10:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. When I was stub-sorting, I must admit I sometimes added {{...|class=stub|...}} purely on the basis that it was a stub per the stub on the article (basically what the auto process would have done). Which leads me to this question: when a stub becomes a start, do you remove the stub on the article or leave it? I would say leave it because it encourages more people to improve the article. There must be a few people who contribute solely through the articles in the {{genre-album-stub}} category? Bubba hotep 11:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There are already about 25000 album articles listed as stubs, and it is quite difficult to find real stubs among the multitude of short articles which are actually start class! I think it might be better to remove the stub tags and allow start class articles to "naturally" improve over time into B-class as people add bits and pieces to them. With periodic checking, we can select the B-class articles from these. Cleanup tags will then encourage a lot more editing. The start class therefore might represent a slight lull in the development of the article, but it will help work progress faster on the genuine stubs. Alex valavanis 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree it is not very useful to have most of the album articles tagged as stubs. Freekee's criteria sound fair to me. How about mentioning them at WP:ALBUMS#Stubs? Jogers (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking more in terms of, for example, cima de la cabeza, Category:Heavy metal album stubs which *only* has 600-odd stubs, but when you put it in the context of 25000, Alex, of course, you are right! Get them Stubs to Starts, shall we? People who are more likely to progress the articles from there are likely to go straight to them anyway. Bubba hotep 20:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I think we should re-assess the stub articles as well as do the unassess articles. I like Alex's system of evaluating as well as Freekee's. Stub class (might) have changed since re-assessment. However, I archived the old assessments in a seperate page (the assessment results were getting kind of long). By the way, the Wu Tang Clan album was rated a FA by Project Hip-Hop (PHH). Did anyone look at the article before an FA article was made, becuase I think it was assumed that since PHH gave an FA rating, then we gave an FA rating. Real96 19:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Projects don't assign FA ratings, the centralized FA nomination does. I think what you're talking about is the FA tags in two separate WikiProject boxes (which don't indicate that a particular project gave out the rating; they just report that an FA rating has been assigned). –Unint 19:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was confused about how FA articles were assigned, since I am new to Wikipedia. Anyway, I didn't rate the articles (which needed asking for assessment) on the current page, because I thought they were from the B - GA range and needed a person who was at the project a little while longer to assess the articles. Thanks. Real96 01:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts (and please add more if you have them). Here are my thoughts on your thoughts. Alex's guidelines are pretty good for a basic outline. I definitely think they should be included on our project page with a note to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment for further guidelines. The only things I would change would be to add "personnel" to the Start class requirements, and to define B class better. Like which sections are we talking about and what are the things that should be included in the text. I think it needs some stronger guidelines that are album specific. Anyone? Also, while Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Article body is a good place to go for guidelines, it could use some expansion. Feel free to do so. And I think the difference between Start and Stub classes are fairly obvious, and urge everyone to tag/untag and rate articles accordingly. -Freekee 04:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Album covers and fair use - 2

Sorry, I'm running around with my head up my bottom today. Was anything ever resolved with the discussion above? Can anyone point me to the relevant policy where it states that album covers can only be used in the album article and not the band article to which they pertain? Is it policy? Is it interpretation? Only I've seen a few people enforcing this lately, but discussions seem to be scattered throughout the darkest corners of Wikipedia project space and I never have been able to find a definitive answer. Bubba hotep 10:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to use an album cover on both the album page and the discography section (or page) of the artist. Others disagree. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it is reasonable, too, but many people don't and are pointing to a policy which doesn't permit it. Unfortunately, I can't find it or interpret it as such. It was mentioned on the talk page of Wikiproject music as an aside to the "flags-in-infoboxes" ongoing discussion (near the bottom of the page). Bubba hotep 11:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The (disputed) guideline is here, discussion here. Copyright/Fair use issues aside, I still think using the covers in discography galleries is irritating, because they link to the image and not to the album article. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above actually concerns whether album covers can be used in album articles when there is no commentary specifically about the album cover itself. Punctured Bicycle 12:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Another problem then! Ooh, dear... Bubba hotep 12:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Although, I see from the second link Fritz gives that it alludes to the same disputed policy. Bubba hotep 12:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Fritz. Will have a look at that. And yes, I have clicked many a discog link only to be taken to the image rather than the album. I have used cover images in band articles as a supplement to body text at the point where the album in question is being mentioned, but rarely in discographies. My interpretation is that because they are being mentioned in the text (not necessarily discussed as such, more like: Band x then released the album, Album,... picture left sort of thing) their use is justified. Bubba hotep 12:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Participants page

Do we really need the manually generated list of members here? This category does the same job, and users automatically join it when they add the {{User WikiprojectAlbums}} tag to their user page. As with all lists, it is difficult to maintain, and in this case, it occupies about a third of the project page for no clear reason. Does anyone else support its removal? Alex valavanis 12:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just changed it to a link so it doesn't occupy so much space. Jogers (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Me too - edit conflict! :p I tried to encourage use of the category. See what you think. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. Alex valavanis 12:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't care to have categories or userboxes on my user page. But then i also don't care if i appear on the project members list. I do link here from my user page. Do what you want. -Freekee 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Two album stub articles (properly categorized, with introductory sentence, track listing, infobox and covers) has been deleted on the grounds of insufficient notability (although the notability of the artist has been established). Some editors express opinions that keeping pages that are not likely to evolve anywhere beyond this point is stupid. As many articles covered by this project provide no more than that so I thought someone here might be interested in this discussion. Jogers (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all happy with the outcome of this. Merge was definitely not a reasonable outcome. They should have been kept as separate articles like every other (38,000+) articles in this place. Seems to me someone wants to ride roughshod over the project. Not happy. Not impressed. :( Bubba hotep 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
As I mention below, I've seen articles that were written pre-merged. I've written articles myself that were pre-merged.
But then, if an article gets merged in a forest and nobody's around to read it or expand it (since September 2006, in fact), is it still merged? –Unint 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not a definite outcome. Anyway, the Project should adopt a stance on the matter. I don't mean these particular articles but a general question whether this amount of content is better organized on a separate page or on the artist page like this. Personally, I'm leaning towards the former. Jogers (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me state the reasons why I feel this way. There is always enough verifiable information available about a studio album by a notable band to have a reasonably short article with few sentences, infobox, track listing, credits etc. I don't think it's a terribly large problem that many articles can possibly never evolve beyond this point. It doesn't look weird like in case of very short articles about singles. Also, separate pages can be properly categorized and it's easier for the Project to maintain album entries this way. Jogers (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Articles which are three lines and don't even have a track listing (as below, and as the Gerry Rafferty albums I'm currently wasting my time adding infoboxes to instead of merging them!), yes, by all means merge. But the ones in this DRV were near enough fully formed stubs (by project standards, start-class by others). That's what a stub is, right? The only thing against the Happysad ones is, admittedly, the lack of sourcing. But that can be fixed. Sorry, still not happy. Bubba hotep 20:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a question of notability. If a band is notable enough to have an article, are their albums automatically considered notable enough to have articles? Personally, there are albums that I would not write articles for. But I would not consider deleting them if someone else does, and I would vote to keep. There's sort of an answer for you.
Additionally, I do think that any album article can be expanded to a full paragraph of text. -Freekee 06:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I would say if a band is notable, their albums are worthy of an article, yes. Although, I don't really think this includes demos (seen a lot of them around) and "unreleased" albums (how can anything unreleased be considered notable if it never made it out of the starting block? Plus there's the verifiability of such things). I would vote keep, too. And a paragraph of text should not be too hard to fill out, even if it is an expansion of the facts which would go in the infobox. What I find hard to understand, however, is that somebody would create an article without a track listing. Presumably people create an article because they have the album? Or is that a misconception? At least I think it may be true for new contributors. Even if it was inserted in completely the wrong format, it should be inserted nevertheless. If it isn't, then you can see why some people get the itchy deletion trigger-finger! Bubba hotep 08:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Template for articles with no context

Hi, I am a new page patroller, and I frequently come across album articles that are simply track listings, with no context. Because of this, I have created User:J Milburn/album as a template to place on the userpages of the creators of such articles. Someone reccomended to me that instead of keeping it in my userspace, I should put it in the template space. However, before I do that, I want to get some feedback, and make sure that there is not already a template very similar in existence. Thanks. J Milburn 22:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is actually quite relevant to the issue above this one as well. We should formalize some policy against minimal-context (and minimal-content) album articles; in fact, in sufficiently low-content cases I think an entire discography could exist solely within the main artist page. Caroline Lavelle is an example of such an article existing with no problems. –Unint 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this is not ideal. One solution is to merge any articles about singles (when there are any) with the album article (leaving the redirect, obviously), so that we're offering at least some content to the reader. Jkelly 00:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
But then sometimes the singles articles consist only of infoboxes, and we're left with a column of boxes four-five high with nothing down the left side.
Perhaps we should standarize a format for album pages combined with singles as well. Given that this often involves a long list of track listings, maybe devise a multi-column format? –Unint 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Just so I understand, is this template to be placed on the author's talk page, to alert them to a problem? Or placed on the album's talk page, in hopes that the creator will see it on his watchlist? I think this it's better to use this template than to simply Speedy the article. But I think you might include some wording warning that the article might be deleted if it is not expanded. And we should not be afraid to nominate it if it is not improved in a reasonable amount of time. Can we use {{album|attention=yes}} on such articles? -Freekee 06:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in the past, I would just nominate the article for deletion as having no context, or contact the editor and give them ten minutes if I was in a good mood or I had seen more than one article that looked the same by that editor. Then I realised that I was typing basically the same thing so often, I may as well create a template. I admit that it needs to mention the fact that the article could be deleted, I will add that in now. In response to the other comments, I am not a fan of when album articles are merged into one, or, even worse, the artist's page. I don't mind it when singles are merged into their appropriate album, that looks neat. J Milburn 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Updated. J Milburn 12:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have just used the template for the first time, at User talk:Museli. J Milburn 15:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair. I made a small change to it. The opening sentence is just a bit negative. Should it be changed to something like, "We appreciate your efforts to expand Wikipedia, but..."? since you have your full signature on the template, when anyone uses it, it will always have your name and that date on it. I suggest either removing the sig and having people sign it, or putting four tildes in, and directing it to be subst'ed. Or maybe there's a way to have a sig automaticaly added to a template? -Freekee 16:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
God, I hadn't noticed the sig problem. I have never created a template before, I have no idea how to change that. I will work on the opening line though. J Milburn 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Updated further. J Milburn 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Gospel albums

This may or may not be the place to post this query, so if I'm out of line or place with this, please direct me to the correct place. Anyhow, since there already are a number of articles on gospel albums (country or otherwise), do you think it's a good idea to create a special album/color denoter for such albums, as to distinguish them from regular secular studio albums? Your thoughts are appreciated, but I think it's an excellent idea. [[Briguy52748 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)]]

I guess the question is, what makes gospel albums different from other studio albums, other than genre? All infobox colours assigned so far have been independent of musical genre. –Unint 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say adding

| Genre = [[Gospel music|Gospel]]

to the infobox, and/or

{{christian-album-stub}}
[[Category:Gospel albums]]

would be a great distinguisher. And, excuse my ignorance, but what is a "regular secular studio album"? Do we have "Jewish studio albums" or "Satanist live albums"? I guess this is just a rephrasing of Unint's question, really. :) Bubba hotep 21:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the respondents so far. I believe the type and genre fields should be mutually independent. "Gospel" tells you nothing about the type of album: whether it is a live or studio or compilation album of songs from the gospel genre. Also, take the example of rock albums. There are thousands of articles about them, but the independent type/genre fields have worked pretty well for them. - Alex valavanis 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 11 |
Archive 12
| Archive 13 →


Album articles without cover art

I've just compiled the list of few hundred album articles without cover art but containing a link to All Music Guide which usually provide a cover. Would anybody like to help with making a first step in clearing Category:Albums without cover art? Jogers (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Jogers, here's the thing: you know normally I would be straight on things like this, but the fact is I can't access All Music from where I am now so usually have to wait until I get home to do it. But I have been gearing up to do this for a while now and hopefully will be able to help soon. :) Bubba hotep 11:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Great! I knew that I can count on you with this :-) Jogers (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing that despite adding about 200 covers during the last few days the number of articles in Category:Albums without cover art actually increased. Jogers (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason for that is by the time it takes you (or I, or anyone come to that) to add an image to an album article, at least five new articles have been created, a further five have been found not to have a tag and/or image, and yet a further five have been found not to have an infobox. They are not scientific figures, I may be exaggerating, but that it was I summise by watching the figures closely every day! Bubba hotep 08:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks to everybody involved. Jogers (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

New collaboration

I thought I'd ask for help with something that caught my eye recently. This list of missing albums contains important (as defined by the WP:MISSING project) albums that are still red linked. And, well, it's almost kicked, just 10% remains. I just added Lambert, Hendricks, & Ross! and thought maybe with some teamwork we could finish off this list, since there was no current collaboration.--Fisherjs 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Man! That is still a list-and-a-half... as usual, will fit in with the other pending tasks (inc. Jogers' above) :). By the way, have you noticed just how many badly sourced, badly formatted, just badly album articles there are out there at the moment? We have work for life on this project, I think! Bubba hotep 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You bet! :-) I'll try to help with the list after I'm done with the one above. New current collaboration scheme is good. Jogers (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm on it too… This could take some time! :) Alex valavanis 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Partially categorised albums -- maintenance cats

I asked before about whether people would be interested in a cleanup resource of albums lacking a by-year category, or a by-artist/genre category, but not necessarily completely uncategorised. As you seem to be seriously on top of things as regards getting rid of the latter, I wondered if this would be a good time to float the former pair again. If people are in favour, I could populate a chunk of each into categories called Cat:albums without a by-year category and Cat:albums without a by-genre or by-artist category, or something to that effect, and see how those go down. Or even just into the uncat-album, via a distinct template, or whatever people would prefer. Alai 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This brings a consideration: we can use the infobox to categorize some stuff. In example, if the infobox has no image, it is categorized as Category:Albums without cover art. However, we could easily detect whether the infobox needs label, producer, length, release date, format, and maybe reviews, and categorize accordingly. So, an album could belong to four or five maintenance categories. This would render some columns at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums/Incomplete infobox unnecessary too. -- ReyBrujo 05:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Alai, by-year and by-artist cats would be good, but I don't think a missing-by-genre cat would be all that helpful, since it's not as common to include that in the first place. Oftentimes, a genre seems more appropriate to include on the artist albums cat. Or at least that's where I most often find it. -Freekee 06:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I say by-genre or by-artist since the artist cats are in genre supercats, and of course, may not exist yet for any given artist. So I'm essentially hedging my bets on how these might be handled, not trying to suggest that they should contain a genre category directly. (I'm not sure it's a great policy myself, since it leads to lots of singleton categories, often doesn't seem to happen, and assumes that a whole career can be assigned a genre as readily as a single piece of work, but I'm not here to agitate about that.) I'd be happy with a different category name, or a piece of canned text on the cleanup page, if it would help. Alai 06:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've placed another 200 or so album-stubs with no non-stub categories at all into Cat:uncategorised albums. That's all I could find of those in the last db dump. Alai 06:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and 'botted 150-odd into the "by year cat missing" cleanup category. You'll notice that only goes as far as some way into the Bs. If people find it useful, I can do the same for the others (well, once the query finishes running I'll be able to, at least). The by artist/genre one I'm leaving alone for the time being, until such time as there's greater clarity what to do about them. Alai 05:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible for a bot to pull a year out of the infobox and apply a category? -Freekee 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more straightforward just to have the infobox populate the category? Alai 07:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that's problematic because there might be "non-standard" text in the released field. I suppose I could put in a bot-task-approval-request for populating by-year and by-artist categories. However, clearly many of the affected articles don't have infoboxes... Alai 16:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Total list is 2000 long. Alai 07:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing To Do?

Anyone with bot skills able to produce a dump/list/category of articles that have (some version of) the {{album}} template on the talk page and an article which is simply a redirect? I just added the template to this talk page and then realized the article should be a redirect to the article with a capital "C". Doesn't really matter much except in our count of how many articles there are in Category:WikiProject_Albums_articles. Is it worth going after these talk pages and removing the template? I do kinda wonder how many exist.--Fisherjs 19:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's the first time I ever see something like this. Why didn't you just move the page? Jogers (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Forget it. I know why. It would be interesting to know but unfortunately I don't know how to get a list of redirects. Jogers (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me double-check if I follow what you're wanting here: article page is a redirect, talk page isn't, and is in Cat:WikiProject Albums articles? That do the job? Alai 06:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that is what Fisherjs is alluding to. It would give a false figure. Any redirect pages I have come across, I have removed the {{album}} tag from the talk page, but there may be a few hundred left out there. Bubba hotep 08:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I'm thinking, Alai. Could you produce a list? And in these cases should we redirect the talk page to the new talk page or just simply blank the old talk page by removing the {{album}} template and anything else on the page? Alai, could you simply make the change yourself while you have your bot there? Doesn't seem to be any real need for a brain, after all. --Fisherjs 08:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, here's a list from the late-Jan db dump: User:Alai/albumredirs. Note that some of these might be better moved to, or merged with, the talk page of the article's target, depending on the content of both. Given that this requires looking at three pages (including the article page, to check it's still a redirect) it's not completely trivial to do by 'bot: it'd require some coding, and the traditional faffing about at WP:BRFA... Might be simplest to do this AWB+talk-page plugin, perhaps? Alai 09:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity - how did you make the list from the database dump? Jogers (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
An SQL query. Specifically, this SQL query: select a.page_title from page as a, page as t, categorylinks where a.page_title=t.page_title and a.page_namespace=0 and t.page_namespace=1 and a.page_is_redirect and not t.page_is_redirect and t.page_id=cl_from and cl_to='WikiProject_Albums_articles'; Alai 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll have to learn SQL, then :-) Jogers (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel that redirects should have templates on their talk pages. Or anything at all. -Freekee 03:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Additions to category summary

A section called "Special lists" has been added to the category summary. Let's hope we all remember what they are! Bubba hotep 10:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Future releases

Hi. People are starting to put future releases on discographies. Just saw one that said "On March 23rd, 2007, Frontiers Records signed and released" which is incredible to say the least. We all know that many an announced album have been canceled or delayed in the past. Do we need to state this in policy? I know it's common sense but I am seeing it more often. Has anyone else noticed this? Thanks Solonyc 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Split Enz entry includes a 2006 album, Rootin Tootin Luton Tapes, in the discography; when you open the link, it appears to be nothing more than a proposed album with a suggested track listing. I've been scratching my head over what do to with this .... move the whole entry into the band's talk page until it's released, perhaps? Grimhim 02:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
... And then I thought, let's delete the infobox, rewrite the article to reflect what the Rootin Tootin Luton Tapes really is -- demos from a set of recording session -- change the "tracklist" to a list of songs that may possibly be included, delete the category (it's not a Split Enz album at this stage) and add the word "proposed" in the band's discography. One issue, however: what category should the article be? Grimhim 05:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Messed up stub list

A category page was nominated for deletion. See here. Meanwhile, something is messing up Category:Album stubs, and therefore our own project page. Can someone who is Wikicode savvy please take a look and shee if you can fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freekee (talk • contribs) 05:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I think Alex has fixed it. Bubba hotep 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Another redirect page problem

As I've been whittlin' away at the redirect talk page/album template problem, I noticed another one (which I've fixed when I caught them) - it appears that bunches of the redirect pages were given categories and/or stubs. Is there an easy way to get a list of any redirect page (or redirect talk page) that has a category or a stub so that we can get rid of those as well? SkierRMH 22:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm about to reformat that list so it is numbered and not bulleted (easier to update the old category summary, don't you know!) Keep up the good work on that one, Skier, hopefully I will be able to help upon my return to normality tomorrow. Bubba hotep 22:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Should those categories always be removed from redirects? There are instances where they could be helpful in navigation. -Freekee 23:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem: I think a lot of redirects are results of implausible typos and should be speedy deleted just to do some general housework. The ones that are justified ("The album of this band" to "The Album of This Band") and serve a purpose: yeah, why not have them share the stub + cat. In other words, I would be deleting "The Album By This Band - 1978 Compilation Album On This Record Label" not just simply redirecting. Bubba hotep 23:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
And duplicate articles as well: I nommed for speedy Push (bross) because it already existed in (slightly) better form at Push (Bros) rather than just redirect. We sometimes need to look a bit deeper to clean up the project. Bubba hotep 23:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's a redirect to cover a typo or even a common misnomer, then I don't think it should be categorized. But what about when a record article is not yet written? Or how about a rerelease under a different title? Someone might own that record and be looking for info about it. It would be nice to put that title on a list. -Freekee 00:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I hear and obey! User:Alai/albumcatredirs 47 of them, or specifically, article pages that are in Cat:albums or a descendant. Do with them as you will. Are there other classes of talk-page categories to look for, other than the WPJ one I already looked for? Alai 01:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, it seems that WP:KLF has created a category exclusively for their redirects; see Category:The KLF redirects. In fact, Category:Redirects by WikiProject contains a small but diverse collection of these. –Unint 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I was under the impression that categorizing redirects was encouraged (though this may have been mainly someone from the Beatles WikiProject, which, I notice, created the first of these). –Unint 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but isn't categorization of redirects (such as the KLF example) generally for Wiki editor use, rather than reader use? Cat'ing redirects for public visibility is not very common. -Freekee 04:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the list, Alai. Most of those seem, in my opinion, to be legitimate uses for cat'n of redirects. -Freekee 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think where there are "deliberate" (or happy accidents), they should probably be flagged up as such. I think the best way is probably to transclude {{R with possibilities}}, which (also) categorises them in Cat:redirects with possibilities. Alai 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Project-specific assessment

I've added a section to the Project guidelines for assessment of album articles. I realize they could use a little work, but I wanted to get a framework in place. At this point, I would appreciate comment on the Start-class guidelines. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Assessment_class. -Freekee 05:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Great work :) It's just a little ambiguous for start class - would an introductory sentence such as "blah is a 2007 album by blah" count as a "paragraph of text"? In fact, does an introductory paragraph count at all, or should we require the article to have at least some information in addition to the intro? I'd be inclined to clarify it so start class articles contain "an introductory paragraph giving an overview of the album." This should be inclusive enough to help reduce the vast number of stubs, whilst still requiring a reasonable starting point for an article. Alex valavanis 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, volume and style of text should probably be most clearly delineated. For instance, original "commentary" or "analysis" with no references should not count towards anything. Also, if start-class articles require at least a paragraph, shouldn't B-class articles require somewhat more?
Also, maybe we could find examples for each class from all of the major genres and list them as examples? I think it would both be illustrative and maybe allow exchange of ideas between different communities of editors as well. –Unint 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I updated the guidelines with what Alex said about "an introductory paragraph." Also, what Unint said about B requiring more text, though that section could still use a little help. I would like to see even more detailed guidelines, and defninitely include examples. Pretty much remake the Assessment page to be specifically about albums. -Freekee 05:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka

  • There is apparently a controversy over at the album Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Jajouka, it seems some editors believe the article should be split in two as the re-release was titled "Brian Jones Presents The Pipes Of Pan At Joujouka". I dunno if there is any precedent for this. If any editors here have any suggestions for the editors of this article, I suggest that they provide it at the article talk page. Cheers! Wickethewok 14:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My, but people can talk for a long time. I can't begin to understand the situation right now, but apparently at the heart of this is the [[Master Musicians of Jajouka]] vs. [[Master Musicians of Joujouka]] problem. (Which appears to be a dispute over a 4000-year-old lineage.) –Unint 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the matter in question, but the whole thing makes me wonder if Alai should create a dump of all articles with {{album}} on the talk page and {{Not verified}},{{Primarysources}}, or {{totallydisputed}} on the article page.--Fisherjs 15:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
And I thought albums would be a non-controversial area. Anyone would think they are contesting the naming or politics of a country or people, not an album. Sheesh. Bubba hotep 16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Fisherjs, I think that might be a very small list because I'm sure I am right with my assumption that albums are historically non-controversial! Bubba hotep 16:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Whatever number is come up with (and we might be surprised), why not make each of them subcats of Category:Album articles needing attention? --Fisherjs 19:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think it would help to categorise what actually needs attention in the article. If it's a straight forward matter of wikifying, formatting, etc - they can be sorted quickly. Track listings, personnel - not so quick, but still easy enough. And then the expert negotiators can tackle the controversies! Bubba hotep 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Album notability

Has anyone noticed that the album notability argument has begun again here? Bubba hotep 22:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And, I must say, hasn't gone anywhere since. Bubba hotep 19:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This whole "notabilty" thing is merely a plot to makes us spend even more time in Wikipedia! LOL. Ricadus 00:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think?

There is a very well known album by Van Halen called Fair Warning that has a page here. There is a not so well known debut album by the band Fair Warning titled Fair Warning that I want to create. The rule says I should name it Fair Warning (album) but would that be confusing to people when searching who aren't aware of both discs and should I rather name it Fair Warning (Fair Warning album)? Or stick with the rule and let them find out on their own. Thanks Solonyc 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To prevent any further disambiguation (another album called Fair Warning in future, perhaps), I think you should call it Fair Warning (Fair Warning album) with a disambiguation link at the top of the Van Halen album article pointing towards it. Bubba hotep 07:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

New collaboration task?

Work seems to have ground to a halt on the collaboration. I think it's just too big a task, as creating a really good start class article from scratch takes a fair amount of time and effort. Personally, I like having a collaboration task which I can dip into whenever I have a few minutes free at work.

This task has been active for about a week, so maybe we should change it and come back to it again sometime in the future. I'll put it in the regular task list. Shall we have a go at shifting the backlog of assessments? We could collaborate on any of the following for a week or so:

Any preferences, or would anyone prefer to do something else entirely? Alex valavanis 16:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How about upgrading stub-class articles to start-class or better when appropriate? Stub-class articles with more than 2000 characters and containing "personnel" or "credits" section seem to be likely candidates so here is the list of them :-) Jogers (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I just need winding up and pointing in the right direction! That will do, Jogers. Bubba hotep 21:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I would love to see assessment as one of our weekly collaborations. That's one reason I've been pushing to get assessment guidelines written. I think we're good on Stub and Start, but still a bit fuzzy for B-class. Maybe the next collaboration project should be to complete the assessment guidelines. :-) -Freekee 06:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Rating-10}} is used in more than 700 album articles. Shall we do something about this? Jogers (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops! So we're not supposed to use the {{Rating-10}} template for ratings in the info box? I guess I should have read this project page more carefully. I've been going through and fixing links to PitchforkMedia reviews and while I've been at it, I've been using this template. Are we just supposed to put (#/10) instead? Personally, I like the look of the stars. Why are we not supposed to use the template? I've worked on hundreds of articles over the past couple of weeks and hate to think that I have to go back through all of them! Sanfranman59 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
While you may have a preference for the images, you are misrepresenting the information provided by the reviews. Unless you have the [written] permission from all relevant sources to represent the numerical value assigned to a given review, such modifications are inappropriate. Folajimi 22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This comment confuses me. Can you clarify the concern? Jkelly 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by this comment as well. Are you saying that if the source article gives a score of 7 on a scale of 10, it's a misrepresentation to put it on a star scale of 7 stars out of 10 in the info box? Sanfranman59 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
All Music Guide uses stars in their ratings. As has been noted, Pitchfork uses numbers. Both are entitled to use whatever rating scheme they so desire (other reviewers use tick marks.) Using stars, tick marks, or whatever else in lieu of the numbers without the permission of the reviewer is misrepresentation of the actual information provided. Folajimi 23:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Geez ... I had no idea what a complicated business I was getting into here. Since I've gotten so much out of Wikipedia over the last few years, I figured I'd try giving something back. But it seems that I may have actually done more harm than good. I suppose I'll start going back through all the articles I've modified the past week or so and undo my work (do you happen to know if a bot could be written to do this?). When I do, do you suggest that I replace the rating template with a (#/10) kind of format or just leave the rating out entirely? Sanfranman59 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Depending on the current state of the affected articles, a revert might suffice. You could look into alternatives as well. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 00:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Folajimi. The problem is that in addition to fixing the Pitchfork links and adding the 10-star templates, I've been doing what I think are other legitimate fixes and updates to the infobox reviews sections of these articles (e.g, fixing other bad links, putting the reviews in alpha order, adding dates and adding links to AMG, Rolling Stone & Christgau pages where available). So I don't really just want to go back through and undo all of my changes. Sanfranman59 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization in Japanese titles/articles

In going through quite a few of these, I noticed that there is a tendency in the Japanese titles/articles to use ALL CAPS. I don't know if this is a linguistic thing, they're JUST SHOUTING, a translation problem, etc... A good example of this is SUZUKI AMI AROUND THE WORLD ～LIVE HOUSE TOUR 2005～. I was going to move this to a more proper capitalization, but if you look at the album cover Image:M03055427-01.jpg, the title there is in all caps.

A similar problem is with song titles. There doesn't seem to be any consistency - sometimes the proper caps are used, sometimes not, even in the same article.

So, the question is, do we correct these to proper English capitalization, or stick with the SCREAMIN' ALL CAPS? SkierRMH 07:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#English words in Japanese titles says proper English capitalization. In fact, I'm sure there's been much lengthier discussions about this. The problem, on the other hand, is that nobody ever seems to bother to enforce this rule! (And I would suggest that it is completely nonsensical to capitalize album titles based on mere cover typesetting. By that logic, we could argue that, say, The Dark Side of the Moon doesn't have a title at all because there's no title on the cover.) –Unint 08:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names applies here. I see no reason to treat Japanese titles differently. I've noticed the terrible mess in Japanese articles too. Just like Unint said - seemingly nobody bother to fix this. Jogers (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Much thanks for the correct procedures - I wasn't sure which convention would apply here. Now I'll fix-em up as I find them! SkierRMH 20:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
And now I know, too! Bubba hotep 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

album covers in chronologies

I've just removed about 200 of them. Can we mention in the guideline that they shouldn't be used? Jogers (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

New album notability guidelines?

I would like to direct your attention to User:Ryanpostlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album) (talk page), where we are drafting up new criteria for album notability. The single criterion we have right now just won't do! If you disagree with what is there, please make suggestions! (Originally from WikiProject Music) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned the same thing 5 topics up ↑. I thought it was a non-starter. Will have a look again if anything has changed. Bubba hotep 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I honestly think this is going to open up an pandoras box here and possible drive away people. Just yesterday I had to defend album listings because a new page person tagged for speedy deletion and an admin realized I was right to put up the pages. Once they checked my links they realized it's notability. I agree with the opinion that if the artist is notable then the albums are notable, including guest appearances, one off projects, side bands etc... I think the better argument is made for individual songs having their own pages, stricter guidelines can be made and I believe are set for those. I am concerned that the proposed guidelines don't take into consideration the current state of the music industry and also might be too US centric.Solonyc 15:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, the discussion about what to do is taking place in several different forums. And I'm still having trouble getting my head round the implications now that it seems to be agreed that band notability = album notability. By far the best argument I've heard is this one, again in a different place. Bubba hotep 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in basic agreement with that post you linked to, thanks for guiding me to it. I can see where having this debate in so many places can be a problem.Solonyc 15:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Before I add something I wonder what is your opinion of the purpose of the stricter guidlines. Is it to insure that some band records in a garage, puts out a demo disc, gives it to friends in a small town and tries to put something on Wiki on it or is it that no one cares about a hard to find release from a well known artist who is notable? I am all for stopping the first but wary of the second. Thanks Solonyc 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. As I said, I'm a bit baffled by it all. As I (think) I say on that page, the notability should come from the band perspective (this cuts out your garage bands cutting their own discs in the first instance) - this renders a discussion about whether one of their albums is notable rather redundant, a tad irrelevant, and not a little irksome! Go ahead and have your say and see what the outcome is. :) Bubba hotep 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Surely such "notabilty" cleansing would make wikipedia even more attractive to wannabe garage bands, since any that slip through the net can then spuriously claim to be notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricadus (talk • contribs) 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

How do people feel about the need for new notability criteria? The current rule is simply, if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.

I find this to be taken as there's an article about the band, so we can write articles on every record they ever released. Do you think that's a good thing, or would you prefer a little discrimination? And if the latter, do you feel that guidelines are needed? -Freekee 04:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The draft guidelines at User:Ryanpostlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album) (talk page) are absurd and unnecessary. I agree with the contributor directly above me. There's no need for a tedious checklist in which chart placings, outside articles etc accrue points of worthiness. If 10cc warrants an article, then every album they released -- even (and possibly especially) if they tanked -- is notable.
An example: I have just added brief articles on the first three albums by New Zealand band The Human Instinct, a band that was prominent in hard rock in that country in the late 60s/early 70s, and whose albums have become highly collectable. Did they chart? Probably not. Are they notable? Absolutely. They were an integral part of the development of NZ rock. Wiki is the natural place to record for posterity what's known about them. Grimhim 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You bring up one of the problems with judging notability on the English Wiki, that it may be US or Euro centric. I am in the US and even though I have some releases from Asia (Japan specifically) I have no idea what the NZ or Australian music scene is like and who might be or have been notable in it other than AC/DC and a couple other artists. I can just imagine what we are missing there or in Russia, Japan or other countries that do produce English language music. If I were a new page screener I would probably not recognize the band you mention, it's members or the record label they were on. If the screener did not check your links on the albums page (which some don't do) then you would then have to defend a deletion, if you saw it in time.
I agree with Bubba hotep's posts above. Notability should come from the bands or artists perspective. I also see pitfalls in the loss of notable album articles and even more problematic the loss of notable contributors. Thanks Solonyc 05:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the new criteria was actually to be more inclusive. All notable albums by non-notable artists are excluded under the current, single criterion. How can we justify that such an album is notable in this case? It is impossible, since the artist being non-notable precludes any chance for the album to be considered notable.
Now, if the artist was non-notable, wouldn't a notable album make that artist notable? Intuitively, it would seem so, but the only thing in Wikipedia-land that makes an album notable is having a notable artist. Thus, there is a circular argument keeping many albums out.
I realize that such albums are few and far between, but I would not say they are non-existent. If you would have a look at the latest at User:Ryanpostlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album), you will see my latest edition (Feb 10.) which includes the "notable artist → notable album" as criterion #1 and then includes most of the other proposed criteria (with some rewording), just to be sure that no notable album is excluded. It should make everyone happy, I think. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, I really do think that there are albums out there, by notable artists that don't deserve articles. Like compilations, for example. There were a couple dozen records released under Jimi Hendrix's name, in the seventies and eighties - both compilations and live albums. I'm not sure some of them even deserve mention in the discography. Only a few deserve articles. -Freekee 06:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • This sounds like Time–Life territory... there are companies that do a fair amount of business peddling box sets or compilations. I doubt that publishing their catalogue is worth the effort. Then again, List of Now That's What I Call Music! albums seems to have taken on a life of its own.
As for the proposed modifications, it has fallen prey to the "first impressions die hard" apothegm. The exclusionary tone — real or perceived — borne by the proposal at the outset may have very well doomed it from the start. As has been noted by others, this proposal has shown little consideration (if any) for the WP:CREEP maxim. In fact, one could argue that the introduction to WP:MUSIC, along with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules negates the need for the proposed revamp. Folajimi 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I am beginning to see the need for notability guidelines when it comes to compilation albums. I remember in the late 80s, a label called Castle Communications brought out a slew of compilations which were both unofficial and pretty much un-noteworthy (they were available under several other guises in years before and certainly after - you know, £1.99 bargain bucket stuff) - so yes, in those cases we don't really need them on here. Demos? Unreleased albums? I don't know, perhaps they do have a place on here, maybe not. As a rule, I would say any official release by a notable band has the right to an article. Also, sorry, can someone give me an example of a notable album by a non-notable band? I thought most bands became notable through an album (judge a man by his actions, sort of thing). Not being funny, I genuinely don't know when this would be the case and care to be enlightened! Bubba hotep 14:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to think of a 'notable' album by a 'non-notable' band, isn't it?! Not so difficult to come up with songs/singles in that light (one-hit wonders) but an album... Anyway, re. the compilations, tend to agree. I think you need to make a judgment call on the compilations and live albums. Some are considered canon and some not; often they're released without involvement/consent by the artist, particularly if they've left the label in question (though that doesn't necessarily make them non-notable). The literature on an artist can give a guide. If a compilation or live album doesn't get some reasonable press then perhaps it shouldn't be in Wikipedia (discography or article) no matter how notable the artist. Cheers, Ian Rose 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. And unless we add some wording, like "generally any album by..." the current guidelines are meaningless. Non-notable albums by notable bands will have to be kept. But at deletion review, they will be thrown out on grounds of common sense, so our guidelines will lose respect. -Freekee 06:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you agree with? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Good question. Sorry about that. I guess my comment will have to stand on its own merits. I feel strongly that some albums by notable bands are not notable. If we don't adopt this new policy, I believe we need to reword the current criterion to exclude such records. Otherwise such records will fall in deletion review and the criterion will become ignorable. -Freekee 05:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to canonical or non-canonical entries? If you are referring to the latter, then I am in agreement... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 11:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that if an artist is notable than all their distinct and separate official releases are notable and therefore deserves a separate page. To me separate and distinct releases do not include re-issues, renamed re-issues, remasters or import versions and their like, and that are mostly indistinguishable from the first (or if you like root) release of the title other than a couple bonus tracks or a different track order. These indistinguishable releases can be dealt with on the article page in a notes or releases section. I will go into broader aspects of this (maybe I'll create a new topic for it) as soon as I work out in my head what I want to say.

My reasoning on the main point is thus. Wiki is or has become a reference for people around the world in many subjects. The reality on the music biz is that different albums are released in different markets on different labels at different times. While some may not think that an Asian only released EP or the 26th live Deep Purple album or 8th Queen compilation is notable (for the record I do and like both bands) someone out there is going to have it and wonder where the Wiki reference is. And if he doesn't see it he will add it sending us back to square one. Just because I live in one area of the world and don't recognize the release doesn't mean it isn't notable. We have an opportunity here to provide for people all around the world (and to posterity) a full complete reference for musical works, or at least as full as we can. In that spirit I think all distinct and separate releases should have their own article page.

This really sends us back to the what makes an artist notable debate, but that is for another day.

I hope I haven't caused more problems here. Take care Solonyc 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Catalog numbers

The inclusion of catalog numbers in album pages seems to be standard. Is it, or is it merely useless and/or redundant information by Wikiproject guidelines? ErleGrey 14:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally haven't used catalog(ue) numbers in any album articles I have created. Of the few thousand I have encountered lately, only a handful of them have had these numbers included. Some would say they are handy for reference (collectors or buffs) whilst others would say it is irrelevant trivia. I have no opinion either way, to be honest. Bubba hotep 14:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I add cat numbers when I have them. The same album can have different versions, imported releases, remastered, re-issued etc.... The cat number is a quick way to tell if you have a different version from the listed one and if you might have something to add like extra tracks or an alternate cover.Solonyc 14:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussions of this point have always ended with a rejection of the use of catalogue numbers. I don't know the location of these now; can anyone help? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Always in the fourth place you look! Here. Bubba hotep 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And more recently, here – Bubba hotep 15:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting discussions. I agree that different cat numbers should only be brought up if there is a notable reason for it. For example there are albums released in the US that have also been later released in Japan or Europe. If those albums have additional bonus tracks on them then I will usually add something like the following in the track list:

Asian version (Avalon Records MICP-10444) adds

13 "It's You I Adore" – 3:37
In this way someone who is researching the band can know what to look for in finding the different versions. I don't think it clutters the page or adds too much info.Solonyc 15:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, from what I can see scanning those archives, wasn't the discussion about excluding catalogue numbers in the infobox, not necessarily anywhere else in the article? Bubba hotep 15:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Understood, I think it is up to each person's taste and common sense (I know that can be dangerous territory).

Having 40 cat numbers in the infobox wouldn't be wanted and having one I don't think is a problem. Solonyc 18:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Bubba hotep for tracking down the discussions; I'd remembered something more conclusive, but perhaps it was conducted somewhere else.

One of the problems with catalogue numbers is that they can date fairly quickly: reissues usually (always?) have different numbers. In the field of pop, etc., that's not too much of a problem for the most part, but in other areas, such as jazz and classical, it can be horrendous. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it depends on the individual case. For a Rock compact disc it may only have one or two releases and putting in the cat number isn't really an issue. If you have many releases of the same album then it may deserve it's own heading like was used here Let It BeSolonyc 19:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a good example of useful catalog numbers. -Freekee 06:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, if you want to go the whole hog with catalogue numbers may as well make it a release history table like that. No point in cluttering up an infobox with them. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

But make sure that the catalogue/catalog distinction is mentioned with regard to the nationality of bands & artists... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is usually this. In the infobox I try to put in the first issued record label (if I know it) and it's corresponding cat number. If there are further releases I only mention a different label and cat mumber if there is a significant difference between the new release and the original release. Usually this involves added tracks, different cover or packaging and things of that sort. I note that difference in the relevant section (like Track listing) or in a Notes section. The reality of the music biz is that a typical album with the same exact contents can have different record labels and different cat numbers depending on changing lables, years released, countries released in, re-issuing of catalogs, etc... For some bands (like The Beatles in the above example I provided) it may make sense for a separate section on releases and cat numbers. For most I don't really think it adds that much. My main point in this whole thing is that one cat number in the infobox isn't a bad thing. I usually add it right after the record label using a break command so that it fits neatly underneath the labels name. Thanks Solonyc 19:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the original catalogue number (perhaps a couple if different for UK and US markets) makes sense as what we (should) do in the infobox is give the data for the original release. Cheers, Ian Rose 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Catalogue numbers are ephemeral inventory codes and are important to the record company but they don't contribute anything to the understanding of the bands or their music. Anyone wanting up-to-date catalogue numbers will find them elsewhere on the web (amazon etc) where it is someone else's task to keep the info correct. Original release numbers may be of interest to collectors, but these are best displayed in a supplementary table at the bottom of the article page. Such a table can inserted if/when thought necessary rather than inviting the cluttering up of the standard info panel by making a catalogue number field in the template – inevitably people will be tempted to insert numerous re-release and international variations (along with dates etc) as time goes on. Ricadus 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Professional review dates in infobox

What format should be used for dates of professional reviews in the infobox? I've searched through the discussion archives for this project and haven't found anything. The MOS says to spell the date out, e.g. February 11, 2007. But that doesn't work well for the review dates. I've been using a mm/dd/yyyy format, but recognize that most of the rest of the (non-American) world uses dd/mm/yyyy. Is there a consensus on this? Sanfranman59 02:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we ever discussed this before. What's the problem with full dates? Jogers (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking here about the reviews that are included in the infobox. Using the full date takes up a lot of space and causes each review to wrap to a second line. It seems to me that most people use the American format, but there's a good bit of variation. Sanfranman59 00:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Right. Using American format in articles about non-American albums and vice versa may be problematic though. If we used footnotes instead of embedded citations there would be enough place in references section to provide a full date with reader's date preferences enabled, review's author name and anything else. Jogers (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Consider three letter abbreviations; they are compact enough to avoid the wrap-around, while heading off possible ambiguities. Although redirects already exist for many dates (e.g. Feb 13), others might need to be created for completeness (e.g. Feb 01). --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of stars templates for reviews in infobox.

Am I correct that we are only to use the star templates in the professional reviews section of the info box if the source explicitly uses a star rating system? For everything else, the rating should be put in parentheses after the name of the publication and should be in the same format used by the source (e.g. 7.8/10 or 4/5 or B or 80%), correct?

In reviewing past discussions on this topic (which I now wish I'd done more thoroughly before I edited a bunch of articles!), I think there was some talk of creating a bot that would go through and change occurences of the star templates to text. Is this possible? It sure would save me a ton of work undoing what I've done. Sanfranman59 03:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the publication uses another system, it should not be converted into a star one. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It could be done relatively easy using AutoWikiBrowser. Jogers (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cat for Cat:Albums w/o Year

Category:Albums without a by-year category is currently in the cat Category:Uncategorised albums but that's not quite right, is it? An article could be lacking a year category, but still have other cats (most likely "<band> albums"). How about if we put this cat in Category:Album articles needing attention instead?--Fisherjs 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would put it in the main Albums cat, piped with a µ, to put it at the bottom with Uncategorized albums and Albums without cover art. But which albums should be in the cat? All albums without year cats, or only albums without the year cat but which have other valid cats? -Freekee 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Fisherjs's suggestion, of the two. A more strictly logical structure might be for the parent to be Cat:albums needing categories instead of Cat:uncategorised albums (one can also split hairs about whether sorted stubs are "categorised", likewise), and for that to have subcats as suggested for those lacking specific types of category. Alai 12:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think when the cat was populated the first time, it was all albums w/o year cats, but yes, maybe they had a cat like Category:Sting albums. So they weren't necessarily uncategorized. Since there haven't been any strong objections, I'm going to go ahead and make it a subcat of Category:Album articles needing attention (not that it's a big deal, especially while it's an empty cat).--Fisherjs 20:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hotep makes a mental note to subtract 5 (instead of 4) from the number that comes up when he hovers over the "Albums needing attention" cat using pop-ups when updating the category summary ;)
Albums needing categories is not a bad idea. Any album article that is missing either the band or the year category can go in it. I don't think articles with one or the other should be a subcat of uncategorized, but that makes logical sense. -Freekee 04:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete infobox list

That's a point, why is this in there? And does anyone use it anymore? Isn't it a bit like the old "needs infobox" we used to have? OMG, have I just opened another can of worms. Perhaps I should have started a new thread? :( Bubba hotep 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That list needs to die. It should be made obsolete by the idea floated by ReyBrujo at this discussion (to populate the cats based on the lack of data in the infobox). This requires the help of Alai or someone else with bot skillz. --Fisherjs 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, sorry Rey, wasn't in on that discussion, must have missed it. :) Bubba hotep 21:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Track List Questions

I have two questions related to At Yankee Stadium, any help appreciated.

1) Where track length vary between different releases of the same album (LP vs. CD, for example), is there any standard for which lengths to list? (or a standard way to present multiple sets for different releases of the same album?)

2) An extra song was added for the original release, omitted from all other versions of the album. (Kind of an anti-bonus track.) Is there a standard method to deal with an album whose tracks vary between releases? --Skyraider 06:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've been putting up pages of albums that have Asian versions with bonus tracks. Take a look at one done recently: Human Zoo. I like this way better than putting * or ++ after the song. In the infobox I put the shorter length first followed by the longer time that includes the bonus track in parenthesis. That matches the parenthesis surrounding the Asian releases label and cat number. I think it is pretty intuitive. I'd like to hear some thoughts on it from people. It isn't a standard but maybe something like this could be one day. Take care Solonyc 06:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to see a page where I have omitted tracks instead of adding check here: Clown In the Mirror.Later Solonyc 06:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What you did with those two albums is pretty much what I would have/have done, Solo. Bubba hotep 09:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Don't forget to add the {{album}} tag to the article talk page! :) Bubba hotep 09:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bubba...thanks, I think it makes sense. I always look around to see what others are doing. I am not above stealing a better idea and tweaking things. :) I will add the tag. Thanks for all your contribs. I'm still learning things here, not sure what I should do on my own and what not to. Seeing today that ny is a sheet of ice this morning I hope to get some more stuff up. Take care Solonyc 15:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we are all still learning little tricks and such. I think I still revisit the articles I created six months ago to see (a) if they are still there (!) and (b) to add anything I have since learned. So that's where the ice went? We had it here in England this time last week... and several inches of snow. :) Bubba hotep 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Where track lengths vary, pick one and list the source inside a comment tag. Like this: <!--- source of track times: CD liner notes --->-Freekee 04:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup lists

By request of Fisherjs, I've cranked out some lists of intersections between the Cat:albums hierarchy and various maintenance hierarchies, as of the last db dump. They're all relatively short:

Feel free to modify the lists as you go if you're working on these. Alai 12:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. What do we think - something for User:Bubba hotep/ALBUM so we can keep track of these? Also, maybe {{wikify}} would be even the best template to do a search on.--Fisherjs 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Discography galleries: bold AND italicized?

I have seen some band article recently that have galleries to present the artist's discography. However, the album name was not boldfaced and italicized, as I am used to seeing, but only italicized.

Is there any convention on this? From what I gather, it seems like it's up to the editor. Personally I think in the main body of the article, it should obviously only be italicized, but on its own in a discography section, bold text stands out much more strongly and I prefer it.

− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I reckon bold would certainly entice you to click the link to the album article rather than clicking the image only to be taken to... the image page. Bubba hotep 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


blink-182 Pop Punk vs Punk Rock vote

I have started a vote on the blink-182 article regarding the long term edit war over the bands genre of Pop Punk or Punk Rock. votes can be cast here. cheers --Dan027 07:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music? Although there doesn't seem to be much life around those parts lately. Bubba hotep 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
While not something to go exclusively by, I would tend to go by what All Music Guide has a group listed as, though bands are able to be in more than one genre. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal style

What do people think about making the project page a bit more like a portal (e.g. WP:PHYSICS)? I think it's a bit easier for new editors to find information there. It won't be too hard to shuffle things around into that format if others think it would be worth it. Alex valavanis 14:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, there isn't an album portal? How could we overlook this? Portals are good, not to mention more professional looking. Good idea. Bubba hotep 17:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that either - something else for us to do! Shall we use Portal:Albums as the address? Actually, originally I meant we could turn the WP:ALBUMS project page itself into a kind of "editor's portal" (like WP:PHYSICS has). What do you think? - Alex valavanis 10:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that Physics one was so good, I thought it was a real portal. One like that would be fine and dandy. Bubba hotep 10:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The concern I have here is the possible conflation; items in WP space are for handling the mechanics for delivery of content in the main space. Portals are supposed to facilitate easier access to said content available in the main space, without drawing attention to the activities of any given WikiProject.
(Of course, it seems that there are WikiProjects whose activities can be considered narcissistic at best, but that's another story...) --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't care for layout at the Physics Project page. I prefer the linear layout, rather than jumping back and forth across the columns to find my info. Worst of all, on the Physics page, there's no table of contents. I also prefer as much info as possible on the project page (as long as the sections don't get out of hand), rather than having to click a lot of links to get to the info I need, like on WP:MUSICIAN.
Which reminds me... The infobox section is pretty big. Since it's transcluded from the template documentation, can we reduce that to include only the basic info, and cut it off before "Advanced usage"? -Freekee 03:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

inconsistency in capitalisation

WP:ALBUM says "In titles of songs or albums, the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that:

  1. Are the first or the last word in the title
  2. Are not conjunctions ("and", "but", "or", "nor"), prepositions ("to", "over", "through"), articles ("an", "a", "the"), or the "to" in infinitives.

"

wheras WP:NC says "to capitalize words that are the first or the last word in the title and those that are not conjunctions (and, but, or, nor, for), prepositions (in, to, over), articles (an, a, the), or the word to when used to form an infinitive. Note that short verbs (Is, Are, Do) and pronouns (Me, It, His) are capitalized. Words of five letters or longer are generally capitalized, regardless of their part of speech."

There seems to be an inconsistency in the capitalisation of prepositions of 5 or more letters. So should it be "Live through This" or "Live Through This"? Spearhead 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be inclined to follow WP:NC as it is probably updated more often and WP:ALBUM's was probably (at some time) copied from there. I may be wrong, but it makes sense to me. Bubba hotep 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have amended this article to bring it into line with WP:NC. -- Beardo 05:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:MUSTARD, which I usually defer to, also agrees. –Unint 15:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

leaked album information

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but should leaked album information be included in an album article? Personally, I don't think it should, since virtually all albums are leaked before their official release date. However, if the leaked album spawns something else, such as the artist pushing up the release date or something of that importance, then I do think it should be included. Any thoughts? W3stfa11/Talk to me 04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think any leaking of any kind would have to be supported by the policy on WP:RS and WP:V as a matter of importance. For example, a leak reported in a blog or on a board would probably not be worth mentioning as it could be seen as little more than a rumour. However, a more prominent leak on a large music website may be worth a mention. All comes down to the notability of the source, I guess, like anything else. Bubba hotep 11:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 8#"This album was leaked". --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If leaked albums are allowed then it would be dumb for some album company PR person not to come on here and put up a page whether it was true or not as to release date just to keep up interest in the band. I know this happened with press releases from record companies years ago. I'm not sure that it isn't happening now on Wiki. Solonyc 20:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost certain it is. "Propaganda" leaks are commonplace. Wikipedia is rife with spam (although there are a lot of good people doing some excellent work to counter this). As long as WP:RS is followed, there shouldn't be a problem. Bubba hotep 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Explicit album covers

A different issue on album covers. Is there any policy or guidelines to album covers that show nudity? Does it depend on how much or who? Some original album covers were changed to less explicit covers. I have a couple original covers that I want to put up but I don't want there to be any problems with Wiki taking them off later. Thanks Solonyc 20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Jogers (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, hey, hey! Let me know when they are up, solo! <juvenile leering mode disengage> Yes, what Jogers said. Bubba hotep 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The one I have put up, Slave to the Thrill, isn't that explicit but I mainly wanted to know for the future. Thanks. Solonyc 22:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A pet peeve

On the project page track listings are shown as this:

  1. "Complete song title" (John Doe, Brian Smith) – 4:23

But that leads in practical reality with links to things like this:

  1. "Baby It's You" (Mack David/Barney Williams/Burt Bacharach) – 2:38

Which if you are reading it at 3AM on a small screen or a laptop just looks like one big line of blue. I would propose a change to the following:

  1. "Baby It's You" – 2:38 (Mack David/Barney Williams/Burt Bacharach)

Letting the time break up the links makes it a little easier to read, helps prevent the mouse from floating to the wrong link and in a full album listing actually lets things look a little more symmetrical. We don't have to start changing all older pages now but if we could make the change on the project page for future releases I think it would be a good thing. I am interested to know what others think. Thanks Solonyc 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly an alternate, though the vast majority of album articles don't have songs that have their own articles; that usually is just the case for popular bands/albums. The guidelines at WP:ALBUMS are suggestions and album articles don't need to explicitly follow them. This is a good suggestion for an unusual case. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree most albums don't have linked songs in the track listing yet there are some very popular albums that do get many songs linked and I think this makes it easier to read for everyone. On another level we can always hope that as time goes on more articles get written for songs in the future. Thanks for responding. Solonyc 02:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Small alteration to your banner

As some of you may know, there's been some discussion regarding the number of WikiProject banners on article talk pages. There are three projects underway that attempt to "reduce the clutter". The first, of course, is the "small" option - see Small option for more info. The second is {{WikiProjectBanners}}, which hides all the banners in a one-line box. As has been discussed on that template's talk page, this option has the disadvantage of hiding WikiProject banners, which defeats one of the purposes - to recruit new members. The third option is {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, which addresses that issue by reducing each banner to one line (with the option to view the full banner).

Now the reason I'm bringing this up is because adopting this third option requires a small alteration of a WikiProject's banner - to add the "nested=yes" parameter. I'd like to determine consensus within this project around the change and see if we can move forward with it. I've put together a sample of your banner with the new option coded in (code). As you can see, there would be no change to the banner if the "nested" parameter isn't there. If it *is* there, the banner would be part of the "within the scope of the following projects..." box.

Two projects that have already implemented this option are WP:MILHIST and WP:LGBT.

Thoughts? Concerns? Would going ahead with the alteration be okay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me. Has this proposed change been met with opposition by any Wikiproject? If so, what sort of arguments have been put forth against the proposed change? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions

I have seen some questionable edits made on articles pages and I am not sure if they are vandalism or just uninformed editors (or maybe I have things wrong) so I will put a few questions up here in the near future. I hope no one will mind. I think it may clarify things for me and possibly others too.

My first question concerns internal links. Under the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Track_listing heading the project says this:

On song linkages: Don't link to a song that has no article unless you believe that the song most certainly deserves an article and/or you are willing to write it.

Does that also apply not only to songs but to artists, musicians and album titles also? I think it should. I have seen a number of backup musicians, production people and others who I doubt are going to get articles on them (though I think we should wait a while to see if the editor plans to create them) getting linked.

My personal feeling is that a page littered with a lot of dead links looks confusing and a bit sloppy. Also many dead links get defined by others in different areas so that when we click on them later the person we thought was a drummer becomes a politician of the same name (or some other unsavory profession).

I feel some kind of guideline should be made for this and written on the project page. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks Solonyc (talk} 03:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts are that you should only create links to articles that are likely to be notable. Personally, I feel that if you create a link to an article, it's good practice (although not essential) to create a stub if it doesn't exist. It's unfair to class it as vandalism if someone links to an empty page unless it's something ridiculous! - Alex valavanis 03:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I was checking a page that when I created it had no dead links and now it has 5 dead links and one link goes to a totally different person. One of these links "might" be of a notable person but I am not sure of it and could not find much info on her. That's pretty much why I didn't link it in the first place. The others I believe are of non notable people. I agree it is more likely just an uniformed editor but I wanted to get some feedback from people. I am still new here and finding my way so the more info I get the better. I may just redo the incorrect info (there are other mistakes that were made). Thanks for your thoughts Solonyc (talk} 03:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a few personal rules of thumb. I usually test out each potential link manually and only link to targets where articles exist (which can be surprising sometimes), or non-existent articles that are already linked to by a considerable number of existing, in-context links. This is to strike a balance between ensuring only notable subjects are linked and the theory that red links to notable subjects may help encourage articles being created. (Of course, this takes a lot of time, which is why I don't do it much.) –Unint 04:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Unint, I do the same thing. I check for Wiki links on people I'm not sure of and it does take time. But when you have dead links to an unknown harmonica player, the third backup singer and the 2nd engineer it starts to get a little silly in my opinion. I would rather have them not linked, less chance of incorrect people getting linked and staying wrong forever. I can see an argument for a notable musician who we just haven't gotten to creating a page for but the others? Thanks Solonyc (talk} 04:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable — if they're unlikely to be notable musicians, it's probably worth removing the links. You could also ask the editor who linked them whether he knows something we don't! - Alex valavanis 10:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I am an avid disliker of redlinks and try to eradicate them wherever I see them. However, they do sometimes serve a purpose. Sometimes. I think they do (as Unint says) encourage people to create the article if they feel so inclined (and if it is already properly disambiguated, all the better, just dive in!). However, I never redlink band members or song titles, because chances are they are not notable enough for their own article, and I wouldn't want to encourage people to create those articles because they think someone has almost sanctioned it by providing a ready-made "create this article" link! I sometimes redlink album titles in discographies, but only when I fully intend to create the articles... eventually. Bubba hotep 10:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Bubba I think the create a page theory only works when the person knows it's a dead link. I have the "?" option enabled for dead links so I see when they come up but I don't think most casual users do that so they think the link is live until they click it. I can see that a title in a discography may be a nudge for someone to create the page. Also in the article I was checking the person just linked every name on the page and that leads to the links going to the wrong people. Things like that make thing harder for us to work with not easier. And the funny part was that he put in his edit comment "corrections" lol. Take care Solonyc (talk} 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I get ya! Wrongly disambiguated links are worse than red-links. A red herring, if you will. Or even more apt, a blue-herring! Bubba hotep 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Lol, blue herring..I'll have to remember that one. Thanks Solonyc (talk} 20:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Formatting record labels

I wanted to make a change to the page, but it's probably best to bring it up here. The page currently uses the link [[Columbia Records]]. However, I know pages for musical artists uses [[Columbia Records|Columbia]] (see Template:Infobox musical artist). Would it be a good idea to change the page for consistency? ShadowHalo 02:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

When did that happen? I thought it had always been piped. Anyway, it seems sensible to not have to display "Records" all the time, especially if multiple labels have to be listed. –Unint 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, when I first started creating album articles, I must admit I always used Columbia Records (example), whereas after having read somewhere about piping the link to omit the "Records" part, which I find makes more sense aesthetically, I always pipe now. But I'm sure I read it here, and like Unint, thought it had always been piped! Bubba hotep 10:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I also put the whole name in the info box. I didn't know not to. I will change my edits in the future to reflect this. My only question is why do we have article titles like "Atlantic Records" then? Should it be "Atlantic (record label)"? Is this just a shortcut for the infobox or should we also do this in the main body of the article? Thanks Solonyc (talk} 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably best to use the actual records company name. Not all record companies use the records extension, such as Steamhammer GmbH. Multiple record companies should best be listen with a line break (<br>.) Spearhead 10:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unreleased albums and singles

I just finished closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TBA Nelly Furtado and in the process deleted 48 fake album cover images. I've seen this in the past as well, and I suspect this happens even more than we notice because much of the time the images get automatically deleted for having copyright issues. Why people want to create fake album cover images is beyond me. Anyway, the larger problem is that there are too many articles in Wikipedia on unreleased albums and singles. These are 99% based on rumours. Sometimes the albums are "confirmed" by the artist and possibly even in an interview in a pop magazine. However, these are only confirmed intentions. The actual release is not confirmed until it happens. As an example of the fallacy of accepting intentions as fact, I've seen album articles with information like "artist X has confirmed that the album will be released in May 2005" (yes, a date in the past). I've seen articles with sections titled "Unconfirmed tracklist" (um, WP:RS?). I've seen articles with tracklists that change erratically as rumours change. I've also seen articles with sentences like "X was rumored to be the next single from album Y, but it never happened". There's almost never any reliable information on facts about unreleased albums and singles. Rumours are never okay; confirmed intentions (with citations from reliable sources) would be okay to mention on the artist's page, but not their own article. I used to have a softer view on these, but I've seen so many problems that I now think there should be a general guideline against articles on unreleased albums. Even for singles and albums that are highly likely to be released (e.g. singles from an already-released album), there's almost never much information that can't be merged to the parent article until the actual release. I suggest as a first step in this global cleanup, that any articles (e.g. look in Category:Upcoming albums and Category:Upcoming singles) that don't have much information based on reliable sources should be speedy-redirected to the parent article. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 07:46Z

You are absolutely right to be concerned with this issue, Quarl, as I have been whilst doing the rounds stub-sorting and adding infoboxes. If I see anything suspect, I invariably ProD the article or if there really is no discernible content, redirect to the band/artist article as a matter of course, and I would urge others to be bold and do the same. As I noted in a discussion a couple of threads up (on leaked albums), the key to this, as with all other aspects, is sources and verifiability. – Bubba hotep 10:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added Category:Upcoming albums to the WP:ALBUM category summary (item 12). It is currently showing (after a manual check, will get AWB to count them later!) 562 articles which are categorised as upcoming. We may find that some of these are indeed released now and need redirecting to the album article proper (I have come across duplicates in the past) or renaming. But I wouldn't be afraid to get the old ProD out to clear some of these up. Good luck! Bubba hotep 10:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
In my experience with the recording industry most of the inaccuracies or outright lies about upcoming album releases start with the record company that is releasing it. The most blatant example of this is Chinese Democracy. I remember seeing advance press releases for this album in the late 90's and it's still hasn't been released. The album (and all it's twists and turns) deserves having it's own section on the Guns N' Roses page but being included on the discography page (where it is also) is just ridiculous. At least that's how I feel about it. Thanks Solonyc (talk} 19:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, good counterpoint about when merge is appropriate. But the problem with the amount of information about release information chronicles is that most of the ones I've seen are either (1) based on rumours or unsourced, or (2) based on primary sources. We want info based on secondary sources; otherwise it's original research or original synthesis (see WP:ATT). (And you're right that Chinese Democracy is an extreme example, with lots of secondary sources such as Rolling Stones calling it "arguably the most anticipated album in rock & roll history". So in this example I agree it deserves its own article.) —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 20:25Z

Quarl, it deserves it's own article, it is a great or tragic story in it's own right, but does it deserve to be on a discography page? This is an album that is not only unreleased but has been unreleased (depending on what press release you believe existed) for over a decade. It's its own urban legend. It has risen, or sunk, to the level of farce. But I'm sure if it got taken down a whole bunch of people would scream so I guess we have to live with it. Take care. Solonyc (talk} 20:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about Chinese Democracy, then please re-read my comment. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 20:43Z
Ok, I guess we are in basic agreement then, I just had to get things off my chest I guess...lol. Later Solonyc (talk} 20:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want a laugh go here Upcoming_Live_CD. Now I don't think these albums deserve to be here but if they are going to go up then at least be serious about it. I am resisting the temptation to put Al Gore in the list of Possibly Involved (it's possible) or "the CD after this one" in the chronology.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solonyc (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

International album versions and covers

Being in the US many albums made in Japan come with previously unreleased tracks (bonus tracks) and are highly collected here. I have seen people call them Japanese versions yet while they may or may not be currently made in Japan these albums are usually sold throughout most of Asia. In fact many Japanese record companies now have working deals with companies in Korea, Taiwan, China, etc... Also Korean and Chinese compact discs are showing up more and more in the US and worldwide with the same tracks and covers as the Japanese discs. I think it would be more accurate to call these releases Asian releases or Asian versions. Of course if there are many distinct versions from different countries than a full release list may be needed. If tracks lists and tracks themselves are different from many coutries and regions (North America/South AmericaEroupe/Russia/Asia/Australia) then a separate release history may be needed in the article body. But in most cases I think Asian is the correct term to use. The same rational follows for French or German releases being called European which is done regularly here. Compact discs by all but the smallest labels or distributors are rarely limited to one country in scope. They are usually intended to be sold region wide.

Related to the above I have seen different covers from other countries captioned as "Alternate". This is incorrect and may lead to changes later on. If someone in Tokyo or Beijing looks at an infobox with the Asian cover listed as an alternate he may say that is wrong and change it so that the US/Euro cover is the alternate. To him it is, remember Wiki is worldwide. I think if you are putting up a second cover and you know why it is different from the original or more common version (whether it's region of origin, re-issue, promo, banned, etc..) the correct explanation should be stated on the caption. Thanks Solonyc (talk} 22:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

When using the "Extra album cover" template, any word can be inserted in "Upper caption". I think most people put "alternate" because at one time, I think that is what was suggested on the template page (as an example) which people took too literally in some cases and maybe thought that was all they could put in there! Bubba hotep 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on the history but I just had an article where all my references of Asian were changed and the added cover was changed back to Alternate so being on my mind I wanted to get my rational out into the open for people to think about. I will wait a bit and then correct the page. I have kind of put a moratorium on putting up new pages.
I think your other point is right on too. Many people don't see the project page as a guideline but as a strict rule. I am seeing people conform to it right to the last comma and colon. If this is going to happen then I think more improvements should be made to the project page and debates about them started. I hope people don't mind me going on about this. I would like to hear what people think. Solonyc (talk} 23:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
What article was it, out of interest? I think we're all aiming for the same things here, and this being a project discussion page, I think your input is quite valuable. I think, WP:BOLD and WP:SOFIXIT apply sometimes, too. By all means talk about it first (as required to gain consensus), but if you think you can improve something: by the same token, fix it! What's the worst that can happen? ;) Bubba hotep 23:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment about my input, it's appreciated. I understand about being bold but I'm still sorta new and I don't want to get overly sensitive about my edits so I'll go back to the page, Restless Heart, in a couple days and make the changes back. I will put my rational on the talk page and if someone wants to discuss it they can. I do think changes need to be made to this project page to clarify things for new people and settle disputes. I hope they can be done through consensus. Meanwhile I have been having a go at adding some missing covers and infoboxes. Take care Solonyc (talk} 05:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation marks at the end of an album title

While working on a certain album-related article (Withering to Death.), I was wondering, since we already do away with stylized capitalization and apply title case, how to deal with a period (or punctuation marks in general) at the end of a title. - Cyrus XIII 07:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's best to copy it from the album. If it includes a full-stop, include it in the title as well. Otherwise I don't see any point in including one at the end. Spearhead 10:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Although, being a Japanese album, it may fall under the formatting anomalies mentioned in this thread above. Bubba hotep 10:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's from Japan, no outlandish text formatting will surprise me anymore. There is actually a band named Kagrra, - yes, the comma is supposed to be part of the name. I was thinking of moving those articles at some point to less stylized counterparts, but when it comes to pop culture there's usually fierce opposition from fans to be expected. - Cyrus XIII 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that both All Music Guide and IGN don't add the period at the end of the title. Jogers (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Album-related categories for deletion

I have nominated Category:Self-titled debut albums and Category:Eponymous sophomore albums for deletion. If you are interested, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Self-titled debut albums. Tinlinkin 10:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also nominated Category:Eponymous albums for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 12:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 12 |
Archive 13
| Archive 14 →


More maintenance?

See here for how this humungous list came about, but the upshot is: maybe more maintenance required. Please apply within:

  1. There are Category Talk pages with album tags on them, which may be fine except the tag says This article is within the scope of.... If this is OK, fine, we can delete those from the list and I will simply change the name on the category summary to WP:ALBUM pages. Makes sense because they are part of, and maintained by, the project.
  2. There are incorrectly tagged images. Instead of the "Fair use album/single cover" criteria, they have been tagged with the album project template.
  3. The rest are user pages, template pages, and Wikipedia pages: quite easy to rectify because there aren't that many

If item #1 is OK, then I can cut the list down to 1kb now! Thoughts. Bubba hotep 20:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If both is not a problem, then we can have, as you say, WP:ALBUM pages and Album articles which would exclude Cat talk pages and anything else (in other words, be restricted to main space talk pages). It's interesting to know how many album articles we've tagged (although so many are untagged, someone who runs AWB really needs to go through and tag articles...but that is another issue).--Fisherjs 13:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't see an easy way for AWB to pick out album articles that don't have tags on them. Unless they happened to already be uncategorised albums, or any other cat which denotes an album. That would be the first step, I suppose. The rest would just be stumbling over them every now and then. And to think that's how I started all this lark back in late December – using search to pick out anything which mentions "album" and seeing if it was tagged. Sufficed to say, I didn't get very far! Bubba hotep 14:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Check out the item on the To-do list entitled: Tag pages that have infoboxes with album templates on the talk pages. I'd look into it, but I can't run AWB. Since so many list dumps, cat tagging, etc are made based on the presence of the album template, getting that tagged appropriately on album article talk pages would have a good trickle-down effect.--Fisherjs 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll do it. Jogers (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Bon courage. What about tagging them with the album template if they are in Category:WikiProject Albums articles in case they don't have an infobox?--Fisherjs 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If a page is in Category:WikiProject Albums articles doesn't it mean that it has already been tagged? Jogers (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It ought to, as the template puts talk pages into Category:WikiProject Albums articles. Of course you should get the same results by doing "what transcludes here" in AWB. Up to you I suppose. If you're doing auto-stubbing you actually don't want to be skipping all tagged talk pages, you want to be skipping assessed pages only (so in that instance I probably wouldn't bother filtering my list). --kingboyk 22:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You are right, of course! I've been editing for all day and I just haven't thought of this. Thank you. Jogers (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I was totally not thinking straight. Actually what I was thinking is...what about an article with no infobox but with a cat like Category:1984 albums? Could you do a search on something like that? At least for the year cats. --Fisherjs 21:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought you meant but I wasn't sure :-) It only depends on where do I get the list of articles to work on from. Currently I tag the ones with the infobox but it wouldn't be a problem to tag the pages from year categories too. Maybe stub categories too? Jogers (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to start with articles categorized as stubs so they can be automatically assessed. Jogers (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Now about the tags on categories talk pages. Do you want me to tag subcategories of Category:Albums by artist? The {{Album}} template could be changed so it says "This page..." instead of "This article..." in case when class parameter is specified as NA. Jogers (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you kill two birds with one album template?

I see that you, Jogers, and your bot, are doing a great job adding and updating album templates on talk pages. I was wondering if you are able to (while you're at it) check to see for lack of an infobox and modify that parameter on the album template as well. I saw your edit here and thought maybe this whole bot thing could be taken a step further.--Fisherjs 12:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That might be possible if Jogers built a list of articles which use the infobox template, and then filtered the talk pages list against that to end up with a list of talk pages of articles without an infobox.
The alternative I suppose is to modify the AWB plugin which he is using, to load the article (currently it only loads the talk page) and check whether it has an infobox or a stub template. The downside is that would increase the load on the servers.
As author of the plugin I have a backlog of work so couldn't promise such a major upgrade in the near future, but if somebody proficient in VB.NET wanted to help me (of if you're willing to wait) it's possible, subject to discussion with the other WikiProjects about how it should be done and whether the extra running time and server load is worth it.
For now, what's your thoughts on this Jogers? --kingboyk 13:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I've just made a list of talk pages of album articles categorized as album which doesn't transclude the {{Infobox Album}} and are not in Category:Needs album infobox yet. There are almost 3000 of them. I've checked few random ones and many of them contained non-standard infobox in which case they should be tagged with {{newinfobox|type=album}}. Some of them were inappropriately categorized too. I uploaded the list here. Unless I was very unlucky when I picked up random pages I recommend manual inspection. Jogers (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the list so it contains articles instead of talk pages. It should be easier to work on this way. Jogers (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
One of them was a redirect (The White Album), which I've now decatted. For now it sounds like a manual job yes, but that's a lot of articles - and it would make more sense to simply use the list to add infoboxes and weed out deletion candidates... So, in other words, that's 3000 infoboxes to apply folks! :) --kingboyk 16:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Loading the article and checking whether it has an infobox or a stub template sounds like an interesting idea. Unfortunately I can't help with the plugin development (well, at least yet). Jogers (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it some more thought and perhaps initiate some discussion somewhere. Might not be too difficult. --kingboyk 16:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(Yet another) maintenance list?

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot here to keep me busy (and I'm working on it), but I was also wondering if anyone is interested in generating a list of albums that need to be redirected based on these capitalization rules. Maybe also in cases where "Album" (with or without parentheses around the word) should be "album". I'd be happy to work on that as well. --Fisherjs 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the list of album articles which titles contain the word "Album" somewhere inside parentheses. Note that it may be a part of the title in some cases. I don't know how to make a list of improperly capitalized articles. I'm not sure if it's even possible to do automatically. Jogers (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, when I add an infobox to an article should I take it off your list or will you update and regenerate them periodically? Thanks Solonyc (talk} 23:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It took me a while to make this list so I would prefer not to update it very often. So yes, please remove the articles as you add an infobox if it's not a problem. It's no big deal if you don't - somebody may do this later. I've divided the list into sections so it's easier to edit. Jogers (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll help work on some of those. I noticed some in the list have other appropriate infoboxes, like Infobox single or Infobox DVD. I presume those are ok to be taken off the list? I'm just striking out the ones I've done on there for now. - gRegor 01:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
But it's better to properly categorize them first. If an article is about DVD it should be categorized as Category:Music videos and DVDs instead of being categorized as album, right? The same for singles. Another example: "The Perfect Drug" Versions is an EP so it should have {{Infobox Album}} instead of {{Infobox Single}}. I think this kind of stuff should be cleaned up as well. Jogers (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not so sure what to do with "The Perfect Drug" Versions. Could somebody take a look at this? Jogers (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems like everything was merged into one article. I would make it an EP article, include all the versions (EP, single, 12") and then have a separate link for the song itself with all it's info and link it to the EP and soundtrack album articles. From my reading of the project pages this would not be going to current policy (though I may be mistaken). It does read like a mess. Solonyc (talk} 22:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Extra chronology and cover

Is there a way to put both an extra chronology and an extra album cover in the same infobox? I have tried it a couple times and it hasn't worked. Is there a page that has both that I could look at? Thanks Solonyc (talk} 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The EP example A Call to Arms on the Template:Infobox album page (next to Advanced usage) has both elements incorporated in it. You need to view Template:Infobox Album/doc to see the code for it, though. What you need to remember, is that the "Misc" field is just one field and that the extra chrono and extra cover elements are separate templates within that field (nested). If it helps, I have separated the code here for you. By the way, this is how you end up with infoboxes longer than the article sometimes! Hope this helps. Bubba hotep 08:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Bubba thanks. I don't know what I was doing wrong but I couldn't get it to work. You are right that the box is long but hopefully the article will get longer to. Take care Solonyc (talk} 14:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nocover.gif

I thought we were rid of this Image:Nocover.gif using the png version instead. But this gif version is back and there are pages linked to (using) it. What is up?--Fisherjs 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's now a Commons image. Does anyone know what the deal is with deletion of images there? - Alex valavanis 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've copied Image:Nocover.png across to commons too. - Alex valavanis 19:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I've marked the GIF as superseded and requested its deletion. - Alex valavanis 19:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Project Banner

I have updated the banner. Please let me know if there are any problems. Agathoclea 17:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

New articles by User:Dr. Thug

I'd appreciate some help going through the recent contribs by User:Dr. Thug. He has created a number of artist and album articles which need cleanup. Thanks, Fang Aili talk 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, some work to do there, yes, not a problem. Bubba hotep 21:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Another article check

While you are at it - could you give Fan3 and Jack tha Ripper a look-over. Both are reincarnations of a user that is hellbend of promoting himself and a few of his rapperfriends (real or imagined). The obvious ones have already been deleted, but there still seems to be a lot of singles in there that I think should go, but I don't know enaugh draw the line. Agathoclea 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Album tag parameters

I have seen several editors adding the {{Album}} tag with parameters like "needs-infobox=no" or "auto=no". I think there is no point of doing this. If the article already has an infobox or the assessment was done manually it is not likely to change, is it? Jogers (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I do this mostly so that I simply keep one block of text in my clipboard and simply change a parameter value. Having various templates to copy and paste would slow me down considerably, I think. Also, I figured more info is better than less because while I don't expect those things to change, it's possible that somebot in the future may want to search for cases when needs-infobox went from yes to no to yes (who knows?). I guess I can drop the auto=no when I tag articles. I was just trying to keep the template "complete" with all parameters. --Fisherjs 12:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that only the parameters being used and the really common ones like class= should be added. That's how my plugin does it, but at the end of the day it's just opinion. --kingboyk 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Does it really matter? Personally I'm slightly in favour of making these thing explicit instead of leaving them to default values (which might change over time). Spearhead 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Does it really matter? In most cases not one bit. --kingboyk 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
amen W guice 21:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Kingbotk Plugin

A quick overview for newcomers: The Kingbotk Plugin is a set of add-on tools for the wiki editor, AWB. In bot mode it offers robust templating for WikiProjects. In manual mode, it can also be used to help editors assess articles quickly and efficiently.

Per requests, myself and Reedy Boy (talk · contribs) have just released a new version of the Kingbotk Plugin which is compatible with the latest AWB. To make things even easier, the plugin now ships with AWB. You may also have noticed my bot running over the last few days, testing the new version.

Since your WikiProject is one of the few which are programatically supported it's important that you inform us of any important changes to your WikiProject's template which have occurred in the last few months.

  • The most important change we should know about is new redirects to your template. If your template could possibly be used on talk pages with a different name unknown to the plugin, double templating could result. Please take the time to check for redirects to your project's template - somebody might have created one without you noticing.
  • Deprecated or removed parameters. We don't want complaints that the plugin is using old syntax now do we? :)
  • Not critical in terms of annoying the masses, but for your own convenience you might want to let us know of any new parameters that the plugin needs to support. Remember, it only needs to support parameters which will be added by bots or which are useful in the article assessment process.

I hope you still find the tool useful. Comments, questions and bug reports to User talk:Kingbotk/Plugin. Cheers. --kingboyk 17:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC) PS I hope to have a new revision (version 1 release candidate 2) ready later today, for shipping with the next AWB release.

Sides

One frustration I have with CD reissues is that tracks from both sides at places in back to back order. For example, Track 1 of Side B simply becomes Track 6 on the CD. Can someone mention to preserve the importance of sides for albums which were released on vinyl / cassette?--Theblackgecko 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...

Took my eye off the ball for a minute: two categories ("Needs infobox conversion" and "Albums without a by-year category") have been deleted (see redlinks on the category summary). Did I miss a CfD discussion? Bubba hotep 09:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a speedy deletion criterion if a category is empty for at least four days. Jogers (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh is it now? Well, I think someone should rectify that situation. :) Bubba hotep 09:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess it's OK in most cases. I wonder how people stop other maintenance categories from being deleted after they are emptied. Jogers (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I asked the question at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Jogers (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm just checking now. I would assume that the category will reactivate when something is added to it anyway. It will still be redlinked but will have content. Bubba hotep 10:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
But the category description is lost and in case of Category:Needs album infobox conversion it was quite useful. Jogers (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey Bub, don't you have the power to delete/undelete now? -MrFizyx 10:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, but I mustn't abuse the powers invested in me! Process, process, process n' all that jazz! ;) Bubba hotep 10:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Never mind process, if they're needed and the history is useful I'll undelete them. --kingboyk 13:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind undeleting them, but if they are going to keep getting deleted if they remain inactive for four days, a longer term solution may be needed. Bubba hotep 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe making sure they're a subcategory of a maintenance category, and then asking folks who are doing the deletion (in good faith of course) not to delete maintenance cats? Anyway I undeleted them. --kingboyk 13:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

←Thanks. :) I might stick a little tag up the top saying something along the lines of "This page is emptied and refilled on a regular basis, and should not be considered useless." as is on the Category:Uncategorised albums page. Bubba hotep 13:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. --kingboyk 13:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Back covers

I occasionally see Template:Extra album cover used for back covers, e.g. South of Heaven by Slayer.. I don't really see any point in adding these. Any thoughts on these? Perhaps make it more explicit on WP:ALBUM what is supposed to go in that template. Spearhead 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Slayer albums? I've moved them into the infobox from the article body in the past, but never seen much point in them as all they do is confirm the track listing! Bubba hotep 17:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you did say Slayer albums in the first sentence. :) Bubba hotep 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there doesn't seem to be any point to them. Unless the back cover is notable for some reason and we need to discuss it in the article, there's no reason why we need to put it in the article, infobox or not. Jkelly 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll go and remove them then.... 19:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The most recent front-page album FA Enta Da Stage has both back cover and CD face in the article. –Unint 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Many AC/DC albums also have back covers (or did as of couple of weeks ago at least). --PEJL 08:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. I'm a firm believer in using album and single sleeves, including in discographies, but in most instances using back covers and CD scans is a step too far. We're not an image repository. --kingboyk 10:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in the most part. There would have to be a notable reason stated for a back cover (to illustrate different packaging, different artwork, etc..) otherwise they shouldn't be in the article. Solonyc (talk} 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also agree in general. There needs to be a specific reason for including the back cover; as a guide, something worth referring to in the body of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It could be useful to some capacity, but should not be included for no specific reason.Johnny2544 02:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

so does this mean we should take htem out if/when we see them? Violask81976 20:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes seeing as we are trying to achieve a free encyclopedia, and back covers that are not notable are fair use anyway.
-- Reaper X 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, i just removed all the back covers from all the Ac/DC albums, with "do not put back covers in articles WP:FAIR" in the edit summary, and will for any other albums with back covers. Violask81976 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Wait on there... I don't think removing them "when we see them" is the consensus above, rather removing them if there is no clear reason for them being there. If the back cover is described in the article because of something notable, then there's a reason to keep it. If it's essentially there just for decoration, then it should go. Cheers, Ian Rose 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

well, none of the ACDC ones had anything mentioned, i checked. I highly doupt there's anything you can pull off of a back cover. Violask81976 22:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FLC notice

Comment on support or opposition of Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_recordings_preserved_in_the_United_States_National_Recording_Registry. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fromowner

Have you noticed Wikipedia:Fromowner? You can see this very useful stuff in action for example here. Wouldn't it be great to have similar thing tailored for covers to use in album infoboxes instead of plain Image:Nocover.png? Jogers (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That thing is a great idea. On the other hand, a request for people to upload fair use images... You'll have to update me on the current atmosphere regarding that. –Unint 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, people upload fair use album covers anyway and we already encourage them to do so with the "no cover available" image. Why not help them to do it right with detailed instructions? Jogers (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
And besides, the backlog at Category:Albums without cover art is still growing... Jogers (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
it would be technicaly posible however given the abuse of fair use involved in our existing level of use I don't think it is a good idea.Geni 15:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you do it?

I only started contributing recently and I have been using my own CD collection as the basis for the info I have added. Is this the same for most people here or do you use info from websites like AMG, Rolling Stone, commercial stores and fanpages? Also what sites do you feel are best for info? Thanks Solonyc (talk} 22:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For English language albums I mostly use AMG but using your own collection is much better. Jogers (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Often, I export an album from iTunes to a txt file, then import to Excel where I have created a mess of functions to turn the info into Wikicode, formatted according to the project. I think most people put up info on music from their collection, which is why there is a ton of indie music and almost no classical. It's a shortcoming of the album project, I think.--Fisherjs 13:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what I thought. I have been cataloging my CD collection using CATraxx and thats where most of my info is from. I just cut and paste where I can and clean up after. I use AMG where I can but with some hard rock and metal discs there info is incomplete and sometimes just flat out wrong. Just wondered what resources people used. Thanks. Solonyc (talk} 22:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Can one of you two tell me how to do one of those? It sounds interesting....Violask81976 22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Horizontal rules (<hr> or ----) among reviews

I've noticed quite a few album articles with horizontal rules among the reviews in the infobox, seemingly to delimit reviews with stars from those without. See for example The Earth Is Not a Cold Dead Place. Should this be encouraged or discouraged? --PEJL 08:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I for one would discourage it. While I think each professional review item should be limited to one line for neatness, the horizontal line is a needless subdivider in my opinion, which isn't aesthetically pleasing either. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Structurally it makes no sense. The reviews are part of a list, and bullet points delimit them. Punctured Bicycle 09:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the comments above. Would anyone be interested in cleaning this up? I might be able to make a list of articles which use this scheme. Jogers (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorted the one out that was mentioned. Bubba hotep 11:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Ian Rose, Bicycle, Jogers. (just so you know). W guice 13:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

stuff to do

where'd the 'Things You Can Do' box thing from the top go? can we have another? W guice 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here. Jogers (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
boss, cheers. W guice 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome template

Anyone have interest in creating a specialized welcome template to welcome new users that edit album articles? It could be as simple as modifying the Cycling template. Might be good to alert new users to the project before they create too many poorly formatted articles. Or just generally direct users to the project if their first few edits are album-related. --Fisherjs 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I like this one from our friends at WikiProject Aircraft. Nice and bold and informative (obviously with tailored info pertaining to albums, of course!) Bubba hotep 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Or how about a hybrid? A cross between Cycling's new user welcome and Aircraft's project welcome, thus:

Hello, PEJL/WT:ALBUM archives/1–16, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in writing or contributing to album articles, you may want to check out WikiProject Albums, with tips on how to make and format a great album article. And while you are there, why not join in the discussions on improving albums in general on Wikipedia.

Again, welcome!

Feel free to muck about with it (I might have overdone some aspects of it, I dunno, maybe I underplayed the importance of some of it). Anyway, have a fiddle, it's a page transclusion from here. Bubba hotep 20:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, once it's done, it can be moved to Wikipedia space! Bubba hotep 08:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And, I've just gone and used it for the first time just now. Let's see what happens. Bubba hotep 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've moved this to Wikipedia space now – Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/New welcome. With a note on the talk page for usage, etc. Quite important to remember that if you do use it, to subst: the page rather than transcluding it. See how it goes, eh? Btw, I'm thinking of moving the albums category summary to Wikipedia space as well. Bubba hotep 12:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Album category summary has been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Summary. --Bubba hotep 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Freak Out!

Freak Out! is currently nominated as a featured article candidate, and could use some support. This is a great article about an important album. It would be a shame if this did not pass FA status. (Ibaranoff24 10:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

  • Just out of curiosity, why is this important? Folajimi 13:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Straight Outta Lynwood

There is some relatively heated discussion, both on this article's talk page and on WP:AN/I as to whether the word "Outta" in the page title should be capitalized or not. On one side, it is clearly the intent of the artist to have it capital, and this is how it is listed everywhere; as well, many other albums, songs, TV episodes, etc. have a capitalized Outta in Wikipedia. On the other hand, the Manual of Style states that prepositions in titles should not be capitalized, and outta is just a contracted form of "out of" and so to that argument should not be capitalized.

Has this come up here before in reference to albums, and if so how has the apparent contradiction between the Manual of Style, and the "official" name of the work been resolved? Ryanjunk 19:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether it has come up here, but I've seen it at WP:AN/I, and I don't know what all the fuss is about. The title as you have it in the header is correct as far as I am concerned – capital S, capital O, capital L. Bubba hotep 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
to my mind "Outta" is not a real preposition and therefore the non-capitalised preposition rule doesn't apply to it. W guice 21:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In trying to come up with better explanations than preposition, I think it is actually an idiom. Bubba hotep 11:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the album's title parodies Straight Outta Compton, which is spelled with a capital 'O', as well as the unrelated film of the same name Straight Outta Compton. In my opinion it should definitely be capitalized.--NPswimdude500 04:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a footnote to this: the edit war behind this (and its subsequent placement on WP:AN/I) has earned it a place at WP:LAME. -- Bubba hotep 20:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny how the N.W.A. album attracts no attention and Wikipedians create all of this drama over the "Weird Al" parody. -MrFizyx 22:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
that's not funny at all W guice 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

New article categorization bot

I was just reading the newspaper and this "new article categorization bot" caught my eye. Anyone have thoughts on having User:AlexNewArtBot run something for our project to be included on this list? I haven't investigated too much, but on first sight, it seemed like a good idea. --Fisherjs 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just read that. Seems like a very good idea to catch these articles from the start. I put the Signpost thing on my talk page now so I don't forget to look into it closer later on! Bubba hotep 11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Help needed to deal with out-of-date colors/types

I came across this infobox page and was wondering if someone can simply transclude the relevant section of code to update the page? I don't know how to do it. --Fisherjs 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I copied the code across and updated the infobox example. Bubba hotep 14:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Copying works too. Gracias. --Fisherjs 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How should different album types be disambiguated?

The current wording just mentions about using "(album)" or "(EP)", which could be interpreted to mean that everything should use "(album)" except for EPs. How about soundtracks or film scores? I don't have a lot of experience with these, but I have seen a few that use "(soundtrack)" and "(score)". What about box sets, should they be disambiguated with "(album)"? Personally, I'd prefer to use "(album)" for all album pages, for consistency. --PEJL 04:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If we want everything to use "(album)" as a disambiguator except EPs, soundtracks and film scores which would instead use "(EP)", "(soundtrack)" and "(film score)", the examples on The Prince of Egypt (soundtracks) could use "(FOO soundtrack)" rather than "(FOO)" as a disambiguator. If we want all album types to use "(album)" the examples on The Prince of Egypt (soundtracks) could use "(FOO soundtrack album)". Also, "(score)" or "(film score)"? (bikeshed question in the hopes of encouraging more responses ;-) --PEJL 05:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Split album color?

There are colors for compilations, remixes, albums, eps, live albums, film soundtracks, bot nothing for a split album. I think a color for that would be good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Violask81976 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Table track listing style

May I suggest altering the current text on track listings to say that when a table track listing is used, a wikitable is preferred over homegrown formats, for consistency. --PEJL 05:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone object? --PEJL 03:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah. I think the numbered lists look just as good or better in most cases and are easier to create. I use wikitables in my album articles, but usually not for track listings. If the intent is to create greater consistency, why suggest a format that doesn't reflect the bulk of existing articles? I also don't feel the need to micromanage the format for this. -MrFizyx 04:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I definitely also prefer numbered lists, but since the current text permits the use of tables, I'd prefer if those tables were as standardized as possible. In my limited sample of 1357 album articles, 98.5% use numbered lists, while 95% of the rest use wikitables. That just leaves Continuum, on which my conversion to a wikitable was reverted because of the lack of such a policy. Ideally, I'd like to get rid of tables for track listings altogether, but assumed that would be too controversial... --PEJL 05:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, a numbered list or a wikitable would be more appropriate than a very pretty HTML table. -MrFizyx 17:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and added this. I also recently noted that WP:CHART has a similar suggestion. --PEJL 07:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Extra album cover and Extra chronology templates

Is there a reason the current text refers to both Template:Extra album cover and Template:Extra album cover 2 and both Template:Extra chronology and Template:Extra chronology 2, or is this simply an oversight? Isn't the second version always preferred? --PEJL 07:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone object if I change to only refer to the "... 2" version of these? --PEJL 03:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No objection—I didn't know there were two versions. -MrFizyx 17:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I did so. --PEJL 07:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't notice this discussion here. Version 2 should now be used in all cases. Version 1 has the deprecated "Background" field, whereas Version 2 has the type code (e.g. "studio", "ep", "live", etc) which auto-colours. Good spot and well done for changing it. Bubba hotep 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've put a note in bold under "Usage" on the Version 1 templates to use Version 2. It doesn't actually matter which one is in use (i.e. don't redirect one to the other, doing so will mess up whatever uses it), but all future album articles should use v2. Bubba hotep 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mixtapes

I think we should add a album type/color for mixtapes. If you take a look at Category:Mixtape albums, there's a ton of mixtapes, but they're all coded as Studio Albums, which doesn't seem very accurate. There's been a smattering of discussions about this topic in the archive (here for instance) but not real action. Also, while I'm at it, I agree with the post above about splits. --Drewcifer3000 01:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Type=soundtrack

When an album is assigned Type=soundtrack in {{Infobox album}}, the generated link leads to soundtrack, a page that explains soundtracks in general, i.e., the dialog and sounds effects portion of a film (not separately available) is the "soundtrack." There is another page, soundtrack album, much shorter but more specific. It strikes me that:

Opinions?

Also, see Category:Album types. I was surprised this didn't exist, which may mean I missed a debate...

John Cardinal 12:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, soundtrack album should be merged with soundtrack. The template should still refer to soundtrack because it contains several varieties of soundtracks.--NPswimdude500 04:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Rating templates

So I just became aware today that this WikiProject apparently does not approve the use of {{Rating-10}} according to the Professional reviews section.

"Do NOT use star templates if a rating is a letter grade, or a numerical score given out of 10, as it may be visually confusing and inaccurate in portraying the score of the review."

When was this decided? The only talk I know of is when Rich went and announced it's creation, and no one said it shouldn't be used. Who said "it may be visually confusing and inaccurate"? That claim just came out of nowhere. There were only complaints of it stretching out the infobox, but no condemnation of it's use. So I think we need to discuss this. -- Reaper X 22:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misreading it. It's not saying do not use star templates with a score given out of 10. It's saying that if a review uses one type of rating system, do not convert/scale it to a different type of system. For example, Pitchfork gives textual ratings out of 10 with .1 increments. It would be inappropriate to convert a Pitchfork rating of 9.1/10 to 9.1/10 stars. Punctured Bicycle 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This is confusing, I read this note a while back and stopped using {{Rating-10}} period. -MrFizyx 04:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
How about "Do NOT use star templates if a rating is a letter grade, a numerical score, or otherwise not originally presented using stars or similar symbols, as it may be visually confusing and inaccurate in portraying the score of the review." This change does two things IMHO: it hints that the reason is to avoid conversion, and it makes it clearer that this also applies to other non-star scores, like 4.85 out of 5. --PEJL 05:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me. One can convert MusicHound's 4 out of 5 bones...-MrFizyx 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the idea is also that one can't represent one kind of symbols with another. Can't find the statement at the moment. –Unint 19:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In that case, how about: "Do NOT use star templates if a rating is a letter grade, a numerical score, or otherwise not originally presented using stars, as it may be visually confusing and inaccurate in portraying the score of the review." Any objections to changing the text to this? --PEJL 13:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Use of negation is fraught with peril; stating what is NOT permissible is wholly inefficient in this context. Better results might be attained by simply crafting language to indicate what is permissible, thereby limiting the propensity for loopholes. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case, how about this? Quoting the current text for easy comparison:
"The second bit should be either a rating (e.g. 4/5) or the word favorable or unfavorable (possibly allowing for ambivalent, mixed, extremely favorable and more, but keep it short and simple). You can also use one of the rating templates, for example, entering {{Rating-5|4.5}}, will render: 4.5/5 (do NOT use star templates if a rating is a letter grade, or a numerical score given out of 10, as it may be visually confusing and inaccurate in portraying the score of the review)."
I suggest changing this to:
"The second bit should be the rating given in the review (e.g. 4/5). The rating should use the same format as in the review, to accurately portray the score of the review. For star ratings you should use one of the rating templates, for example, entering {{Rating-5|4.5}}, will render: 4.5/5. Numerical ratings, letter grades and other non-star ratings should be shown in parentheses, like (3.5/5), (B) or (dud). If no rating is given in the review you can use the word (favorable) or (unfavorable) to describe the review (possibly allowing for (ambivalent), (mixed), (extremely favorable) and more, but keep it short and simple)."
This also includes some other tweaks, to codify current practice and clarify some things. Comments? --PEJL 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Much improved, IMHO. Makes for an excellent starting point. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I made this change, adjusting for the change made since (switching to {{Rating}}). --PEJL 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on the subject was initially conducted circa February 2007. See the appropriate talk page archives for additional information. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 13:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... so are you're saying that using {{Rating-5|4}} to replace "4 out of 5 bones" from Music Hound misrepresents the reviewer's intentions? Are bones really different than stars? Aren't the editors of Music Hound just being cute? It seems to me that it might be more inappropriate to attempt to imitate whatever symbol is used in other publications. (4/5) doesn't quite do the job either and spelling out "4 out of 5 bones" uses vital infobox space. I agree we should not convert Christgau's letter grades into symbols, but why not from one symbol to another? -MrFizyx 20:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You are catching on; misrepresenting the symbols used by the reviewers is still a misrepresentation. Keep in mind that there are reviews that omit the use of any ranking scheme. Links to such reviews are still provided.
If a particular rating scheme is too cumbersome to imitate, a link should suffice. However, if you think the difference between bones and stars are is inconsequential, try replacing the 5-star rating scheme for AMG reviews with bones.
Watch out for the brickbats, though. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 01:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I consider stars (or any generic polygon) as a simplification, not really a misrepresentation. Any summary of ratings is a desirable feature. Non-the-less you've made a good point and if a majority of editors share your concern, we shall have it your way. -MrFizyx 02:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I support the use of summaries. However, I have an aversion to encouraging any oversimplification that results in distortion of source information. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Appears I've opened a can of worms! I've changed the heading of this section to Rating templates. Anyway, I think MrFizyx presents a valid arguement with other symbols being changed to star ratings if it's feasable. 4/5 bones = 4/5 stars4/5 stars4/5 stars4/5 stars4/5 stars. Fair enough. But if some cracked out website reviewer gives it 3/8 octopus' and a tentacle...fuhghedaboudit.
I'd like to point out that there is a new template on the scene now, compliments of Conti, and it is {{Rating}}, where you can have 3, 5, 10 or whatever stars. See Template talk:Infobox Album#New Template:Rating for more on that (I've redirected further discussion from there here). I think it would be simple and neat to have a rating template for letter scores, and other common ranking systems. Just something simple to make them stand out (ie. 6.1/10 instead of 6.1/10). Comments? -- Reaper X 00:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot new article list

AlexNewArtBot has now started producing a list of newly created articles which contain the word "album". It is linked on the project page (here). It was transcluded, but the list is very long! I went through a load yesterday. Many were band or song articles, but all I did was remove them (put {{songs}} on the songs/singles articles). Generally, the album articles just needed:

  • Categorising (at least by-year cat)
  • Stubbing with the correct sub-stub
  • Infobox
  • {{album}}

Didn't take too long, but we may need to keep on top of it otherwise that list will grow very long indeed. :) Thanks to Alex Bakharev for this very useful bot. Bubba hotep 08:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll just have to take my word for it at the moment – I just emptied it again! :) Bubba hotep 14:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Your're so fast! You gave a rating to my No Deeper Blue article only two days after I started it. I suppose I should look at any non-stub rating on a partial article as a compliment. I still need to work on some of the credits, etc. -MrFizyx 15:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Two days? What was I doing??! Should have been faster, maybe within ten minutes. Starts kicking myself ;-) Bubba hotep 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm just trying to think how I came across that article: either it was on the bot list (likely) or I'm stalking your edits (hmmm...) Either way, it's a good article, and I have a sneaking suspicion it borders B-class, but would now have to wait for someone else to verify that. :) Bubba hotep 15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And faster than emptied it, it is full again. Bubba hotep 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Can red linked articles simply be deleted from this list?--Fisherjs 12:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. They are most likely ones that were deleted before I got to them... or after ;) Bubba hotep 12:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, can your bullet points above (about what each article should contain (cat, stub (if appropriate), infobox, album template) be put at the top of this page right above "New articles found by bot" to give people some instruction? I wasn't sure if I would break anything if I did that. I don't know how the bot adds articles to the list, but I presume it puts them after the "New articles found by bot" line. Good to have some instructions on these "special" pages. --Fisherjs 13:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There's only one way to find out if it breaks anything. I've put it there. If it does break, I will point them towards you. :P Bubba hotep 13:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Solicitation for RfC participation

Request assistance from interested partipants in a Request for Comment at the article From Genesis to Revelation. The dispute concerns notability of extra material on an album re-release. Any assistance in resolving this dispute is appreciated. RJASE1 Talk 18:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Sarah Hudson albums

This CFD may be of interest to members of this project: Wikipedia:Categories_for discussion/Log/2007 April 1#Category:Sarah_Hudson_albums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Album sales information

Where do editors get their album sales information? Is there any one reliable source? — Sam 17:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely someone here knows of a reliable source? — Sam 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You have my sympathies. It's depressing that we can't mobilize our resources and compile a list of reliable (official or printed) sources for delicate information like sales and chart placings. It's especially hard to find information for albums and singles from before the late 1990s, and non-US/UK information. Punctured Bicycle 00:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing infobox cleanup?

I've been looking again at missing categories on album articles (partly with a view to whacking down the size of the likes of Cat:2000s rock album stubs, but also obviously for their own sakes). Specifically, by-year and by-artist cats (with artist also being the means to genre ends). There's about 1000 articles missing by-years, and around 6500 missing by-artists. I could tag these for individual cleanup, but it might be more useful to do as was suggested earlier, and attempt to populate these by bot, from the infobox. Which in turns leads me to (bear with me, nearly there!) to the matter of albums with no infobox; or more precisely, articles with the WPJ template on their talk page, and no transclusion of {{Infobox Album}}. Of these, there are about 3000, though the causes look fairly motley: articles mistagged with the WPJ template, album-related articles that aren't actually albums, infoboxes coded by other means, such as raw tables, and who-know-what-else. As such, I'd hesitate to suggest auto-tagging these, unless it was done in some very carefully-hedged manner: perhaps the infobox parameter could be tweaked to allow might-need-its-infobox-looked-at and doesn't-need-an-infobox values, say. In any event, here's the list of such articles: User:Alai/album-infobox. Suggestions as to how to tackle them welcome. Alai 02:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this, please see this bot request. If you've any objection to these being populated from the infoxes and nav templates (or voluble enthusiasm for it), please comment there. I'm sure this is in line with an earlier discussion here, though. Alai 04:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

3CD Box Set

I'm a little new in the area of articles on different kinds of albums, so I thought I would ask the question here. Is this article approriate? This doesn't seem to be an actual release, or is it? It seems to be just a box set of 3 albums and I don't think it deserves an article. Thoughts? — Moe 10:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the redirect for 3CD Box Set is inappropriate. Such a page should redirect to the general box set, if anything, but it is misspelled, since there's no space between the 3 and the CD. Second, that is not the title of the release. As far as I can tell, the official title is Greatest Lovesongs Vol. 666/Razorblade Romance/Deep Shadows and Brilliant Highlights. The next question is whether it should have its own article at all. I think not (so feel free to nominate it for deletion). I would say it's probably notable enough to be mentioned in the individual album articles. -Freekee 04:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

General feedback

This has mainly come about because of the increasingly obvious fact that the output of AlexNewArtBot is growing by the day: as soon as it is processed for non-album articles, another raft of candidates appears before we can get down to the necessary on the ones it found 6 days ago. Couple this with the fact that I am now an admin and as such feel obliged to filter the band articles it spews up on a daily basis (at least ten or so per day) and delete the vanity non-notables (which quite frankly are an insult to all of us here who strive to write proper articles about bands and albums, and much as I like music, and there a few non-notables in my collection, there is a limit!) – we have a lot on our hands. If I attend to this on a regular basis, the album category summary suffers because it is not being used to deal with articles created months ago. One of Jogers' lists has album articles without infoboxes stretching to 2000+ at the moment. So, I am torn between the devil and the deep blue sea, to use a rather poetic cliche. Do I ignore ANABot and deal with the articles resident for some time that haven't been dealt with, or do I do away with the album category summary? Does anyone find it useful and use it? I know a few do, but it's nothing a few bookmarks can't deal with. Automating it would be an answer, but I tried that and nobody was interested, seemingly. Besides, I like to see the zeros, and would prefer to deal with them over looking at new stuff. I guess what I am saying is that my editing patterns may be changing soon (for the worse) and I would hate to think anyone (including myself) was thinking I was turning my back on this project. Feedback gratefully accepted. :) Bubba hotep 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Is a CliffsNotes version of your monologue available? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 00:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure the CliffsNotes version would be compatible with the GNU license. :) Bubba hotep 10:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Aversion.com - spam?

Current aversion.com links The number of review links to Aversion.com seems to be increasing, and the links seem to be getting added by a few editors (example here) I'm guessing that this is a non-notable review site, since it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, but I'm looking for some expert confimation before I clean the links out as spam. RJASE1 Talk 03:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what they say about themselves, but "Aversion Media" on Google only gets 10 results. (A marketing and promotion company... make of that what you will.) –Unint 03:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

List of eponymous albums

Why does this list exist? Wouldn't it be better to have this as a category? The list goes somewhat unnoticed, but if it exists as a category, it's easier to add to the list. Plus, the fact that it's a list of eponyms, it's tautology to list the names twice. --lincalinca 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The category's been deleted. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 26#Category:Eponymous albums –Unint 04:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If the category has been deleted, does it make sense to keep the list? Jogers (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote against keeping the list; aside from being misnamed (per Punctured Bicycle), it's just list-cruft. Given the number of bands and solo artists that release self-titled albums, it's clearly incomplete as it stands, would take a vast amount of work to make complete — and is pointless anyway. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that most of the articles in Category:Lists of albums could be done away with and replaced by categories. -MrFizyx 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I can see why the category was deleted, though; there are far too many of them, and this one seems as unnecessary as does the list. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the whole "list-cruft" reasoning. I mean, what purpose does a list of eponymous albums serve? Really?! -- Reaper X 04:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Eponymous vs. self-titled

While we're on this subject: I think we should adopt as a convention the use of self-titled over eponymous in articles, as per this reasoning. Punctured Bicycle 07:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

he's only half-right. both senses are acceptable per OED. tomasz. 17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Which OED are you looking at? Mine—the online edition, which is supposedly comprehensive—says nothing about usage of eponymous with regard to albums. Punctured Bicycle 18:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1998 hardback edit., Clarendon Press. although since i last posted i think i should qualify that the use referring to the album, book, etc. is a subsense. tomasz. 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's good enough for NME; indeed that's where I first encountered the word! --kingboyk 14:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You'd model your use of language on that of music journalists? Gawd 'elp us. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You might disagree with the opinions of music journalists, but you'd be hard-pushed to find fault with their use of language. tomasz. 10:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This is WP:ALBUMS you know! :) --kingboyk 19:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall as clearly as Kbk the first time I heard it, but I've always known it as "eponymous" as well. It probably was the music press, come to think of it, but it is a term in quite widespread usage and Wikipedia definitely was not the first place I read it, so if we're wrong – everyone is! Bubba hotep 20:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[I first heard it on the cover of the R.E.M. album and I don't think they invented it.] -MrFizyx 05:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
But this is Wikipedia, where verifiability is more important than truth. So if most people agree that it the proper term, then around here it's right. ;-) What is that writer trying to say? It's not the ban's eponymous record, but the record's eponymous band? What a useless word! -Freekee 01:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better for y'all to spend time sourcing the eponym article? Why does it matter which adjective is chosen by editors? I might like to use "self-titled" and "eponymous" at different points in the same article. So what? -MrFizyx 05:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Our audience speaks various flavors of English and have various levels of comprehension of English. We should use language that is readily understood by as much of our audience as possible. Eponymous is pretentious and gives no hint to its meaning for those who have never seen it before, which is likely a sizable group considering the term is restricted to the popular music press. Self-titled, by contrast, is made up of simple words, so those who have never seen it before are likely to pick up its meaning quickly. As for the suggestion of using both in the same article, see elegant variation. Yes, this is a lot of discussion for one word, but there are more just like it—gig, for example, when concert is available. Perhaps we should make a usage guide for the project. Punctured Bicycle 06:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
no word is innately "pretentious", and as noted above, "eponymous" has been in use for absolutely years to describe albums – to the extent that, i'd wager, anyone interested in consulting an album-specific project would have an inkling what it meant. and if someone doesn't know what a word means, it's only a quick step to a physical or online dictionary. Failing that, we have a Simple English wikipedia too tomasz. 09:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You sure you're not mistaking this for Simple Wikipedia? Warning to non-proficient English speakers: a dictionary may be required. --kingboyk 10:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I haven't actually used both in the same article, and I agree that "self-titled" is more clear and tend to use it more often (as in my article on Joe Ely). My point is that we should not unreasonably place restraints on editors' language. I see this as a non-issue. When someone reads the word "eponymous" in the first sentance of the article on Lyle Lovett they are likely to get the meaning from the context even if they have never heard the word previously. If they don't, they can follow the link and read the eponym article which gives a full explanation. I don't see the need to target the lowest common denominator at all times. I suppose our prose would not suffer greatly if we stuck to things like "second album" instead of "sophomore release", but I don't see the need for tying editors hands given the state of most album articles. Almost any content is good content compared to a track listing and an info box. -MrFizyx 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Sophomore is an alien word to us British types, so whilst I have no objection to you folks using it (isn't that big of me?! ;)) please not in articles about British albums :) --kingboyk 20:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not alien, just that it has fallen out of common usage in British English, so to British ears sounds quaint and old-fashioned, in the way some French-Canadian expressions might be to the French.Ricadus 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I daresay you're right, although it doesn't sound old-fashioned to me, just... foreign. Anyway, never mind, we digress, and I'm pretty sure "sophomore" has been discussed here before. Thanks for pointing that out. --kingboyk 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If suggesting that editors use clear, plain language whenever possible is an unreasonable restraint, then all the conventions listed on the project page are unreasonable restraints. By the same reasoning we should delete all guidelines and style manuals, allowing the editor to run wild. Ignore the cost to the reader; most people don't mind random visits to the dictionary to decode obscure jargon (never mind that many dictionaries don't even contain eponymous in the relevant sense). Of course, our largest common denominator will not have any problem to begin with, as most of the English-speaking world reads Mojo and Q. Right. Punctured Bicycle 04:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If they're into albums past, then possibly they do. If not, they look up the word once and will know what it means in the future too. It's called learning. --kingboyk 11:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I take it you have no problem with the sentence "The KLF absolved their collation of aural transcriptions Chill Out in the year of the Metal Horse," then. Punctured Bicycle 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
the problem with that is it's a deliberate attempt to be unclear about a whole sentence to make a point, as oppose to a take-or-leave-it choice regarding one usage. tomasz. 10:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no problem. Anyone can look up the words. It's called learning. Punctured Bicycle 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
disingenuous in the extreme. tomasz. 08:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Each word in the sentence I gave was a choice regarding usage. As the sentence illustrates, some choices are better than others. Self-titled is better than eponymous in the same way that released is better than absolved and album is better than collation. You can't just argue that readers can look up any word in the dictionary, because that means it's OK for editors to use obscure words like eponymous and absolved and collation when much clearer alternatives are available. Clearly it isn't OK. Punctured Bicycle 19:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
"By the same reasoning we should delete all guidelines and style manuals, allowing the editor to run wild." i believe this is called "reductio ad absurdum" tomasz. 12:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Correct. Punctured Bicycle 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
that isn't a point in your favour, you know. tomasz. 10:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum is a common form of argument. If you want to make a point that isn't in my favor, you'll need to say more. Punctured Bicycle 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
common but no more valid. tomasz. 08:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument form. Punctured Bicycle 19:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
erm, no, it's a logical fallacy. tomasz. 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

LP album

I have proposed that LP album be moved to LP. Please see Talk:LP_album#Requested_move. --kingboyk 12:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

debut album

I have just noticed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debut album resulted in a deletion and a redirect to album. This seems inadequate for anyone seeking the meaning of "debut" from the many articles linked there. Anyone care to suggest a better redirect? Is it worthy of a deletion review? Or should we just force everyone to say "first album" from now on? :-) -MrFizyx 20:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Perhaps a link to wiktionary:debut might be in order if you think there are readers who don't know what "debut" means? --kingboyk 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't "debut" just a plain English word? Jogers (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Sort-of. Derived from the french, debutante, but not retaining any of that meaning in the context of albums. I'd be fine with a wiktionary link or someone fixing/removing links. -MrFizyx 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"First album" is plainer English, and should be preferred to the jargony "debut album". (I know, in music journalism, people don't produce first and second albums but "debut" and "sophomore" albums; no-one writes anything, they "pen" and "author" things; records don't enter the charts, they "hit" the charts, people don't refer to or critically discuss things, they "reference" and "critique" them, etc. O tempora, o mores...) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a music-journalese patrol task force. –Unint 22:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should "outlaw" the use of debut album... It's a term commonly used in that context, and we aren't the Simple English Wikipedia. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"debut", "jargony"? jesus wept. tomasz. 10:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

All fine and dandy points. I brought it up here because the deletion ignored "what links here", which includes 1000+ articles that probably should not redirect to an article without the word "debut" in it. [Boy some people are so opposed to snobbery that they're almost snobs about it. :-)] -MrFizyx 03:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I could easily remove these links with my bot. Do you think it's a good idea? Jogers (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove them altogether do you mean? Hmm... Perhaps we could be a bit smarter than that, perhaps we could remove all links to debut album and debut album (note 2 words, seperate links; a list of articles pointing to both pages can be easily made in AWB)? Also, the process should always leave behind one link to album. I'm just a bit concerned that only removing debut album without ensuring there's a link to album would result in some articles not having a link at all. --kingboyk 11:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Should there really always be a link to album? Sounds like another common English word. Most album articles should already have a link to studio album, compilation album etc. in the infobox (which reminds by of User:Jogers/List3, by the way). Jogers (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
They probably ought to have a link to one of those, yes. Consider my proposal amended :P --kingboyk 11:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)
Sounds good to me. -MrFizyx 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, one could write an actual article rather than a dictionary def. One could discuss special awards such as the Grammy Award for Best New Artist and note albums that frequently appear on lists of best debut albums. Possible sources:

Useful? -MrFizyx 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to my mind, no. Interesting? Undoubtedly. Encyclopedic? You haven't convinced me (yet). --kingboyk 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
My own apprehension is that even if one were to do a "good job," the article would become a taget for editors looking for a place to put links to that article they just wrote on artist X's first album. Turn the bots loose then I suppose. -MrFizyx 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I requested for bot approval. Jogers (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I still allowed to say that Album X is the debut album from Artist X" in the body of the article? I actually think the word debut is pretty well established in the english language and I do like to use it instead of first. Thanks Solonyc (talk} 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are :-) Jogers (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Me too, and yes, you may use your editorial discretion :) All this bot job is doing is removing the link. --kingboyk 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it got a little confusing. I have not been on here much lately so I come back and people are slamming a perfectly nice and orderly word. :) Take care Solonyc (talk} 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 13 |
Archive 14
| Archive 15 →


Compilation album categorization

Category:Compilation albums has been getting very bloated, so I've created some new subcategories as a start to cleaning it up: Category:Compilation album series branded by bars and cafés‎, Category:Radio station compilation album series, and Category:Record label compilation albums. So, this is just a note to populate as necessary.

In addition, far too many greatest hits albums have been placed here instead of Category:Greatest hits albums.

I'm also considering other archetypes to categorize by, and what to call the categories. "Top of the charts" compilations? Regional music compilations? Compilations by country of release? (There are a disproportionate number of albums from New Zealand...) Genre compilations? Compilations of particular recording sessions? –Unint 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of category names to distinguish albums released under the brands of music-related bodies (magazines, TV stations, festivals, retailers) from those released under brand names of unrelated bodies (non-music magazines / retailers, bars and cafés, etc). Any suggestions? –Unint 20:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Catalog numbers in infobox

I had put in a request on the infobox template talk page to have the catalog number included. The response I got was rather puzzling: "...the general feeling was that it wouldn't be a good idea to put them in the infobox because, really, it should only have the original release details in there, with further releases discussed/listed in the article body." It seems that the catalog number is part of "the original release details" and so I can't figure out what Bubba hotep had in mind there. Anyway, he referred me to this page to discuss it.

The current infobox has a space for "label" but not for "catalog number." To me they are really both of the same order of interest. If one is interested in the fact that You're My Thrill was released by Columbia, I think that it was released under catalog number CL-6071 is of equal interest. I can't see why one is significant and the other not. -- BRG 18:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although it might get a little messy cataloging every album page on Wikipedia. Inevitably, some will have catalogue numbers and some won't.--Drewcifer3000 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that for almost any field one can say "some will have and some won't." Even in the specific area I've been concentrating on (Doris Day albums), for example, some have recording dates in the info I can track down and some don't. -- BRG 16:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This has been brought up before and will again I'm sure. I actually do put the cat number in the infobox. I use the "break" command after the label name and put in the number. I think it looks good but I would like an optional field for it too. To me the first commercial release is the one that should be in the infobox and the year, cover, label, cat number and etc that correspond to it should be there for it. I only add other releases if there is a significant difference between versions. To me that difference is typically an extra track or tracks, an extra disc of tracks, deleted tracks or some other major change to the songs of the album. Typically you can put the new cat number and (if needed) label in the track listing section like I did here Eyewitness. In practice most albums have only one or two different releases that fit my criteria.
Note that for alternative or extra covers I do not refer to the cat number because covers are usually used over many different releases and labels it would get too messy. If you just have so many versions that are notable and need to be mentioned than something like this Let It Be put in the article body is probably the best bet. Take care Solonyc (talk} 21:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Given the limited data currently usable on Template:Infobox Album, I normally put catalog-number data inline with the album, single or maxi single title at the start of the article. If a catalog number is a go for inclusion on the Infobox, I recommend making it a UPC, which is satisfactory for record-store and online-distributor inventory needs; I concur with the first-release recommendation of User:Solonyc with regards to the UPC. - B.C.Schmerker 03:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking as one who is generally interested in all kinds of little details about things, I can't imagine why a record's catalog number would be of any interest whatsoever. Can someone fill me in? -Freekee 02:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures in chronology

Lately, I've been seeing this more: putting album cover images in the chronology (the previous/next album) of the infobox. I've been removing them, because as I understand it, that is going a bit far on the fair use of those images. I just wanted to come here and verify that I am doing the right thing. -Joltman 12:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That should be the way to go; those little images add bugger-all anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not only are they unneeded they would most likely violate fair use. How would providing fair use images for next/previous albums satisfy fair use criteria? RedWolf 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I remove them too. Recently I started to do this with AWB. This regex works fine: 
(Last|This|Next) album(\s*)=(\s*)\[\[Image.*?\]\](\s?<br ?/?>)? ?
replace with 
$1 album$2=$3
Feel free to use it as it's much faster than removing them manually but note that sometimes there are valid images in the chronology (for example in Led Zeppelin IV) so proceed with caution :-) Jogers (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think we should specify on the project page that images should not be put in the chronology? -Joltman 11:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You mean album cover images? I actually suggested it a while ago. Jogers (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this should be mentioned. --PEJL 11:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. I have now mentioned this. --PEJL 09:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed language change for track listing credits

I'd like to propose the following changes be made to the current language about track listing credits. I'd like to change:

If all songs were written by the same person/team, this can be stated at the top as in "(all songs written by Gordon Gano)"

to:

If all songs were written by the same person/team, this can be stated at the top as "All songs written by Gordon Gano." If the majority of the songs were written by the same person, this can be stated as "All songs written by Gordon Gano, except where noted."

I believe this better reflects current practice (and looks better). Any objections? --PEJL 16:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

sounds good to me. Violask81976 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
No objection here, thats exactly what I've been doing. -MrFizyx 18:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been doing the same. Two grammar questions. Is the comma after the persons name needed or can it just be a straight sentence? "All songs written by Gordon Gano except where noted." Also I have had people edit this sentence by putting a ":" at the end on the sentence. "All songs written by Gordon Gano except where noted:" Is that correct grammar also. I know this is a minor point but I am wondering which is right or looks better. I can go either way...lol. Solonyc (talk} 19:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. (I have no preference about the comma, so I left it in. I also don't see why a colon would be useful.) --PEJL 20:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
And I was WP:BOLD and made some other changes to that section. I felt the sentence about not using parentheses or brackets was redundant, so I removed it. I also moved the text about rappers and verses down, as I didn't feel it was appropriate as the lead for the section. --PEJL 20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That appears consistent with the procedures I use for Album articles, e.g. Anything Is Possible, where certain tracks had two composers. That article has the following in small text after the track listing:
All songs written by Deborah Gibson - Possibilities Music/Sony BMG Songs, ASCAP except:
2, 3, 4, 7. (Deborah Gibson/Lamont Dozier) Possibilities Music/Sony BMG Songs, ASCAP/Beau-Di-O-Do Music/Warner-Tamerlane Pub. Corp., BMI.
Be advised that original admistrators of copyright (in this case Deborah Ann's Music (ASCAP), a division of Gibson Management, Inc.) are often replaced years down the road. I see it proper to maintain credits procedures consistent with the record labels. - B.C.Schmerker 05:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be consistent if you put the "All songs..." text at the top of the track listing rather than then bottom and didn't use small print. The track listing on that page also fails to follow the guidelines for track listings in other aspects, such as using a proper ordered list and delimiting track lengths with en dashes. --PEJL 08:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How to change the project page

I am curious as to how do changes to the project page happen? Is it just up to administrators or editors? Do we vote on it? Stage a coup? :)

I have some issues with some things on there that I would like to change (like track listing format) and I am wondering how to go about it. I know we say it is just a guideline but I find that too many newer members give it sacred status, though honestly I can see a need for certain sections being the same in format from page to page.

If there is a set policy for how changes are made perhaps it should be stated on the project page to avoid this question in the future. Thanks Solonyc (talk} 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. If you think it's a non controversial change just edit the page (see WP:BOLD). There's no need to ask. If other folks don't like the changes, they'll revert, and you can both come here to discuss.
  2. If you think the change is significant or likely to be controversial, discuss it here first.
This is the basic idea for all guideline and policy pages. Don't be afraid to edit. --kingboyk 19:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're planning to make major changes that would affect many articles (such as changing the recommended track listing format, as you mentioned), I think it should definately be discussed here first. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that would count as "significant". --kingboyk 11:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal for changing track list formating

On the project page track listings are shown as this:

  1. "Complete song title" (John Doe, Brian Smith) – 4:23

But that leads in practical reality with links to things like this:

  1. "Baby It's You" (Mack David/Barney Williams/Burt Bacharach) – 2:38

Which if you are reading it at 3AM on a small screen or a laptop just looks like one big line of blue until you come to the time.

Additionally if you have a majority of the songs written by one person but a couple tracks written by different people you can end up with this situation (part of the track list from the album Double Eclipse):

  1. "Change of Heart" – 4:42
  2. "Everything" (Schon/Gioeli/Gioeli/Eddie Money/Jonathan Cain/Tony Marty/Mark Tanner) – 3:55
  3. "Takin' Me Down" – 3:34
  4. "Hot Cherie" (Randy Bishop/Darrell Gutheil/Jeffrey Neill/Kenneth Shields/Kenneth Sinnaeke) – 4:47
  5. "Bad Taste" – 4:23

This looks really messy to me, makes the eye wander and has little symmetry to it.

I would propose a change of the format to the following:

  1. "Baby It's You" – 2:38 (Mack David/Barney Williams/Burt Bacharach)

Letting the time break up the links makes it a little easier to read, helps prevent the mouse from floating to the wrong link and in a full album listing actually lets things look a little more symmetrical especially when writing credits are involved. It's not perfect but it would be better.

I also prefer using the slashes as opposed to commas in the writers area as I have noticed that slashes are used in many reviews and in most album credits on the album. Perhaps that can be changed also?

I am interested to know what others think. Thanks Solonyc (talk} 21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think keeping the writer's credit immeadiately after the song title makes it more clear that it is in fact a songwriter credit. I usually use commas, but slashes are reasonable alternative. I also tend (sometimes) to pipe the names to surnames (I don't know if others object to that or not). So it might end up something like:
  1. "Baby It's You" (David, Williams, Bacharach) – 2:38
Since most songs aren't linked, and songwriters only need to be linked the first time they appear, I would think that the long blurry blue lines are somewhat rare. I general, I think the current recommendation is a good one. -MrFizyx 22:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with MrFizyx, and prefer the current formatting over this proposal. --PEJL 23:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
When the names first appear, the full names should be given (i.e. not piped last names). Apart from that, I agree with MrFizyx that the current style is fine, and don't see any reason to change the guidelines (especially since a change would mean we'd also have to change several thousand articles using the current guidelines). --Fritz S. (Talk) 23:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems that just using commas instead of forward slashes improves line spacing by a great deal. –Unint 23:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In order to maintain consistency with the procedures used by the record labels, I list composer and publisher data in small print after a break from the line with the artist (in the case of Soundtracks by various artists), song title and duration, e.g. in the track listings for Fatal Beauty (soundtrack album), where every track had a different artist and a different composer. Here's the format I used for Track 1:
#'''Donna Allen - Make It My Night''' (4:12)<br /><sub>(Danny Sembello/Tony Haynes) No Pain, No Gain/Unicity Music/Ertloejay Musique/WB Music Corp., ASCAP</sub><br />Produced by Jeff Smith and Peter Lord
Resulting in the formatted version:

  1. Donna Allen - Make It My Night (4:12)
    (Danny Sembello/Tony Haynes) No Pain, No Gain/Unicity Music/Ertloejay Musique/WB Music Corp., ASCAP
    Produced by Jeff Smith and Peter Lord


This procedure will reduce problems with needful data on a track listing. - B.C.Schmerker 05:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The track listing in that article article seems to defy almost every aspect of the track listing guidelines. It would be perfectly possible to format this according to the guidelines, possibly using nested lists for the production credits. --PEJL 09:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
that article looks horrible. if i weren't at work i'd change it myself. tomasz. 16:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed language change for chronologies

I'd like to remove the text starting at the second comma from:

For latest albums, the right box (the "Next album=" field) should be left blank, or with a " . . . ".

I don't feel this represents current practice. (Current practice seems to be blank, "TBA", "N/A" or "Untitled".) I don't think it is necessary to distinguish latest albums from final albums, and doing so may be impossible. How do you know a band won't reunite and release another album for example? Any objections? (The entire section should perhaps be rewritten if this change is made, but this question is about the policy change.) --PEJL 11:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think that we do not need to distinguish between latest and final albums. In case the change to the guideline is made it would be nice to find another example of advanced infobox usage (with extra chronology and extra cover). Jogers (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are plenty of pages using both "extra chronology" and "extra album cover". How about We're Only in It for the Money? Jogers (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree: it's far easier to standarize a blank field than a field with any text at all. –Unint 17:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. --PEJL 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Only studio albums in chronologies

As long as we're making all these revisions to chronology usage, what about that "studio albums only" line? Is it necessary to restrict the album chronology to studio albums? (This doesn not seem to be common practice.) –Unint 17:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've generally seen, and I do this too, that albums and EPs, box sets, splits, live albums ,etc get listed-everything except singles really.. Violask81976 22:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I sure wish people would follow the studio only rule. I can handle live albums in there, but best-ofs get annoying. I prefer to chronologize by significance, and check the discography for the details. -Freekee 03:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with having box sets and live albums and EPs? You should show the complete chronology, not just what you feel is worthy enough to talk about. Violask81976 22:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Just for chronologies. I'm a big fan of completeness for discographies, but chronologies serve a different purpose. Chronos allow you to click through a band's career. A greatest hits record or a compilation box has little bearing on the artistic output of an artist. It's really the only place in WP, besides the text of the artist's article, that you can distill that. I would agree that some best-of or live records were defining moments, but for the most part compilations are of little consequence. That's only my opinion, but don't think I'm alone. The only reason I'd go along with reverting the studio-only rule is because it's hopeless to enforce. -Freekee 02:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

General fixes with Jogersbot

I'd like to apply some simple fixes to articles about albums throughout entire encyclopedia with my bot. I listed them at User:Jogersbot#Things I would like to do. There are plenty of other things the bot could possibly do. Some replacements may be supplementary meaning that I would not look specifically for them in the database dump. Please share your thoughts. Jogers (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The list looks very good to me. I think you should change those links to [[Q magazine]] and [[Q magazine|Q]] to [[Q (magazine)|Q]] to avoid the redirect, but apart from that, it's fine. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. Jogers (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added two supplementary fixes:

  • removing obsolete "background" parameter from the infobox and
  • removing unnecessary boldface from "last album" and "next album". Jogers (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are some other ideas for the reviews section:

  • Pitchfork Media {{Rating-10|7.1}} → Pitchfork Media (7.1/10)
  • NME {{Rating-10|7}} → NME (7/10)
  • This album = ''Album Title''<br />(2005) → This album = '''''Album Title'''''<br />(2005)
  • Last album = ''Album Title'' (2005) → Last album = ''Album Title''<br />(2005)
  • Last album = ''Album Title<br />(2005)'' → Last album = ''Album Title''<br />(2005)
  • ''{{Rating → '' {{Rating
  • {{Rating-5|4}}[http → {{Rating-5|4}} [http
  • '' '''4/5''' [http → '' (4/5) [http
  • '' (Favorable) [http → '' (favorable) [http

--PEJL 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice ideas. I should be able to figure out proper regexes for most of them. Jogers (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Great! For future reference, do the regexes operate on a subsection of the article, such as the infobox or the reviews section, or on the entire article? I would think the regexes could be more lax and get fewer false negatives if they only ever operate on a subsection. Here's another, a variant of my fifth example, which I think is more common:
  • Last album = ''Album Title<br />(2005) → Last album = ''Album Title''<br />(2005)
--PEJL 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't have problems with false negatives when I was doing similar changes manually but limiting them to the album infobox would be an improvement. Good idea. Jogers (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually it's more complicated than I thought but a string like "Last album = ''N/A''<br />" isn't very likely to appear in the article body, I guess. Anyway I'm going to limit the changes only to articles that are likely to be articles about albums (categorized as albums, containing an album stub template, album infobox etc.) Jogers (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just posted a suggestion relating to changing the terms for track listings. Let me know what you think. I'm pretty sure I posted a logical argument. --lincalinca 11:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Thanks. Jogers (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
For reference, the suggestion referred to is here. I'm not sure I agree that the header should be "Track listings" rather than "Track listing" when there are multiple track listings for an album, even though the former may be grammatically correct. Where does one draw the line? When there are multiple different editions? (example) When there are multiple discs? (example) When there are multiple sides? (example) When there are one or more sections with bonus tracks for other editions? (example) When there are bonus tracks listed but not in separate sections? (example) Perhaps it depends on if there is more than one ordered list that starts at position one? I think the header should always be "Track listing", for consistency and simplicity. See also Wikipedia:External links#External links section which says to use plural form even if there is only one external link. I think this situation is very similar to that, except the other way around. External links sections are optimized for the case when they contain multiple links. Track listing sections should be optimized for the case when they contain a single (as in not plural) track listing (whatever that means, see above). Whatever we decide, I think this should be completely defined and mentioned on the project page. I'll also note that AFAIK the majority of affected pages currently use the singular. --PEJL 12:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Verifying commercial success

Are there any reliable resources for gauging an albums commercial success, like Box Office Mojo does for films?Skomorokh 15:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nielsen SoundScan - have to pay for it though. M3tal H3ad 04:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Track listing: medleys and untitled tracks

I'd like to add the following to the second section about the track listing, in a new paragraph before "Note the standard method of attributing songwriters...":

Track names should be in quotes in the track listing and in the rest of the article. A track that is a medley of multiple songs should be inside one set of quotes, like this: "Song 1/Song 2". Untitled tracks should be listed as Untitled (without quotes).

The first sentence is just a repetition from the first section about the track listing. The second sentence is meant to codify and make consistent the way medleys are shown: "Song 1/Song 2" (example), "Song 1"/"Song 2" (example), "Song 1" / "Song 2" (example), where the first format seems to be the most common. The third sentence is meant to codify and making consistent how untitled tracks are listed: "Untitled" (example), Untitled (example), "(Untitled)" (example), Untitled #1 (example), etc. Any objections? --PEJL 21:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Medleys: Seems like there are cases where the medleyed songs were never individual songs (such as this) and cases where separate songs are mixed or performed as continuous (such as these). Should these all be treated as the same? (Should there be spaces around the slash?) What if individual track times are given for the different parts?
  • Untitled: In that "numbered untitled" example you give, are the numbers actually part of the title? (Are the songs still actually "untitled" in that case?) –Unint 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Medleys: I believe medleys are currently mostly treated the same, mostly with a single set of quotes and without spaces around the slash. I think it's fine to continue to do so for track listings. What is inside the quotes is after all the track name. (For singles on the other hand I think "Song 1"/"Song 2" (with or without spaces) is more appropriate, and more common in practice.) To keep things simple I didn't mention that some medleys are listed with nested lists (example).
  • Untitled: I consider tracks which have no track name listed on the physical album to be untitled and tracks which are listed as "Untitled" on the physical album to not be untitled but in fact titled "Untitled". I'm not sure which is the case in the numbered example I gave, it might have been a bad example. --PEJL 22:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Medleys: How do you distinguish song titles with slashes in them from medleys? (I can't actually think of an example right now, but this is the main reason why I decided to use spaces.) Another case: how do we format one track with songs by different people, or one track that mixes different versions of the same song? (example)
  • Untitled: Is there a good indicator of what's actually listed on the physical album? For example, what do you actually call this? Would titles given by chart listings, record label catalogues, fan lore, or the Library of Congress override this rule? –Unint 22:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Medleys: Do we need to distinguish song titles with slashes from medleys in album track listings? In cases where credits need to be added for individual songs a nested list would work (example above, another example). Alternatively quoting each song separately (example). The advantage of using a nested list is that it avoids the ambiguity of this: "Song 1"/"Song 2" (Artist X) – 1:23.
  • Untitled: Good indicator? Looking at the physical album. :-) All Music Guide seems to list untitled tracks as blank spaces in the track listing. I'd call your example Untitled (a.k.a. "Vaka") in the track listing for the album. In terms of the track listing on the album, I'd say non-album sources should not override the name (or lack thereof) given on the album. If the song is a single I think it's obvious the single article should use the name of the single, which may differ slightly from the name on the album. Similarily, I think a song article for a non-single should not have to be as strict about using the name on the album and could be named "Vaka", but should note in the text that the song is untitled on that album. --PEJL 23:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've got nothing else, and it's been a few days now. Summarize all that and I guess we can go ahead with it. –Unint 21:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. Thanks for the feedback. --PEJL 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagging subcategories of albums by artist

I've just made a list of articles in subcategories of Category:Albums by artist with the intention to tag them with the {{Album}} template as per Fisherjs's suggestion. I noticed that many of these pages are discography articles. Is this right? And if it is, is it OK to place {{Album}} tags on their talk pages? Jogers (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You have to be very careful when tagging those categories, if you're not you'll end up with all sorts of out of scope material tagged. I think you know that already but there's no harm in pointing it out again :) As for discogs, pass. You could explicitly add them to project scope by editing the attached page, or just filter the word "discography" out of your AWB list. --kingboyk 13:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I will just filter them out then. Jogers (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually after I took a closer look at the articles in this list I decided no to tag them. Category:Albums by artist is a mess! There is everything here: discographies, lists and lots of singles. Jogers (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Can I say I told u so? :P Been there, done that :) --kingboyk 13:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Are album covers next for the chop?

As you may have noticed, Cydebot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is changing {{albumcover}} to {{non-free album cover}}. Can anyone shed any light on what the end goal is? My concern is that images tagged with "non free" templates, which will be about 99.999% of album covers, will soon be targetted for mass deletion. --kingboyk 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this too. There seems to be a new trend to label all "fair use" images with templates that begin with "non-free". Another tightening of the rules that would impact this project appears in this example: Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline#Non-template. I realize that those who write these guidelines have good intentions, but I fail to see how creating unique text each time the same type of image is used for the same purpose is helpful. -MrFizyx 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how they'd describe an album cover, on the page for that particular album, as something other than fair use. Wouldn't most of the album-cover images uploaded be used only on the album's page?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If you look at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Point_that_bothers_me and scroll down to the bottom of that section, you'll see that a response to my question about this was that "It allows third party users to remove non free images simply by killing anything with a template starting with "Non-free" on it." Quite how this could be helpful in the case of album articles wasn't explained. --kingboyk 14:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_18#Machine_readability. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds innocuous, but machine readable so they can be earmarked for deletion? Let's hope not. Since I'm not intending to start a forest fire unless somebody is waiting with a gallon of petrol, I propose we just monitor developments and assume for now that it's all harmless enough :) Thanks for the link. --kingboyk 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This has pretty much no effect for us. Images here on Wikipedia are as likely to be deleted as before, it just makes it easier for people who re-use the articles to remove all fair use images (not just album cover, but also screenshots, book covers, film posters, etc.) at once (since all fair use tags will now have the prefix non-free). --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I see. That makes a lot of sense. I once tried to write an interface for a Wikipedia fork and the number of templates to deal with was horrendous. --kingboyk 16:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Any idea how many of those templates are duplicating efforts already in existence? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A sobering statistic

This WikiProject has 9 FAs from 52,000 articles, one of which is borrowed from WP:KLF. That's frankly appalling! Some editors have 9 FAs themselves, and there must be hundreds of people contributing to articles on albums... --kingboyk 12:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this project involved in some sort of "arms race"? If so, I definitely missed that memo... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm shocked you even need to ask. We're here to build a quality encyclopedia, and that means FAs. Jimbo Wales:
“ Rather than getting another million articles, I believe that we need 100,000 more Feature-quality articles. ”
Quotation from and more info at Wikipedia:100,000 feature-quality articles. --kingboyk 14:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Given my aversion to mindreading, I have to ask: What exactly is "sobering" here? Better yet, why is it "sobering"? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, instead of wasting time on semantics, why not go improve an article? Perhaps I meant "crap". This project has 52,000 articles in scope and only 9 of them are Featured. That's "crap". --kingboyk 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm rather preoccupied at the moment; surely you have noticed that a fair amount of activity has been happening here. So, I'm not sure who is helped by your condemning rhetoric... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I don't visit portals, sorry. Thanks anyway. --kingboyk 14:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Back to the issue in hand. Anyone else think that this number of FAs is bad, and have any ideas about how we can encourage more people to work to a higher standard? --kingboyk 14:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
right, well in that case, instead of having a pissing contest let's pick an article to collaborate on towards FA status. anyone any particular preferences? tomasz. 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
(as an aside) A Collab of the Week? That wouldn't be a bad idea. --kingboyk 15:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
i seem to remember that it was the collaborative process that spurred us on to get Illmatic to featured status at WikiProject hip hop. i find the sense of involvement is a good way to get things done. i wasn't thinking "...of the Week" specifically, but hell, why not? tomasz. 15:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested, but where do we start? We've got no guarantee that any of the regulars would have any particular interest or knowledge in any particular article, it's such a sprawling field. Given the above discussion, we can't really expect everyone to go out of the way to do research either. (I guess we could guarantee that each collaborative article will be thoroughly formatted according to style by the end...) –Unint 21:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could suggest a standard for inclusion in Category:Top-importance album articles (such as the top X number of albums on acclaimedmusic.net) and then we could pick weak articles from there. I wouldn't focus (at least not initially) on something covered by another WikiProject (e.g. any Beatles album). We could have some process of nominations for each week or month. I like the idea. -MrFizyx 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'll help. Violask81976 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not focus on something that's covered by another WikiProject? If we get two projects working on the same article I think we have pretty good chances that the article will actually become a FA. Plus, all the Beatles albums or something like The Dark Side of the Moon already have a pretty high importance rating (and many of them are already in pretty good condition), so to me they seem like a natural choice for this. And it's not as if there aren't any good references for them. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Unint summed it up pretty well. It sounds like most of us are better at formatting than writing. I can affirm that's the case with me. I've written several short articles, but each one was a struggle. Sure, we've got a hundred members, but there are tens of thousands of articles. And how do our music interests overlap? I don't mean to imply that such a collaboration is bound to fail - I'm only offering an explanation why I think the FA count is so low. I like the idea of a weekly collaboration. Maybe we can switch off between article collab and maintenance tasks? Maybe the first one should be to assess importance? That would give us a list to choose from. -Freekee 02:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think we can help push articles to FA more effectively If we edit B-class and higher articles with a lot of good content already. The trouble with collaborations on articles like Revolver is that it needed a lot of new content, and only a small fraction of us would be able to offer anything useful. As an example, recently I've been working on Kid A, which was sitting at B class for months and contained about 70kB of content. It's now a GA Candidate. My point is that although I needed to do hours of work on it, I didn't actually have to write any new content.
Although it would be great to get all the most important articles to FA-class, I think we can promote several articles which are close. We have a few A/GA class articles which we can all work on, if only to copy edit/request peer review/correct style etc. At the moment, some of the following could be easily pushed to FA without much new content being added. There are bound to be many more sitting at B-class which can easily go to GA too...
-Alex valavanis 10:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe your right, boosting GA/A to FA certianly would be easier. And certianly some of the above are worthy of our time. I still like the idea of targeting some weak articles from time to time too. We probably should be flexible and see what kinds of articles people actually are willing to work on. Should we shoot for weekly, bi-weekly, monthly? -MrFizyx 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say weekly, just to try. If we cant' get it done in that time frame, stretch it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Violask81976 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

From that list, Chill Out (album) ought to be on FAC soon, but any help would be really appreciated (WP:KLF has lost it's way a bit lately). As for Beatles albums, please don't assume WP:BEATLES is any better than this project ;) If we wait for them to get articles to FA we may be waiting a very long time. --kingboyk 22:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a little apprehensive about having formal collaborations on individual articles, as it'll mean a lot of potential edit conflicts and generally people's interest will wane over time. Maybe if we just encouraged project members to "adopt" articles from the list above, and let them request help on specific tasks to push them up to GA/FA.
On another note, just about all of the tasks on the To Do list, and most of the project guidelines have the goal of pushing Stub Class articles up to B Class. Maybe could probably use a bit more information on the project page about how to get the rest of the way up the assessment ladder? That way, editors would be encouraged to improve articles further themselves. - Alex valavanis
We wouldn't be the only ones to do it. WP:ALM does it. Violask81976 23:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No more than three albums per chronology

I think a user should always be able to navigate through an entire chronology by only navigating right or left from the first or last album respectively. I note that some album pages list more than three albums in a chronology, mostly because two albums released simultaneously are put in the same slot (example), and sometimes as a substitute for using multiple chronologies (example). I suggest we decide and clarify that no more than three albums should be listed in a chronology, and that multiple chronologies should instead be used if needed. Albums released on the same day could be ordered using the standard ordering of those albums, or alphabetically if no such standard exists. See Aw Cmon and No You Cmon for an example where I've done this. Any objections? --PEJL 16:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ping. No objections so far. Does anyone agree? --PEJL 17:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ping again. Unless someone objects, I'll add language for this in a few days. --PEJL 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. --PEJL 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-release(s) section in infobox

Maybe include in the infobox a "co-release" option or something? Like in the case of I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning have it indicate that its co-release was Digital Ash in a Digital Urn. Maybe like this:
{{Extra chronology 2
  | Artist     = Whoever
  | Type       = studio
  | Last album = —
  | This album = ''I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning''
  | Next album = —
  }}
{{Extra album cover 2
  | Upper caption  = Co-releases
  | Cover          = nocover.jpg
  | Type           = studio
  | Lower caption  = </small>''Digital Ash in a Digital Urn''
  }}
Of course, not quite like this, but it could be a Misc entry like that. What do you think or doing something like that? --lincalinca 06:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a possibility, but I think that's actually an orthogonal question. There might be a fair use problem with including the cover of the co-release. See the section #Pictures in chronology above. --PEJL 09:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
No no, I wasn't saying to use a picture. I was just too lazy to code something else. I just mean something simple with "co-releases" as the header part and then a listing of them, kind of like Template:singles (talk, links, edit) does (but I can't change the header in that, so I didn't use that). So no titles, but just a list of co-albums. The only thing that may be an issue is the superfluosity of it. How many albums out there really warrant it. Now that i've thought about it, I can't think of many... Scratch that. i just thought of a bunch (such as White Elephant Sessions with If I Left the Zoo, Good Monsters with Little Monsters, both of which are by Jars of Clay, but i'm sure others will arise). Ok, I'm in for that. I could even code it, since it's not too tough. I'll only do it if I'm given the nod, though. I won't do it if nobody's going to use it. Plus, what would you want as (a) the template title and (b) the header part of the template. If you say yes, please provide a suggestion. I'm not sure that "co-releases" is the best way to put it (but I may be wrong).
--lincalinca 11:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think including a co-release(s) section in the infobox is really necessary. Like you said, co-releases are relativily rare. It's also not a very well defined concept. What is a co-release? Are all albums released by the same artist on the same day to be considered co-releases? I think it will suffice if the connection between an album and another album is noted in the text of the article, to the extent appropriate in each case, both for co-releases and other related albums. --PEJL 12:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed language change for external links

I propose to change the current stub text in WP:ALBUM#External links to the following:

Album articles may contain an external links section of links to relevant external resources about the album. Links to resources about the artist rather than the album do not need to be included here, as these should be linked from the artist's article instead. Appropriate links may include links to chords or lyrics for the tracks on the album. Note however that lyrics may be protected by copyright, and external resources that reprint lyrics may be violating that copyright, in which case they should not be linked.

Any objections? --PEJL 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Third sentence: "Appropriate links may include..." to fix the antecedent. Otherwise, please do. –Unint 21:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please do. Be bold. Violask81976 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree MOSTLY, except that you should liberate the links. For instance, sometimes it may be appropriate to link to an artist's own album article (such as the thirsty merc releases page which indicates the band's discography, including track listings and links to individual song synopses) and oter links of the kind. I don't know how to phrase it, but I think the way you've worded it sounds a bit restrictive and may scare people off from putting these kind of links in (ironically, I've not used this link in TM's albums). Another thing is just the word "should" should be included in the link "should no be linked". Otherwise, I'm happy with it. --lincalinca 05:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. I adjusted the text according to your suggestions. Thanks for the feedback. --PEJL 18:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bootlegs?

You guys don't seem to mention this at all in your main description page, but it seems implicit that this concept should be for official releases and not "bootlegs." I ask this because under the Coldplay albums listed someone put up a "fan made" compilation that takes tracks from official releases and puts them on CD, and if sold this would obviously be illegal.

My view is that these kinds of things should not be here, but nothing speficially says that it shouldn't so I thought I would ask. Any thoughts? MDuchek 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right in that it's illegal. It's not illegal to make up your own running list, but it's far from encyclopedia and doesn't belong here. It's not all the way illegal, but it's a very dark shade of grey. --lincalinca 14:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Note though that some bootlegs are less illegal than others, and some aren't illegal at all. See Bootleg recording#Legal alternatives to illicit bootlegging. If we were to mention bootlegs on the project page, I think we should refer to "illegal bootlegs" or similar. --PEJL 17:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah well those aren't really "bootlegs" in the same sense, they just call them that. In any case, the key question is whether it's an *official release* OR something put together by fans or some other persons/company, whether profit or for not. It might be worth it to have something for non-official releases too, but not there. MDuchek 03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think notability decides this one. The Lillywhite Sessions, for example, received lots of attention, including press coverage. Castles looks to be only mentioned on message boards and such. –Unint 03:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case I'd say you should make sure they are clearly marked as unofficial/bootlegs and have their own category. MDuchek 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
A bootleg could have an article if it was notable enough, but that's rare. It probably shouldn't be included in the artist's categories or discography, but it should have a "see also" mention. -03:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Back covers again

Ok, whould this be notable enough to warrent a back cover? The Pink Spiders album Hot Pink is labeled out like it is a vinyl record, even though it is a cd. IT mentions needle times on the back and breaks the tracks into sides. It is notabel to show the back cover to show this? Violask81976 01:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of discretion. I wouldn't say it was, and wouldn't post it, but by the same token, I wouldn't list it for deletion nor would I remove it if it were there, because I don't think it's unencyclopedic. Sorry if I'm no help, but if you did it, I wouldn't be against it. --lincalinca 11:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new template {{Rating-Christgau}}

I propose we create a new template {{Rating-Christgau}} to standardize the formatting of Robert Christgau's ratings in the professional reviews section. Personally I don't know how to create a template, so I haven't tried to do this myself. I propose we create the template with one argument which is a code like one of the following: "hm1", "hm2", "hm3", "dud". These should map to an appropriate output for each rating. The honorable mention ratings currently used, or used in the past, have varied formatting:

  • (honorable mention **)
  • (hon mention **)
  • (hon ment **)
  • (hon. mention 2/3)
  • (honorable mention 2 stars)
  • (**)
  • (2 stars)
  • 2/3 stars
  • (2-star honorable mention)
  • (** honorable mention)
  • (** hon mention)
  • (** hon ment)

as well as capitalized versions of the same and versions of the same using <small>...</small>. The dud ratings also use or have used varied formatting:

  • (dud)
  • (X dud)
  • (dud X)

where X is one of at least two different bomb symbols, as well as capitalized versions of the same. We should collectively decide which formatting we want, and have the template output that format. I personally prefer (** hon mention) or (** hon ment) and (dud). Do other people think this would be a good idea? Does anyone who knows how to create templates want to give this a shot? --PEJL 13:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too much of a protologism having that sort of a rating system on here. For this same reason, I'm advocating removing the XXL (magazine) rating. I'm not for it, sorry man. --lincalinca 14:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, Christgau's rating system is already in use on the hundreds or thousands of album articles that contain reviews from him. In my sample of about 1500 album articles there were recently 347 reviews by Christgau. I'm merely trying to standardize the formatting of them. As for XXL magazine, I think the ratings look a bit obnoxious in the infobox when they use those images (example), but I would be in favor of keeping them with text-only ratings like "(XXL)", "(XL)" and so on. --PEJL 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there an official text representation of Christgau's "bomb" icon? –Unint 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
See [40]. I consider "dud" to be the text representation of the bomb icon. --PEJL 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It turns out creating a template wasn't so difficult, so I have created Template:Rating-Christgau. --PEJL 18:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Template looks good, but what about Christgau's other ratings like A+, A, A-, B+, "cut," "neither," and "turkey." The template is useless if it doesn't include all of his ratings. –Crashintome4196 04:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Useless, really? I added the ratings I did because those are the Christgau-specific ones (which excludes the letter grades) that were actually in use AFAICT (which excludes "cut", "neither" and "turkey"), and because those are the ones that currently need standardizing. But I agree the "cut", "neither" and "turkey" should be added, in case they are used anywhere I haven't seen or are used in the future. I'm not sure the letter grades should be included, because if we include them some people might use {{Rating-Christgau|B+}} for B+ ratings by other reviewers, especially if we format letter grades in a way other than the current. To avoid that, I defined Ratings-Christgau to be for Christgau-specific ratings. I also thought we might want to add a {{Rating-Letter}} in the future, which could be used by letter grades by Christgau and others, and avoid any overlap. --PEJL 08:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added the other Christgau-specific ratings to the template. Unlike what I proposed above, I've now made the template output symbols instead of text. Mostly because this is how the ratings are presented in print, but also because it becomes more obvious that a template is used (and should be used) if the template outputs something other than plain text, which will help the template being adopted. I made the symbols for the honorable mention ratings one, two or three black stars without any text, because that is how they are shown in print. Unlike the other rating stars these are black making them noticeably different, which I think is desirable because of their different meaning. What do people think? --PEJL 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. I've put this template to use in all the articles I could find with Christgau-specific ratings (slightly over 100 album articles) and mentioned it in the guideline. --PEJL 18:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem – From Category talk:Albums without cover art

A discussion has recently started concerning the above page and I wanted to call it to the attention of this project so it could receive more traffic, specifically from those experienced in dealing with these issues. Please visit the above talk page to get up to date. Leave any new messages on which ever page you feel. I believe that we can get this cleaned up very quickly. Sampm 03:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Internet Company using Wikipedia to advertise

If this has already been noticed, just delete and forget. I noticed on the page for Big Pun's album Yeeah Baby [41] the links to external reviews of the album for Rolling Stone, NME, Q and others all lead to this page [42] which is a page where the album can be bought from the company www.buy.com. Sorry, I don't have time to change them, I just want to notify people who are more dedicated that this abuse has taken place, and may also be taking place on other pages. It's a clever but parasitic and abusive strategy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.173.249 (talk • contribs)

This project used to have buy.com in our list of review sites; that may be the source of the problem. (Then, of course, somebody noticed the problem and took it off.) –Unint 03:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Note the links to buy.com have been in the first infobox example on the project page for a very long time. They used to point to review summaries of an album at buy.com but the structure of these pages has apparently changed. Jogers (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, buy.com is still listed in the list of review sites. Secondly, the buy.com pages still contain the review summaries, but you have to click the "Professional reviews" tab to see them. Personally I'd prefer it if we didn't link to a specific retailer like this, but the alternative is to have no link at all for reviews which can't be found elsewhere on the net. I don't know if that would be acceptable. --PEJL 10:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, looks like. But Buy.com is getting these collections of (quotes of) reviews from Muze to begin with, so the links are a bit misrepresentational. (They provide publication dates, so why don't we just unlink them and provide dates for people to look up at the library?)
I'm still holding out hope for a collaborative project on print sources... like WikiProject Alternative music has implemented. –Unint 22:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Standards for upcoming untitled albums

Is there a list of standards or policies for creating articles for known upcoming untitled studio albums? If not, I think there should be. Articles like U2's 16th album and Robbie's forthcoming studio album don't seem to adhere to any type of standards, and I think that some standards should be set, at least naming conventions for starters. –Crashintome4196 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: For naming conventions I think we should adhere to something similar to the following:

  • A number should definitely be included to distinguish between "future upcoming" albums.
  • Studio album should be included to differentiate from live albums and EPs.
  • Proposed styles:
    • Artist's ##th studio album (ex: U2's 12th studio album)
    • Artist's untitled ##th studio album (ex: U2's untitled 12th studio album)
    • Artist's upcoming ##th studio album (ex: U2's upcoming 12th studio album)
    • Artist's forthcoming ##th studio album (ex: U2's forthcoming 12th studio album)

–Crashintome4196 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion? –Unint 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I would have said the same at first, but the articles are properly cited, plus there are many more than those two. After looking at Category:Upcoming albums, I also found many others. Here are a few more:
There are many more, but you get the idea – obviously none of them follow a similar naming standard.
–Crashintome4196 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again we have the case where artist B's fans think they should have every wiki-feature that artist A's fans have created, it gets copied ad infinitum, and then we end up trying to accomodate something massive and unmaintainable. For starters, who will go around ensuring all the obsolete redirects get deleted once the albums are titled?
That aside, I'll concede there's some good material here. However, the whole reason why {{Future album}} was set to apply to sections as well as whole articles was that upcoming album information could be written in the band's main article. –Unint 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If an album doesn't even have a name, then why on Earth should we have an article on it? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It would actually be very hard to defend an unnamed album using policy against deletion. If you took the argument that albums should be included on stand alone notability, it would fail that because there are no sales or awards or reviews (let alone a name) to back it up. If you took the line that it's notable because any release by a notable band is inherently notable (much favoured) it falls down there too, because it hasn't, in fact, been released (let alone named). I'm not about to start deleting them, though. If it's what "the people" want, judge them on a case by case basis. And, for the sake of argument, maybe it should be Band's Nth studio album – B.hotep u/t• 22:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to deleting them (there are some really horrible ones out there), but if we're keeping them, I wouldn't be opposed to a standard. I recommend [band]'s upcoming [studio] album. Or forthcoming. The number doesn't matter, and it needs to be clear that the album hasn't been released yet. Or maybe "as yet untitled." If you just call it "untitled album" people might think it really doesn't have a title. Like Zeppelin IV. -Freekee 03:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If they are to be kept (I'm not saying either way), I think standardizing the naming and other aspects of upcoming untitled albums is a good idea. It might not always be so straightforward to determine what ordinal an album would be. With that in mind, and since I doubt any artist has multiple upcoming untitled albums with enough info to warrant articles at the same time, I agree with Freekee that the ordinals don't need to be included in the name. One option is "Artist's future album", using the same terminology as Template:Future album. I don't agree with Freekee that using "untitled" is problematic though. It really is an untitled album, because it hasn't been titled yet. (Compare to how a newly created file or folder on a computer is called "Untitled" until it is given another name.) I suggest they be named "Untitled" with standard album disambiguation making it "Untitled (Artist album)". I think this would be most in line with current naming conventions for albums. We should also decide what should be shown at the top of the infobox and in the chronology. The articles linked above contain a mix of "TBA", "Unknown", "Unnamed", "Artist's ##th studio album" and similar. I think we should standardize on "Untitled" (but unitalicized, because it isn't a title). --PEJL 09:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mel. I really don't see much value in an article like Kylie's_10th_Studio_Album. It would be remiss of us not to have an article on Chinese Democracy (album), though, and there are plenty of sources for it. Likewise, if I say so myself I think The Black Room, an article on a never-completed album, is a decent enough article. The difference, of course, with these two examples is that the albums got at least as far as being named and got enough press coverage to write a sensible article about them. --kingboyk 11:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that's what I was saying with the "case by case basis" thing. Some have received enough coverage to become quasi-notable in their own right, some are mere conjecture. Let's not tar all with the same brush, judge an album by its non-cover, and other such cliche. The question was: what format should they take, not whether they should all be deleted. – B.hotep u/t• 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
We should keep going with this. Which of the proposed suggestions do people prefer? I prefer "Untitled (ARTIST album)". --PEJL 18:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Numbering is difficult, see the U2 upcoming album article. I'd reject anything which uses numbers. Your idea doesn't distinguish genuinely untitled albums from albums which are forthcoming and not titled yet but which may be... So, how about "Upcoming untitled ARTIST album"? --kingboyk 22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I am fine with kingboyk's suggestion, even though I don't really think we need to distinguish one type of untitled album from another in the name of the article. But if we do want to do so, another option is "Not yet titled ARTIST album". --PEJL 22:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Shorter=better, I guess :) --kingboyk 22:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Better than "ARTIST's upcoming unnamed forthcoming untitled seventh studio album" at least :-) --PEJL 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Album Project's collaboration of the week

We've talked about it before, but we haven't actually done it. Let's do it. Someone above put forth a list of A-class articles that need to be improved to Feature-class articles. Here's the first one from the list. Let's see how this goes.

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot Let's see if we can get it to Feature Article status. Peer review, January

Go team, go! -Freekee 05:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm busy doing the same thing with Kid A at the minute... just doing the some final copy editing before submitting for FA, but I'll help with this when I'm finished. - Alex valavanis 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music!

There are quite a few articles about albums in this series, many of which consist almost entirely of track listings. Since they don't assert notability, they are in danger of speedy deletion. Any thoughts? Talk:Now That's What I Call Music!#Notability (John User:Jwy talk) 03:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Now UK series is notable, whether or not the articles assert it. It's just about the most famous compilation series in this country ever. They really need to be cleaned and beefed up rather than deleted or, perhaps better still, merged into a smaller set of articles. --kingboyk 15:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Merging into a single mega-article would be a good idea, then the text can present an overview of the series, such as how it began in the vinyl era and so far endured through to the era of iTunes playlists. Ricadus 14:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Seems that the uploading instructions at Template:Infobox Album#Album cover are not good enough anymore. Album cover images without fair use rationale are targeted for speedy deletion by User:ESkog. I asked him to discuss the issue here. Jogers (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, image policy changed and now all image description pages need a fair use rationale, a licensing template, and a source. I have developed a format which could easily be used with any image which provides all the above requirements. Take a look at Image:Character digipak cover.jpg and Image:Orbit Dance album cover.jpg for examples of the format. Take a look and consider adopting it for this project, a template could be made of the format. --Leon Sword 00:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice. I'm going to add this to the images I uploaded. What is more problematic though is that the user argues that cover art which is not specifically discussed in the article should eventually be deleted anyway. If this is going to happen it would mean that adding the fair use rationale now is just a waste of time in the vast majority of cases. Jogers (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, User:Geni was arguing about the same thing some time ago. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 11#Album covers and fair use. Jogers (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand why the album cover template doesn't include the rationale. The rationale is pretty much the same for all album cover articles isn't it? Couldn't we as a project at least create some subst'able boilerplate text?
As for the notion that they'll all be deleted anyway, I find that prospect quite apalling. Free images are all well and good, but we at this project we have no choice: album covers are copyright and likely to remain so. If it does happen, I believe we ought to seriously consider taking our labour elsewhere. --kingboyk 15:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Whatever may happen, are album covers worth leaving over? –Unint 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't necessitate leaving, album articles could be worked on at a new GFDL wiki which allows fair use album covers, and forked back here without the artwork. Let's hope it doesn't come to that though and let's not worry about it too much unless it happens, but be ready to fight for album covers (and other notable pieces of art) to be excluded :) --kingboyk 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would have no problem opening up an AlbumWiki. That would actually be pretty sweet. Violask81976 18:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Similar issues are highlighted in this week's Signpost, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use. --kingboyk 12:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think User:ESkogs main problem with album images is that too many people upload them without a fair use rationale and I agree with him. I myself come down hard on all these people who upload images without a license template, a statement of source, or a fair use rationale. If you include all those required things in the image description page your image cannot be speedy deleted for any of those reasons. I believe the entire situation can be solved by editors using the format I have developed, it features all the required items and even if the article in which the image is displayed does not talk about the image, the image description page provides a paragraph discussing the image. No images under my format can be deleted through the speedy deletion system because they will not meet any of the deletion requirements. Again take a look at Image:Character digipak cover.jpg and Image:Orbit Dance album cover.jpg for examples of the format. --Leon Sword 23:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding rationale to few hundreds covers I uploaded but what are we going to do about thousands of images which uploaders may no longer be around? It would be a terrible waste if all of them got deleted. Jogers (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Adopt those images? --Leon Sword 21:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
They shouldn't even need a rationale, as it's always pretty much the same for every album article. There's only so many ways to justify the use of an album cover! --kingboyk 22:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

CfD notification

Category:Electronic albums by artist up for deletion. Do we want these genre subdivisions? –Unint 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 14 |
Archive 15
| Archive 16 →


Album length

Prompted by this change, I was wondering if we could standardize how to show album lengths longer than one hour in the infobox? Should it be 70:00 or 1:10:00? Should it be 200:00 or 3:10:00? I have no preference, but I have gathered some statistics of current practice. In a sample of 216 albums between 60 and 100 minutes, 198 are currently formatted using the first format (hh:mm:ss) and 18 using the second (mm:ss). In a sample of 28 albums over 100 minutes 18 were formatted with using the first format and 10 using the second.

  • One option is of course to never go over 60 minutes, making the first example 1:10:00. Such a policy would however cause a large portion of existing album articles to have to be changed.
  • Another option is to use the second format (hh:mm:ss) if 100 minutes or more, to avoid three digit numbers.
  • A third option is to always use the first format (mm:ss), because in practice the length of albums are very rarely extremely long, and in the common cases less than 100 minutes anyway.

For simplicity and to avoid changing too many pages I suggest we standardize on the third option with a wording like the following in the instructions about the length field in the infobox: Length should be in minutes and seconds, even if longer than an hour, for example 74:00. Any objections? If not, I'll make this change in a few days. --PEJL 11:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • i support entirely, actually - the first format (mm:ss) looks much tidier to these eyes, and i agree with the rationale of yr third point. tomasz. 11:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Blank CDs (and cassettes) are labelled in minutes format on their packaging, so it might be appropriate to use the mm/ss format rather than hh/mm/ss (which feels more like a format I would see in sports results or science data). Ricadus 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I say that first of all, 1 and 2 are the same thing. Second of all, i say 1/2 for the simple fact that it's easier to find. Maybe it's just me, but when iTunes tells me that a cd is 1:24:06, i don't to then take the time to change it to 84:06. Violask81976 15:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
1 and 2 are not really the same thing. 1 applies a universal hh:mm:ss format, 2 goes with hh:mm:ss only for albums over 100 minutes (or 1h:40) but with mm:ss for albums <100m but >60m. tomasz. 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
So 1 would be like 0:54:06? oh, nvm. I just say number 2. Violask81976 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
No, option one would be like 59:59 and 1:00:00, while option two would be like 99:59 and 1:40:00. This confusion is a good example of the simplification I mentioned in favor of option three. The fact that iTunes uses option one should be seen in light of the fact that it shows the length of a set of tracks, which may be significantly more than the tracks on one album. Other sources like MusicBrainz and CD players (at least mine) use option two/three. --PEJL 17:57, 6 May 2007
ok, now i get it. then, option 1, haha. I dunno, i just think that it looks better. Because 61:00 is 1:01:00, there aren't 61 minutes, there's 1 hour and 1 minute. I dunno. Violask81976 22:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. A majority of responders preferred option three, so I used that. --PEJL 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks. -Freekee 05:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Improperly capitalized album articles

I made a list of project scope articles which are likely to be incorrectly capitalized at User:Jogers/List5. I tried to limit false positives as much as possible so it is not complete. It contains articles from Category:WikiProject Albums which have following words surrounded by spaces: is, are, our, my, it, their, For, A, An, Of, Or, And, To, At. There are also few requirements about characters before and after the space. Technically speaking I filtered out titles that didn't contain the following regular expression:

( (is|are|our|my|it|their) |[^\?\.\-:\)] (For|A|An|Of|Or|And|To|At) [^(])

If anybody is interested in clearing this up I could update this list on regular basis. I'm also pretty sure that the regex mentioned above could be improved somehow. Jogers (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you can add the following to the words that should never be capitalized under those circumstances: "From", "With", "In" and "Into". --PEJL 11:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the list, I wonder if this rule should apply if the space before the word is not preceded by another word but by a comma, ampersand, hyphen, colon, double quote or similar. I've always been unclear what the policy is for such titles. See for example 1 Polish, 2 Biscuits & A Fish Sandwich and "Wings To Fly And A Place To Be" An Introduction To Nanci Griffith and 20th Century Masters - The Millennium Collection: The Best Of L.A. Guns and A Man, A Band, A Symbol. If you want to exclude all such articles from the list, you could tweak the regexp to only match if there is a letter before the space preceding the word. --PEJL 11:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions. I've updated the list according to the following regex:
( (is|are|our|my|it|their) |[A-Za-z] (For|A|An|Of|Or|And|To|At|From|With|Into) [^(])
I didn't add "In" because it can function as an adverb or a particle of a phrasal verb and therefore is likely to generate false positives. Jogers (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
At least there's not a lot of them! :) Could you break it up into sections as with User:Jogers/List3?--Fisherjs 19:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. It should be easier to work on this way. Jogers (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Related thought: what about generating a list of titles that have an open parenthesis but not a closing one (or vice versa, I suppose)? What about an open parenthesis that doesn't have a space before it - like many of the Rockapella albums?--Fisherjs 19:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The second one should be quite easy. I'm not sure how to do the first one yet but I'll give it some thought. Jogers (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another improvement to the regexp to catch for example "This is: A Test", assuming your regexp engine supports "\b":

( (is|are|our|my|it|their)\b|[A-Za-z] (For|A|An|Of|Or|And|To|At|From|With|Into) [^(])

--PEJL 19:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I've updated the list. Jogers (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sets — clarification

I asked this question in general terms here (and was directed to the answer, in an earlier archive), but I'd like some clarification. Specifically, I was wondering how this would apply to Celtic music in particular — where tracks are often sets of multiple tunes (sometimes four our five of them, occasionally more), and where listing them in the manner specified in Archive 7 could easily be confusing. The long and short of it is, the nature of straight-up-and-down Celtic music (as opposed to Celtic New Age) may be a special case, and I’d like to be clear on whether or not that’s so.

I'll use Natalie MacMaster's Fit as a Fiddle as an example, since I actually have the liner notes in front of me — tracks 1 and 4, specifically, since those two would establish enough of a pattern to do the rest. You'll notice that the track/set names are pretty darn generic on this album ("Strathspeys & Reels" and "Jigs", for example). This may make it even more of a special case. Note that for clarity, I’m putting in the actual track number instead of the pound symbol (#) as I’m leaving out tracks 2 and 3.

Option 1 — see also Cherish the Ladies' The Girls Won't Leave the Boys Alone

1. "Strathspeys & Reels: John Campbell's/Miss Ann Moir's Birthday/Lady Georgina Campbell/Angus on the Turnpike/Sheehan's Reel" – 4:20
4. "Waltz: Nancy's Waltz" – 2:25

Option 2 — the same as Option 1, but with boldface for the set title

1. "Strathspeys & Reels: John Campbell's/Miss Ann Moir's Birthday/Lady Georgina Campbell/Angus on the Turnpike/Sheehan's Reel" – 4:20
4. "Waltz: Nancy's Waltz" – 2:25

Option 3 — which looks more like the example in Archive 7, but fails to make clear that the tune names are not part of the track title

1. Strathspeys & Reels: "John Campbell's"/"Miss Ann Moir's Birthday"/"Lady Georgina Campbell"/"Angus on the Turnpike"/"Sheehan's Reel" – 4:20
4. Waltz: "Nancy's Waltz" – 2:25

Option 4 — which looks more like the liner notes, and has the added bonus of allowing a low-clutter inclusion of who composed individual tunes (in this case, most of the tunes on the album are traditional: if that should be noted for each tune individually, say so, but I’m not giving you an option 5 just to cover that possibility)

1. "Strathspeys & Reels: John Campbell's/Miss Ann Moir's Birthday/Lady Georgina Campbell/Angus on the Turnpike/Sheehan's Reel" – 4:20
"John Campbell's"
"Miss Ann Moir's Birthday" (Charles Duff)
"Lady Georgina Campbell"
"Angus on the Turnpike"
"Sheehan's Reel"
4. "Waltz " – 2:25
"Nancy's Waltz" (Chris Romaine)

Basically, those are the four options that I came up with. Note that for the last one, though, the Charles Duff linked to may not be the right guy — in fact, I think it's probably somebody else entirely. Despite that, my own preference is for Option 4, if it works with the auto-numbering thing (using the '#' at the start of each track).  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a Celtic album with a (workable) variant of Option 4. Rather than reproduce it here, I'll just ask you to take a look at The Chieftains 9: Boil the Breakfast Early instead.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No bold, please. Option four seems a little inconsistent. Did you mean to exclude the text ": John Campbell's/Miss Ann Moir's Birthday/Lady Georgina Campbell/Angus on the Turnpike/Sheehan's Reel" from track one, like you did for track four? Note that The Chieftains 9: Boil the Breakfast Early uses a nested list (starts lines with '#*'), which is preferable to abusing <dt> and <dd> which is what the colons and semicolons do. Note also that we discussed medleys again recently. I'd say option one or four would be most in line with current practice (assuming you strip the text I noted from option four). --PEJL 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sophomore

Can anyone point me to where this is deprecated? I know that it is, but I've lost sight of where exactly. Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSTARD#Usage --PEJL 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation of albums with the same name by the same artist

The Weezer albums are used as examples at WP:ALBUM#Naming of how multiple albums with the same name by the same artist can be disambiguated by "commonly accepted convention": Weezer (The Blue Album) and Weezer (The Green Album). These albums were recently moved to Weezer (1994 album) and Weezer (2001 album), making the example no longer valid. Looking at List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums, the majority of albums listed there use the (YEAR album) disambiguation. I think we should change the policy to only support the (YEAR album) disambiguation for these albums. This will make the policy simpler, allow for less subjectivity, and be less dependent on more or less unofficial nick-names for albums. Therefore I propose we change the wording from:

For artists who release multiple albums under the same name, disambiguate by year or other commonly accepted convention, e.g. Weezer (The Blue Album) and Weezer (The Green Album).

to:

For artists who release multiple albums with the same name, disambiguate by year, e.g. Weezer (1994 album) and Weezer (2001 album).

I also removed the piped link to List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums, because that isn't really the same thing (they aren't necessarily self-titled), and I think the link to a similar but subtly different concept could confuse the interpretation. I also changed "under the same name" to "with the same name" because I think the former can be misinterpreted to refer the artist name rather than the album name. Any objections to this change? --PEJL 14:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the examples at WP:ALBUM#Naming have now been changed to two albums with the same name by the same artist released in the same year. I assumed no such albums existed, but apparently that was a faulty assumption. Therefore I propose the following amended wording:
For artists who release multiple albums with the same name, disambiguate by year, e.g. Weezer (1994 album) and Weezer (2001 album) (unless the albums were released the same year, in which case they can be disambiguated by some commonly accepted convention).
I'll make this change in a few days unless someone objects. --PEJL 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
What about cases where the colloquial title is very well-known? I think it is often easier for a reader to disambiguate the records by cover art, rather than year. -Freekee 05:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a specific album in mind? Any of the albums at List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums?--PEJL 08:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of the obvious ones, Weezer and Peter Gabriel. The colors and descriptive titles make sense. But the Weezer article shows the covers, and the Peter Gabriel discography describes the covers. So I guess it's not a big deal. -Freekee 15:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. As there were no strong objections, I made this change. --PEJL 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

New paragraph about track listing

Following up from above, I propose adding the following as a new paragraph at WP:ALBUM#Track listing 2, to codify existing practice:

The track listing should be under a primary heading named "Track listing". If there are significantly different track listings for different editions, these can be listed under sub-headings. If the album was released primarily on CD and spans multiple discs, these should be listed separately under sub-headings named "Disc one", "Disc two" and so on. Albums originally released primarily on vinyl or cassette should similarly list the tracks of each side separately under sub-headings named "Side one" and "Side two".

Any objections? --PEJL 20:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like instruction creep. Have we been having trouble with people doing it wrong? Edit warring or anything? -Freekee 05:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I have had problems with similar sections, although I've tried to avoid edit warring. I think we should make explicit what are currently implied guidelines, that people who have been around for a while know about but that a newcomer can not easily find out about. Newcomers should be able to find out these things without looking at a rather large sample of album articles to deduce which formatting they should mimic and which they should not. For example:
  • The fact that the track listing section should be called "Track listing" rather than "Tracklisting", "Track list", "Tracks" or some such. (Also see above about "Track listing" vs "Track listings".)
  • The fact that sub-headings should be used rather than emulating the same using plain or bold text. This follows from WP:HEAD, but is worth mentioning here as well. I have had some problems convincing people of this.
  • The fact that the disc sections should be named "Disc one" rather than "Disc 1", "CD 1" or "CD one". This was decided here, with increasing consistency since then.
  • The fact that the track listing of LPs should list both sides separately. This was requested again here, and I think I recall seeing such changes reverted on some albums.
--PEJL 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
We do need this bare minimum of instructions to ensure consistent formatting. That's not instruction creep at all, I would think. –Unint 14:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, do we use "real" headings for every variation in track listing? Different bonus tracks added to the end in different regions, for example? –Unint 17:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I do, when they are listed in a numbered list (example). I chose not to mention that in the proposed text because I think there is more room for doing it in different ways for bonus tracks. --PEJL 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. --PEJL 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Release Dates in Infobox

I had some dispute with one of the WP:ALBUM members on how the Release Dates in the Infobox should be used. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Details states, that only the earliest known date should be used, which I think is not good out of the following reasons:

  1. The infobox should provide a fast overview of the most important information. If the album was released in Timbuktu 10 days before it was released world wide, who cares?
  2. That been said, I think it is important to include the release date in the country of origin because it is not always the same as the first date. For example, if I look at an article about Favourite Worst Nightmare, I'd be more interested in knowing when it was released in the UK than in Japan.
  3. But of course, the first release date is important, too. I would propose to include up to three dates, together with flag-icons to the box: The first release date, the release in the country of origin and the one in the USA. I did that here, which is the reason I am writing this after all...
  4. And if there are many different release dates, I'd suggest a dynamic navigation box to fit in there, which can be expanded to show all of them. See how the languages in EU are in the infobox to see what I mean. I wanted to show you with albums, too, but my template-editing-skills are not good enough (tried it here, but tables in templates fuck up the Infobox).

Ah well, that's what I wanted, to change the above guideline to make more sense and allow faster information access for the user. Also, I grow tired of having to cite WP:IAR all the time ;-)
So, what do you think? Should I be stoned (to death) for even suggesting that? ^^ --SoWhy Talk 19:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said. The infobox is intended to be an overview, not a comprehensive collection of information. The first release date is most important because it gives an idea of when the record was complete. The date of release in the home country is also important, because it's the band's home country. *shrug* The US release date is not all that important, in the grand scheme of things. I always like to keep the boxes simple. -Freekee 15:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming at this from a Video Games angle I would plead with you to stick to a single date in your infobox and place other dates in the article. If you decide on multiple dates make sure the wording on what is allowed is clear, or you may end up with something like this Donkey Kong (video game) - X201 08:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As said above, I did not suggest more than max. three dates in the box. I included the US date because it is the biggest music market of the world but I wouldn't insist on it. First and country of origin tho would be a good idea, with, as I said above, maybe the others as a dropdown, which would allow a fast overview of all dates if necessary for the user. --SoWhy Talk 08:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
As I was the one who suggested this be discussed here, I guess I should say something. Let's start with the use of flags. The use of flags is generally controversial (see WP:FLAGCRUFT), but is especially inappropriate for the release date section. Flags draw attention, making the user notice them more than the surrounding content. The problem in this case is that this gives the country (by way of the flag) more emphasis than the date, when it should be the other way around. Many album articles (that don't use flags) list the country using smaller text, like this: January 1, 2000 (UK) for just this purpose. Using a flag is comparable to listing the country information with added emphasis, like this: January 1, 2000 (UK), which I think is inappropriate. Another problem with using flags, also stemming from the fact that they draw attention, is that since they would often be the only flags in the infobox, they give the impression that the album is closely related to the countries whose flags are shown. Take the The Boy with No Name example that was mentioned. The German flag is listed at the top, followed by the UK and US flags. If one just glances at the infobox, one can get the impression that the album has something to do with Germany, and to a lesser extent with the UK and the US, when in fact the connection to Germany is minimal. If the infobox should include flags (which I don't think it should), I think it would be better if it was for something with a stronger connection to the album, such as the origin of the artist or the location of recording. I'm still thinking about the other aspects of this proposal, so I'll leave it at that for now. --PEJL 22:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No-one in favor of flags here to rebut? Fine. The rest of the proposal was to include dates for the country of origin of the band and for the U.S., with an expandable list for other dates. The country of origin may not be obvious for all artists (solo and group) and therefore less useful in some cases. It seems inappropriate from a global perspective to make an exception for the U.S. release date, which may likewise be less relevant for certain artists. Like the Favourite Worst Nightmare example in the proposal shows, a separate section for release dates is more flexible than including all the dates collapsed in the infobox, since it can include info on different release media and labels as well. I also think it is easier for readers to interpret a single release date. (Once an album has been released somewhere in the world, it has been released in some sense.) A list of three dates for three countries may imply that the album was only released in those three countries, and may invite editors unfamiliar with the policy to add more dates for other countries. In short, I think the current policy of only including the earliest release date is preferable to this proposed policy. --PEJL 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just wanted to wait for others to say something first. Okay, first of all, I think flags should be used, they do not really draw any more attention than covers or other graphics but allow an easier overview. Then, you say that having more than one release date might confuse people. That's not more true than with only one date. If you add the earliest date in a case where the earliest and the official are very different, it will not help people. For example, what good is it to know that an album has been released January 1st in Timbuktu if everywhere else it was released March 31st? The drop-down box will allow people to access them all at once because there are very few albums like Favourite Worst Nightmare with seperate release sections and that not always necessary.
Lastly, if there is a worldwide date, there is always Flag of World or you can add "(worldwide)" instead of "(UK)". --SoWhy Talk 19:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The only actual reason you've given for using flags is that "they allow an easier overview". I strongly dispute that using flags makes anything easier. I don't think the majority of readers of album articles will know what the flag of Mali looks like, for example. As I've already shown, there are lots of reasons against using flags in this specific context, and even more in general (see WP:FLAGCRUFT). To what extent flags draw attention is somewhat subjective. I can only speak for myself, and for me they draw attention, as do other brightly colored graphics in the middle of a block of text. The rating stars also attract attention, but less attention than flags because they are more uniform, while they contain more relevant information than flags. I don't understand what you mean about Flag of World or "(worldwide)". Are you proposing it be used when there is only one release date? If so, why, what problem does it solve? My counter-proposal is that we add text saying that flags should not be used anywhere in the infobox (thus not disallowing their use in other parts of the article, such as a release info section).
If the album was released in Mali on January 1, then the album has been released on January 1. I fail to see how that wouldn't be "official". I find the current policy simple but accurate. It does simplify the release date a bit, but it avoids the problems I mentioned earlier, and doesn't actually present incorrect info. The fact that there are few albums with separate release sections is no reason to change this policy, those sections could of course be added where appropriate. If such a section isn't needed, the multiple release dates can be mentioned in the text of the article. Note that in theory I'm not opposed to including all release dates in the infobox. It's just that in practice the infobox will either become unwieldy (if all dates are shown) or misleading (if only some are shown). That's why I think the current policy is preferable. --PEJL 21:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with the first suggestion to use flags (or else, at least to use the smaller text identifying up to three countries after the date). From what I've seen on Wikipedia, very few people are aware of IAR, either. There's often more of a rush to get articles "up to code" rather than to actually improve them.
But anyway... one thing no one has taken into consideration is the virtual meaninglessness of release dates over at least the past five years, as nearly any high profile pop music release will "leak" weeks or even months early, usually in finished form. It's not like this is limited to critics or a few "music pirates". Even casual fans of a given musician will be able to get a bootleg copy with little trouble. In fact, over the past year iTunes itself has been known to "mistakenly" make high profile singles, videos and albums available on their servers weeks and months ahead of time! And then the content is quickly removed, yet continues to circulate unofficially. Is that a "release date"?
So, this hardly means release dates are no longer relevant, but it means that the automatic privileging of the first OFFICIAL release date, just because it was the first, becomes somewhat ridiculous.
Kid A
Studio album by Radiohead
Released Flag of Japan September 27, 2000
Flag of the United Kingdom Flag of World October 2, 2000
Flag of the United States Flag of Canada October 3, 2000
Recorded January 1999 – April 2000
Genre Art rock
Electronic music
Alternative rock
Length 50:01
Label Parlophone
Capitol
Producer Nigel Godrich, Radiohead
For example, I'm now working on the article for Kid A. Now this album is already 7 years old, but it's probably one of the first subject to this problem. The Internet leak preceding the album by a month is in fact considered notable as a possible impact on sales and marketing, and it's covered in the article. For such an article, it really becomes confusing for a reader (particularly a non-expert in the subject of the music industry, who would probably assume there IS only one release date if only one is listed in the box) when this album "came out". Since the discrepancy between official and leak dates is important, it doesn't seem right to leave the impression the album came out officially nearly a week earlier than it did. In fact the most COMMON (rather than the first) official release date becomes all the more important when an album is unofficially available far in advance, as this example shows. What is important, if only one date was to be singled out, is the date the critical mass of first-day buyers bought it, since most people still do legally buy music whether online or off.
It turns out that Japan has a tradition of significantly earlier release dates across the board, just as they have a tradition of adding the bonus tracks, to lure people to accept the more expensive music prices there. It's not like only albums with a special interest for the Japanese audience receive this treatment.
Yes, it bears mentioning that it was officially released first in Japan (Sept 27, 2000), and if flags were used that country would still be listed first. But it's completely arbitrary to single out Japan ONLY when it was not released anywhere else until October 2, 2000- and "anywhere else" being the entire rest of the world (except US and Canada which was the very next day). True, putting a lot of dates in the infobox can look very messy. But with restrained use of the flag icons, provided the album doesn't have too many separate release dates, you actually make the whole article less misleading, and simpler to understand, as well as achieving a cleaner look.
To the right is an example of what the rule currently prevents us from doing on Kid A. Covers all the release dates with a minimum of space, and mouse-over reveals the country if someone is not familiar with a flag.
Also, the infobox at the right kind of demolishes the claim that "The first release date is most important because it gives an idea of when the record was complete." Not this decade! The record was complete five months before the first release date. When you factor in time to do marketing and videos (which this album supposedly didn't even have), it's true of a lot of albums out there now that a slightly earlier release date still gives no clearer picture when the music itself was finished. I do agree w/ User:Freekee that at the very least the home country release date should ALWAYS be listed in the infobox, unless the release didn't focus on the market in their home country. That was clearly not the case with the given examples of Radiohead, Travis, Arctic Monkeys, etc., whose main market is all the UK. Japan or Germany simply got in a bit earlier due to a technicality. 172.135.131.176 13:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
One other thing, will people refrain from "enforcing" rules about which there isn't even any consensus yet? (Especially ones where it's unlikely doing it one way or the other will really "hurt" anyone as images of Muhammad might?) Until the debate on THIS page is resolved, editors on any page can do WHATEVER THEY FEEL IS BEST regarding this issue! 172.135.131.176 13:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
In terms of arguments in favor of using flags, I think I can extract "achieving a cleaner look" from that. So the arguments in favor of flags presented so far are: "they allow an easier overview" and "achieving a cleaner look". I dispute both claims for roughly the same reasons, and hold that both arguments are subjective. I think the arguments against using flags outweigh these arguments. I think including the country name using small text instead gives the relative pieces of information appropriate emphasis.
It's also unclear what your position is, because your example uses more than three flags. Are you proposing a different rule than the OP? If not, which flags are you saying would be included in this case? The Japanese, world and U.S. flags? If so, this misrepresents the release date in Canada. What does the world flag mean exactly? (All other countries? Most other countries?) Textual labels can be clearer, for example "(elsewhere)" and "(most countries)" while being more flexible, for example "(North America)". --PEJL 14:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well ok, (<small></small>) text labels are a very good idea if flags are out. The problem is that currently there is a "rule" banning any more than one release date from being in that box- with a flag, with a text label, with whatever. It's a "rule" about which there is hardly any agreement here, thus I would say quite a stupid one for its supporters to enforce at this point. My argument was that using only one release date is misleading and arbitrary in many cases, ESPECIALLY if one is not even allowed to identify that one date with a flag or text label. I do like the look of flags in moderation, but I see your point- it can get out of hand with albums that have many different release dates. But for that matter, is there any reason to have one single rule for all albums, past, present, aimed at one country or aimed at the international pop market? This is the problem with "rules" and why we need to ignore them sometimes, lest a bureaucracy be created that pointlessly forces articles to adhere to a central standard that distorts the coverage of their specific topic. 172.146.45.46 06:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, there is a rule, and we are discussing changing that rule based on the proposal at the top of this thread. You say that using a single release date is misleading and arbitrary. I say that using a subset of release dates with country identifiers may also be misleading and arbitrary. I think both arguments have merit, and neither solution is optimal. I do think we should try to make a rule that will work well for all album articles, and not give up or allow for deviation unless a concrete reason for doing so is identified. Just ignoring this rule (whether the existing rule or a changed rule) doesn't solve any problems, it just escalates them, by moving the conflict onto potentially each and every album article. One of the problems with this proposed new rule is that it is somewhat complex, while still being under-defined. The following is an attempt at defining the "Released" field per the proposed new rule (using textual labels instead of flags):

Favourite Worst Nightmare
Studio album by Arctic Monkeys
Released 18 April 2007 (Japan)
23 April 2007 (UK)
24 April 2007 (U.S.)
Should refer to the date of release. If an album is released on different dates in different countries, more than one date should sometimes be shown, as described below. When an album is released on different dates in different countries, a label should always be included after the date, inside a <small>...</small> block and inside parentheses, specifying the country the date refers to. The date of the first release should always be shown. If the album was also released in the artist's country of origin, that date should also be shown, if different. If the album was also released in the U.S., that date should also be shown, if different. The dates should be sorted in ascending order.

This rule is under-defined because it leaves undefined how to handle cases when more than one country has the same release date. (Should it be (UK) or (UK, Brazil, France, Belgium)?) As I've mentioned before, it also misrepresents the release date when more than three release dates exist, or when the second or third release dates aren't shown because they aren't from the country of origin or the U.S.. It was suggested that an expandable list be used to alleviate this problem. Using an expandable list only partially alleviates the problem, and has problems of its own. Singling out the U.S. date is also dubious, as previously noted. This rule is also not very obvious to a random editor who hasn't read these instructions. This proposed rule can be contrasted to the current rule, which is significantly simpler:

Favourite Worst Nightmare
Studio album by Arctic Monkeys
Released 18 April 2007
Should refer to the earliest known date.

An alternate proposal

I have made an alternate proposal which tries to leave fewer cases undefined while allowing all release dates to be included using a relatively compact presentation. This rule is roughly equally as complex as the other proposed rule, but is in my opinion less misleading because it includes all dates and all regions.

Favourite Worst Nightmare
Studio album by Arctic Monkeys
Released 18 April 2007 (Japan)
20 April 2007 (Germany, …)
21 April 2007 (Australia)
23 April 2007 (UK, …)
24 April 2007 (North America, …)
Should refer to the date of release. If an album is released on different dates in different regions, all such dates should be included. When multiple dates are shown, the regions the date refers to should be included after the date, using the {{Album regions}} template. The regions may be the name of countries or continents, or a short description such as "most countries", "everywhere else" or "most of Europe", for example: {{Album regions|North America|Israel}}. The dates should be sorted in ascending order, and regions should be sorted by population in descending order.

This rule uses a proposed new template {{Album regions}} which converts a list of regions into small text in parentheses, and hides secondary regions, by showing only the first region followed by an ellipsis, while all regions are shown as a tooltip. For example: {{Album regions|Australia}} would output <small>(Australia)</small> while {{Album regions|Germany|Spain|Ireland}} would output <small title="Germany, Spain, Ireland">(Germany, …)</small>. --PEJL 22:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To avoid the number of release dates in the infobox growing too large, I propose limiting it to original releases, excluding re-releases, per some definition of a re-release. One possible such definition could be:
Only the date of the original release in a region should be included, thus excluding possible re-releases in the same region.
--PEJL 10:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Ping. It would be great if we could resolve this issue. What do people think about my alternate proposal? --PEJL 13:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So much burden placed on this one box... There are times when I think we're really encouraging people to forget the purpose of condensing information in a concise manner.
I personally like the approach taken at articles like Fundamental (Pet Shop Boys album) and X&Y, where the full selection of release dates are tabulated in a later section. –Unint 01:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's basically our current guideline (except that those infoboxes don't show the earliest release date), and what I was arguing we should keep doing earlier in this thread. This alternate proposal was just an alternative to the proposal at the top of this thread, iff we decided we wanted the infobox to include multiple release dates. Since this discussion has died down, I think we can conclude that our current guideline will stay for now. --PEJL 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

When I look at an INFOBOX it would be nice to get a "quick snapshot" of the album and band with an "Official" release date that the industry (record company) had set. That gives everyone a general point of reference when that album came out...like "hey, remember 'Shout at the Devil'?, when did that come out?" "Uh, like 1983 man"... Not "Well, it was initially released as a demo in july of 1982 in Japan, then later that year, part of a 2-disk compilation album 'Buckle-Up Razzle'(sorry bad humor)in Germany, then officially released in the US in 1983, but don't forget the pre-leaching and stolen songs (including the ones that were ripped off from the thief that stole them, that were officially-unofficially released on the internet (that you could only exclusively use at Al Gore's house(back in 83'))".

I do agree that the flags make the article look stunning, but I live in the US, not Japan, and could care less about a specific release in another country unless there is an asterisk next to it indicating the worlds collapse because of it. Besides, doesn't "Uh, like 1983 man" seem a much simpler response?
Boxes would be fine as long as they revert to a general concensus date... like an official one. But, if I'm that interested in the article, i'll read it, including ALL the release dates in every city in every country in every world.
Just my P's & Q's --ZapperZippy 00:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)ZapperZippy

britpop needs clean-up

People seem to be tagging all and anything by a british article as "britpop" - the cat needs cleanup. --Fredrick day 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RIAA certifications given to music albums

Should RIAA certifications given to music albums be capitalized on pages like discographies? Some editors do capitalize (see Earth, Wind & Fire discography, Audioslave discography) and some (I actually know only one) don't (see Britney Spears discography, Eminem discography). I need opinion of at least two experienced wikipedians, thanks! Daniil Maslyuk 13:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking whether the word "certification" should be capitalized in RIAA certification? No, I don't think it does. RIAA is the name of an organization, but "certification" is a descriptor. -Freekee 03:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps words like "gold", "platinum", etc. The RIAA certification article itself capitalizes these awards. –Unint 04:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Correct, I meant words like "gold" and "platinum". Daniil Maslyuk 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Final albums

There is a current debate regarding the fate of the "final albums" category. Those that wish to do so might weigh in. I'm not adovocating a position nor do I have a strong opinion. I just find it hard to keep up with category debates until they are already being deleted. -MrFizyx 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware this category existed, probably because the existence of categories like this has been a bit of a mystery to me. WP:ALBUM#Categories just mentions Category:ARTIST albums and Category:YEAR albums. I've just now found that Category:Albums (linked via Category:Final albums) contains a list of various album categories. It seems at least some of those categories are automatically added to articles when appropriate. I think we should update WP:ALBUM#Categories to mention Category:Albums and/or list some or all of the categories listed there that album articles should manually use. --PEJL 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Category:Eponymous albums that was mentioned here back in April and was noted to be deleted, now seems to be back. --PEJL 15:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do compilation albums require personnel sections to avoid being stubs?

WP:ALBUM#Assessment_classes "Start" implies that an album article must be declared a stub unless it has several things, one of which is "• A minimal list of credits (band members, at least)". Does this hold true for compilation albums as well? Since such albums frequently span considerable time, giving even a minimal list of credits and properly stating who belongs to which song can be very awkward. And what about for solo artists? Backing musicians for tracks on a compilation can typically each be different; listing all of them would be quite unwieldy. Wasted Time R 13:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good chance to ignore all rules. -MrFizyx 03:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't put too much effort into it. Of course, I wouldn't put too much effort into comp album articles in general, but I guess that's beside the point. If it's not too tough, a basic listing would be good. I wouldn't go into detail about who played on which tracks, but a mention of all the band members who played on the record, and maybe the producers, would be a good thing. Guests players are not necessary, but significant appearances might be listed in the text. Use your judgement. -Freekee 03:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we should make sure the rules are optimal before starting to ignore them. Specifically, perhaps the requirements for different assessment classes should be loosened for compilation albums, or possibly only the requirements for start status should be. I don't know (and I don't feel qualified to answer that since I don't assess many articles). On the other hand, what is the harm in keeping these compilation albums at stub status? --PEJL 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I think keeping a minimal personnel list satisfies the assessment requirements without the need to change them for compilations or hold comps back. Besides, some studio albums have very basic personnel lists and still make Start class. -Freekee 03:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
How about box sets like The Beatles Box Set, should we have exceptions for those? This criteria means that article should be stub class, but it's currently assessed as B class. --PEJL 00:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

More fair use images being tagged

It seems more fair use album art is being tagged. I gather that pretty much anything uploaded within the past year can be tagged, removed from articles and eventually deleted unless the image includes its own unique argument for fair use. Perhaps someone could make a bot to generate random explanations for why showing album covers on album articles is O.K. -MrFizyx 02:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm having an absurd discussion with someone at the Talk:The_Original_Soundtrack page on this subject. At least I think I am. It all seems so simple to me: Wikipedia allows an album article to contain an image of the cover. This editor seems intent on deleting the image. What the hell is going on?Grimhim 04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I made an edit to this page that I hope helps, but I am afraid it will not. Furthermore, the image needs a source, so it may be deleted under that criteria. Good luck. (Sampm 06:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
Thanks for the Fair Use Rationale you've added. I've just done a random search of well-known albums -- Rubber Soul, Between the Buttons and Presence -- and found none have this section attached to the image. Abbey Road (album), which appears on numerous Wiki articles, does, however.
I also note that the Project Albums page does advise including a Fair Use Rationale comment, though I've added album cover art to many album entries, without ever including a Fair Use notation and never had them deleted. I guess I should do so in future. I'd have thought the licensing tag would be sufficient; is someone working their way through every album in Wiki trying to delete images without a Fair Use comment? I take your point on the lack of a source for the Original Soundtrack cover art; if it is deleted I'll find a new cover and stick it in. Grimhim 06:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes they are. Our current use of images puts us in danger. Note that they are *only* fair use in the album article, not the graphical discographies that seem to have sprung up. They all need removing. Secretlondon 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we need that bot proposed above! Wasted Time R 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


The Help:Image page states in the section WP:IDP#Fair use rationale that when you upload a fair use image, "you must include two things on the image description page: (1) An appropriate fair use license tag & (2) A detailed fair use rationale." -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we know that. The point is that the "detailed fair use rationale" is always going to be the same for album articles. Why can't it be incorporated into the album cover license tag? The requirement just creates pointless busy work. Wasted Time R 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, to me, the solution to this seems simple. I'm sure that we can colaborate and create a universal fair use rationale for all album covers. Something like:

  1. This image is already displayed in record stores worldwide.
  2. The use of this image is used by the copyright holder to promote the album it is included with, therefore;
  3. The use of this image on Wikipedia does not infringe on the rights of the copyright holder, or the copyright holder's ability to use the image, and;
  4. The use of this image on Wikipedia does not inflict losses in revenue for the copright holder.

What if we got a bot to go through all album covers without fair use rationales and use that? That would take care of that SNAFU.
As for sources, that may be a little more difficult, but I'm sure some dedicated Wikipedians could be recruited to find the links to general libraries such as the All Music Guide, Amazon.com etc. -- Reaper X 20:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • sounds excellent. i'd be more'n happy to help finding sources. tomasz. 21:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe such bot would be approved. -- ReyBrujo 22:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, the major problem... they won't accept any automatically generated rationale. –Unint 03:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on starting a new wiki just for music, and we can not have all these fair-use problems over such trivial matters as album art. If anyone wants to help me, here's the link. I know it's on a wiki farm..but i dunno how to/don't have the money to staart one using the mediawiki program. I need help, mainly with making templates. I dunno how... Violask81976 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are still covered by copyright law, whether you like it or not. Secretlondon 04:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to dodge copyright law. There's a difference between complying with it, which we are, and making you type out a detailed thing for every single once like the deletionists who happen to have power are wanting us to do. Violask81976 15:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't use fair use images without a detailed rationale. I've added some to articles I care about. I suggest you do likewise. If an image is deleted it can always been replaced. We just can't take images from wherever without justifying it. This has been long overdue. Secretlondon 04:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd be more than happy if we could get the fair use rationale part taken care of for now here on wikipedia. Do you think someone could employ a bot to take care of this? Do you think we canm come to a concensus on what this universial rational should be? -- Reaper X 06:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The legal definition of "Fair Use" is to depict something's subject matter where no free alternative is available. Now, why based on that description, are discographies with images considered illegal? It's illogical to assume that an image cannot be used to illustrate a point. Anyway, as to tagging with a standard FU tag, I agree, but I'd have it in fitting with the {{Non-free media rationale}} template, rather than the proposed rationale. --lincalinca 10:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that there's no way for a bot to go through and add rationales for all of these images (some, maybe). One requirement is that the cover must be of low resolution; many of the covers on Wikipedia are not of sufficiently low resolution. ShadowHalo 17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia's own Fair use criteria is, on purpose, stricter than the law, to prevent falling in the law's gray area. In example, if there were a law stating "Internet pages can have up to 32,000 characters", Wikipedia would only allow, say, 24,000 bytes, ensuring they are well within law (completely fake example to demonstrate why we don't use the law's wording for fair use, must clarify because it had already happened that someone really thought there was such a law!). -- ReyBrujo 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The person responsible for the majority of the automated tagging has indicated this is the kind of rationale he would like to see on each album cover page:

Rationale for this image:

  • The cover is used to represent a well known and acclaimed album
  • This image has been used in several websites, and so use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is
  • The image is being used in an informative way and should not detract from the album
  • The image does not limit the group's ability to sell the album
  • The only purpose of the image is to help decribe the album (NAME OF ALBUM) and no other purpose

Why the Template:Non-free album cover couldn't have that added to it, I have no idea. I'll propose that on the template talk page. Jenolen speak it! 17:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So the discussion there, just as an update, is going south for hard-coding a FU rationale into the template, but ReyBrujo said if he could have it his way he would have "a textbox in the Special:Upload page for the rationale, and stop uploading any image until you have write a fair use rationale". It sounds like an excellent idea to me . I mean, it makes things so much easier for those less experienced Wikipedians trying to contribute. I mean, one fine example of providing an uploader with help at the Special:Upload page is at Wikipedia Commons. When you go to upload a file, you come to the following page:

Where is the work from? (Click on the appropriate link)

Now because I copied and pasted this from another project, some of the links dont work as they are supposed to, but you get the idea. If you have a commons account, I highly encourage you to visit and look at the helpful pages that follow, if you havent already. I wasn't aware this existed until a few days ago when I uploaded a few Flickr photos for a couple articles I was working on. Clicking on that link for Flickr photos made it so much easier, and ensured it was done properly. I found this to be quite an awesome and useful piece of work. I think we need to find the editor(s) behind this, and make the Wikipedia upload page more obvious like this. While we are at it, we can include the tools to help an editor add fair use rationales to any kind of image, including album covers. So I posed this suggestion at Template talk:Non-free album cover already, and if the feedback is good enough, we should send it up the chain. What do you guys think? -- Reaper X 23:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, my initial suggestion that a bot could be used for this was in jest, I never thought such a thing could fly, but thanks to those who have tried to promote the idea. There seems to be a real problem now though. The hard-core deletionists seem to insist that getting rationales created or images deleted is suddenly an urgent matter. Further, the bot operator seems to ignore most attempts to have a dialog about the matter.
Wikipedia has many maintenance tags that don't involve speedy deletion one not create one to address this problem? Clearly, people have continued to upload articles without rationales, because there have been many untagged examples to follow without them. Why use a bot threaten mass deletions of reasonably used images that have existed for up to a year? Why is this being made into our highest priority overnight? -MrFizyx 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of album covers in discographies

Further up, Secretlondon writes: "[Album images] are *only* fair use in the album article, not the graphical discographies that seem to have sprung up. They all need removing".

I'm not sure this is correct. Consider eg Image:Beatles - Abbey Road.jpg which includes fair use rationales for various pages including The Beatles discography.

It seems to me the use of the image on that page falls squarely within WP's fair use thinking: it is a thumbnail, it is not replaceable, it is being used to illustrate the product in question, it does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work; and its use, in a review of the band's whole output, is for an appropriately transformative purpose. Jheald 11:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, don't you just need a separate FU rationale? -- Reaper X 17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Some articles have it and some don't. The ones I come across that do, well, let's just say that I could really get used to it... It doesn't detract *at all* from the page as a matter of fact, it enhances the article. Granted, a few more pecks on the keyboard to make your dreams come true, but, most album covers will match the link reference and it's nice to be able to do a quick visual double check before you click on the link. You may even pick up that the album cover is not at all what it is supposed to be and away you go on your Wiki editing vacation(no miles needed off your Visa).

When I go back to boring old album articles with plain old links... Whoopedy Doo!(sarcastic remark) I sink into a depressive funk tailspin that only a rootbeer float ice cream bar can pull me out of. Besides, if the cover is provacative, that will only get you interested in exploring the (hopefully) intriguing article!?!? Humph, You mean we should actually explore this encyclopedia? (another sarcastic remark from [|Jerk])--ZapperZippy 00:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would cite Ozzy Osbourne discography as a visually appealling page that has thumbs which are hard to use as a visual identifier of the album unless you squint. Once you find your entry, if your familiar with the album cover, then you might notice the similarities. This a great start, IMO. I like the box style and such, I've seen so many different styles it's hard to say which ones are the most ergonomic. All in all, it breaks up the monotony of endless text on a page that has you trying to slit your wrists half way down...Kinda' like here Kiss discography and if memory serves me correct, if I try to look for something in what appears to be gobbledy gook computer code?, I'll lose interest real quick...so might others--ZapperZippy 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kid A

The article is an FA candidate. Please could anyone with some spare time have a look at it. Thanks - Alex valavanis 09:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We made it! Congratulations to everyone who contributed :D - Alex valavanis 09:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work! Jogers (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Versions/Remixes

Is there any consensus on how they are to be written in the track listing? -- Chsf 10:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the tracks are listed on the album as:
  1. track name (foomix remix)
  2. track name (alternate version)
or similar, I think the most common way (at least in terms of quoting) is like this:
  1. "Track Name" (Foomix remix) – 1:23
  2. "Track Name" (alternate version) – 2:34
In some cases the tracks are listed like this:
  1. "Track Name (Foomix Remix)" – 1:23
  2. "Track Name (Alternate Version)" – 2:34
I prefer the former method, partly because it is more common, and partly because it's seems appropriate to treat only the base track name as the title of the track, and treat the rest similar to songwriters. (Note that the capitalization should differ accordingly.) --PEJL 17:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for shedding some light on the matter, I found it most helpful -- Chsf 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional review sources

I think we should clarify what constitutes a professional review to the extent that it can be included in the infobox. It seems to me that what we really mean by a professional review is a review from a professional review source. If this is indeed the case, I think we should actually mention this in the guideline. I also think it would be good if we as a project made some decisions on which review sources are to be considered professional and which are not, to avoid having to decide this for every album article. For example by making one list of review sources that we consider to be professional (Rolling Stone, Pitchfork Media, ...), and possibly one list of major review sources which we do not consider to be professional but are sometimes incorrectly included anyway (Amazon.com, Metacritic, ...), with explanations why not. Inclusion of reviews from review sources on neither list would be at the discretion of the editor, like it is now. We currently have a section WP:ALBUM#Review sites which includes links to some items from the first list mixed with links to meta-sites such as Metacritic and Buy.com which only link to reviews elsewhere. We could add these lists there, reusing that list for the first list and moving Metacritic and Buy.com to a separate list of meta-sites. I have some statistics on review sources for a subset of about 1400 album articles, from which I could generate a list of the most common review sources, as a basis for these lists. Opinions? --PEJL 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made some lists, proposing some review sources for the list of professional review sources and some for the list of non-professional review sources, trying to only pick non-controversial choices. See User:PEJL/Review sources. Comments on the concept of maintaining such lists, or on specific review sources most welcome. --PEJL 22:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I do question the inclusion of just any random website with lots of reviews. On the other hand... what credentials count in the music world? (Other than "being a music magazine", though you talk to a lot of people these days and they'll say that the websites have surpassed print in some way. And, of course, websites may or may not be run by people coming from print. Meanwhile, Option was a glossy, but it used many reviewers who were not professional by contemporaneous standards.) –Unint 01:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
As a first step, I've added the list of review sources from which reviews are not considered professional. See WP:ALBUM#Review sites. I encourage others to audit this list. --PEJL 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
While I don't disagree with your current list, I don't feel that an "official list" is needed. Citing a review should be much like citing any other source, therefore, WP:RS should cover it. There will always be good review sources that we haven't considered. Many are genre specific.
As one who writes about folk music, I tend to favor the coverage in sources like Sing Out!, Dirty Linen, No Depression, and Folkwax. These are well established, credible, independent publications with seasoned writers/editors, but I don't expect other editors to have heard of them. On the other hand, while I like reading "Songs:Illinois", and think there is some excellent writing in the reviews on Fish Records, I don't include these as reviews. The former is hosted by Blogger, and the later is a primary distributor in the UK for the music it reveiws. I trust editors of articles on hip-hop, death metal, or space music to know where their lines are for reliable and independent sources using WP:RS as a guide rather than a list. Are there really that many disputes? -MrFizyx 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, my main motivation for the list of "good" sources were the disputes about Robert Christgau, and trying to explain in various places to someone who's never heard of him before why including one-line reviews by him was appropriate, and an occasional dispute about Pitchfork Media. Another motivation was to standardize the naming of the review sources. For example, I've renamed "Dot Music" to "Yahoo! Music" on many album articles because I feel the latter is more accurate in this context. I thought it would be useful to have a central repository of canonical review source names. Given the limited feedback I've received, I no longer think including a list of "all" good review sources is feasible, mainly because of the length of such a list. Perhaps we should just mention somewhere those review sources that are "good" but often disputed. I'd like to rewrite the section on professional reviews. Can we agree that what we mean by a professional review is a review from a professional review source? --PEJL 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... you're trying to draw a line through what is a gray area for me. There are well-organized, professional quality sources without a paid staff. I frequently do like to include (sorry more "folk" examples) reviews from the Folk and Acoustic Music Exchange (a project of the Peterborough Folk Music Society non-profit), George Graham's Weekly Album Reviews (written by a public radio host), and a number of web zines (with editors and multiple regular writers). These may or may not fit someone elses definition of professional. (BTW here is my sub-page for searching these if you're curious)
How does this sound: "Professional reviews may include reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having an editorial and writing staff (paid or volunteer). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." This seems a bit wordy to me, but would include an indpendent web site for a seasoned pro like Christgau, but suggest some threshold for random web-zines/bloggers.
Occassionally someone suggests we should only include reviews from notable sources (i.e. that the souces themselves meet criteria for an article). I have always argued strongly against that. -MrFizyx 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant professional in the level-of-quality sense, not in the as-a-profession sense. Rephrasing, can we agree that what we mean by a professional review is any review from a review source that produces professional reviews? The point being that the distinction is at the level of the review source, not at the level of the review. I can see potential problems with such a guideline (bad reviews from good sources), but it makes for a simpler and less subjective guideline. I could be wrong, but I believe we mostly adhere to this rule as it is. Your wording also (mostly) supports this, AFAICT. If we agree on that, I think we may want to make it more explicit in the guideline. (That would explicitly make all of Christgau's reviews acceptable, no matter how brief.) I like your wording, but worry that that the threshold for personal blogs can be interpreted to be low or non-existant. --PEJL 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we pretty much agree on what the standard should be (at least we know it when we see it). If you can come up with better wording give it a try. I think we want to avoid anything circular (like your second sentance above). I also considered simply saying, "professional quality reveiws", but that leaves too much up to interpretation (someone thinks Xgau's "dud" is unprofessional and removes it). I don't think blogs pass WP:RS, blogs are also why I added the bit about having a staff. -MrFizyx 22:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't come up with anything much better than your text, just some tweaks to it. Perhaps we can change "may include" to "may include only" in the first sentence, to clarify that reviews from other sources should not be included. That could be problematic if the list isn't inclusive enough, but I think it is. We might also want to add ", which excludes personal blogs" to the end of that sentence, to make that very clear (even if it is covered by other criteria), since I suspect that will be the most common violation of this guideline. --PEJL 23:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. (I apologize for editing an archive page, but I felt this was useful to mention here.) --PEJL 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of Step (album)

I am not sure if this article is well resourced, or if it is very notable. Maybe it should be deleted? Kris 22:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I added {{Unreferencedarticle}} to it. --PEJL 12:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you joking? Out of Step is one of the most influential hardcore albums of all time. There are plenty of sources if you care to take the time to find them. And might I suggest reading up on criteria for deletion while you are at it? Not being well sourced is not one of them. Thanks. – B.hotep u/t• 20:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 15 |
Archive 16
| Archive 17 →


Recommending use of {{Singles}} template

There is a {{Singles}} template that is starting to be used on album articles. We don't currently mention this at WP:ALBUM#Misc. I think we should decide if this template should be used on album articles, and if so mention it in the guideline. I have some concerns about this template though: Is it meant to replace other sections (such as tables) of single information or supplement them? If the former, is this template sufficient for doing so? Many album articles contain more information about singles than just the name and release date. Chart positions are what come to mind, but I assume other info exists as well. Are we saying that name and release date is the only info we want about singles, or should the template be expanded? If the template is not meant to replace other sections about singles, it may be redundant duplication of info, especially if the other info is presented in a table. Another concern is how singles like the seventh single here are supposed to be used with this template. (That table used to contain a column of single covers which were removed for fair use reasons, which is why it looks a little odd.) I guess single 7 = Why Does My Heart Feel So Bad?" / "Honey would work technically, but it seems like a hack and wouldn't be very obvious to editors. Opinions? --PEJL 12:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that the use of this template has now been mentioned on WP:ALBUM. This makes resolving the issues mentioned above all the more urgent. --PEJL 13:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It was something I thought of when I first created the template, but I couldn't think of a simple way of doing it. But when it comes down to it, basic use editors will figure out a way of implementing it, and those that don't figure it out are likely to have it corrected by someone who knows what they're doing. I'm for making it simpler, but I don't know a way it can be done. Maybe adding in an "if" variable for "single 1 song 2, single 1, single 1 date; single 2 song 2, " etc and if it appears there, then you just use a carriage return and place the second song title on the secod line, much like I've done on Internaionalist (album) with Don't Wanna Be Left Out/Good-Day Ray. --lincalinca 02:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

attention

thre is no mention of the attention attribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs)

What attention attribute? Where should it be mentioned? --PEJL 22:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional review wording

When the text for the professional reviews was rewritten last month, an unintended change of meaning slipped in. This is what the text in question used to say before it was rewritten:

The second bit should be either a rating (e.g. 4/5) or the word favorable or unfavorable (possibly allowing for ambivalent, mixed, extremely favorable and more, but keep it short and simple).

This is what is says now:

If no rating is given in the review you can use the word (favorable) or (unfavorable) to describe the review, possibly allowing for (ambivalent), (mixed), (extremely favorable) and more, but keep it short and simple.

This wording "you can use" gives the impression that including such a summary is completely optional. With the old wording it was not optional, and it was not my intent to make it completely optional with the new wording. The intent was only to allow the user to not include the summary if they were unable to do so. This issue was brought to my attention when another editor removed such a summary on grounds of summaries being unnecessary in general, citing this new wording. I propose this be changed to the following, to make it closer to the old wording:

If no rating is given in the review you should use the word (favorable) or (unfavorable) to describe the review, possibly allowing for (ambivalent), (mixed), (extremely favorable) and more, but keep it short and simple. If you cannot summarize the review, just leave this second bit blank.

As this may be controversial, (I assume at least that one other editor disagrees with this new wording), I'm mentioning it here. If there are no objections in a few days, I'll make this change. --PEJL 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks PEJL. Yep, I'm the "at least one editor" (we've discussed this elsewhere) who doesn't believe that this is goodness. My take is that one-word interpretations of a professional review by Wikipedia editors are subjective, and best not employed for that reason. I'm all for including straightforward ratings that appear in the review like stars from AMG, etc, but don't see a need to reduce things to one word if the reviewer/publication doesn't. A practical point is that reviews that appear in infoboxes are almost invariably online and can be accessed easily by readers who can make up their own minds; if a review was not online, I wouldn't bother with it in the infobox but would discuss it - and quote from it as appropriate - in the body of the article.
Subjectivity is my main issue, but the current system gets you into other silliness, like spelling of the interpretation: "favorable" or "favourable"? If it's a UK album article with a US magazine review, which spelling convention do you favour (I mean favor)?! I did bring this up here a while back, recommending we remove it from the main page, and some discussion resulted before it got lost amidst other stuff and I didn't pursue it. I've occasionally seen other editors discussing and removing such interpretations on individual album pages and believe their use has diminished over the last year or so but I would like to see it eliminated entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This begs the question: why the supposed need to validate the article with a professional's review?Ricadus 02:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the purpose of including the reviews is to validate the article.
It was suggested that reviews that aren't online shouldn't be bothered with. Note that we currently don't have a policy of not including reviews just because they aren't available online. Such a policy would make it even harder to find reviews for older albums. I generated some statistics on this: 202 out of 4395 reviews (for 1370 albums) in my sample have no external link. That's 4.6% of reviews, too many for the claim "invariably online" to hold IMO. 179 out of the 4395 reviews (4.1%) include an interpretation. As for if it should be "favorable" or "favourable", I think the variant of English used in the rest of the article should be used (since it isn't a quote). I do see the potential problem with subjectivity, but I've never seen that be a problem in practice. So my position is, reviews should definitely stay in general, interpretations should probably stay (with tightened wording). --PEJL 10:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. As there were no further comments, I made this change. --PEJL 19:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
PEJL, sorry for not responding more quickly to your last comment - waiting, too long it seems, for others to weigh in - but pls do not take that as agreement with this change. I can't see a consensus for modifying the wording to an obligation, as you favour, any more than I can for eliminating the one-word interpretations entirely from the project page, as is my position. You suggest I said that the reviews in question are "invariably online", whereas I said "almost invariably online" - there is a difference, and 95%+ is a pretty high percentage in anyone's language. My position for those that are not online is that, even if they're listed in the infobox, they should still not have the one-word interpretation - which to me is getting into POV territory - but should have some words quoted from them in the body of the article (for instance in a 'Reaction' or 'Critical reception' section). This simply produces a more rounded article. The percentage you quote for those which currently include an interpretation indicates this practice is - thankfully IMO - not widespread, another consideration that leads me to believe that making it a requirement is uncalled for. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The difference between making a change to eliminate the one-word interpretation (like you favored) and making including one an obligation (like I favored), is that the guideline was until very recently that it was an obligation. This softening of the obligation was a mistake that seems to have largely gone unnoticed, an unintended change as a result of me rewriting that section. The change to restore it to the level of obligation before it was rewritten should therefore IMO require a lower level of approval than making a deliberate change to eliminate the one-word interpretation would. So I question the need for a consensus for modifying the wording to an obligation, and think we should instead see if there is consensus to have it not be an obligation. --PEJL 01:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I vote for removing reviews from the infobox. :-) -Freekee 03:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The what... Huh? PEJL is great at parties, I unclick the harness from his spiked collar and "Unleash the Devastation" in what I like to call "deer in the headlights"! He comotoses his victims with a mere explanation of policies and proceedures. All kidding aside, you almost have to prepare a legal brief before you can view this page. What happened to [|Be Bold]?

Heh! ;-) Yeah, my last message in this thread reads a bit dense to me too. The point was basically that I refuted the claim by Ian Rose that I was making it a requirement, because it had been a requirement all along (except briefly, due to an error on my part). --PEJL 01:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all,reading through the talk pages on various subjects, you seem to be the most knowledgable and assertive editor so far.(Those are worth 10 butt-kiss points...Each!) All this means is that if I have a challenge with something, I would ask you first to help solve it. It also means, I wouldn't want to meet you in court. (unless you were trying to get me off of a minor 'Toledo Window Box' posession charge, which I SWEAR was not mine)--ZapperZippy 15:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop it, you're making me blush! ;-) --PEJL 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking track names in track listing

Just a note that I added what should be an uncontroversial statement that track names should be linked in the track listing. This has been common practice, but I think it may be worth pointing out, because one editor recently made some changes that removed links to tracks in the track listing because they were already linked earlier in the text, claiming multiple links were redundant. I think readers assume that the primary link to a track will be at the track listing, and that if a track is not linked there, there is no article on the track. --PEJL 11:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

For those interested in the official word on the subject, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links).
note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article, may well be appropriate. Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection.
-Freekee 03:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The way "PEJL" suggested is certainly More convenient for people browsing the albums, but I don't know if that should be the case. I don't really have a preference. --Six 7 8 17:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we make things convenient for people browsing the albums, given that WP:MOS-L says it is fine to do so? I think users will expect track names in the track listing to be linked to articles on the tracks, if such articles exist. In that context, a possibly more controversial issue is whether track names should be allowed to be linked to non-track articles. See for example this change. Opinions? --PEJL 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(thinking out loud)...I think it enhances the article. If you have someone skimming through the article to get to the track listing(like I sometimes do)Hold on, let me understand the question. Maybe not, "multiple links were redundant"?? isn't the whole point of "Searching for an article in an Encyclopedia" to explore any and all relevant info(including any and all links)? Depending on your level of interest, you can skim or dissect. I don't think i'll get that bent out of shape to click on the same article that had the *same name* on the link that is found elsewhere in the article. Those individuals that do were disturbed LONG before Wikipedia came along(unproffesional opinion)

anyways,I think it's a good practice as long as the links are consistant like: they all link to an in-depth article of the track/single that would then have even more links to relevant info...Wow, you could get lost in Wiki.--ZapperZippy 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate links to All Music Guide

Many album articles contain a link to All Music Guide (AMG) in the professional reviews section, but very few album articles contain a link to AMG in the external links section. Recently some edits have been made to also add such external links to FA articles. I think we need a guideline about this, either that duplicate links should be avoided, or that they need not be avoided.

I think it is reasonable to avoid duplicate links to AMG (or any other review source). While it is possible to link to different tabs of AMG album entries, the ones relevant here are the "Overview" (example) and "Review" (example) tabs, which in practice are so similar that they are basically the same. Therefore I'm proposing adding the following text to the external links guidelines for albums:

Links to individual reviews shouldn't be included here, but links to professional reviews can be included in the professional reviews section of the infobox.

This also serves other purposes:

  • to point out that professional reviews should be elsewhere, for editors not familiar with the professional reviews section.
  • to clarify that non-professional reviews shouldn't be included anywhere in the article, even if they are in the external links section rather than the professional reviews section.

Any objections? --PEJL 13:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I tweaked the wording to "individual reviews", to avoid disallowing linking to Metacritic album entries. --PEJL 01:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. --PEJL 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the infobox

Just a note that I proposed some changes to improve the formatting of the infobox over at Template talk:Infobox Album#Proposed changes to the infobox. --PEJL 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Only studio albums in chronologies (again)

I'm reviving this thread from last month about the studio album only policy for chronologies, because I have some new thoughts on this subject. Unint pointed out in a user talk comment that the U2 album articles used to use separate chronologies for different album types. I think recommending doing this, along with using a "Chronology" field value like "U2 compilation chronology", could be a way to avoid getting compilations and such into the studio album chronologies. Because like Freekee said last month, otherwise it is hopeless to enforce the current guideline. --PEJL 18:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy itself is wrong-headed. To omit or segregate 1970s live albums such as At Fillmore East, Live/Dead, or Running on Empty from chronologies is crazy. And for many 1960s groups, their compilation albums were their best sellers and the ones they are most remembered by; The Best of The Animals is a good example. The judgement should be left to editors on an artist-by-artist basis as to which live and compilation albums are significiant to telling the artist's story and which are not. Wasted Time R 18:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right - those are important albums that shouldn't be left out of the chronologies. Unfortunately, once people see them in there, they think it's okay to add any live or comp album. There is no judgment call anymore, it's only a few hardnosed editors who put their feet down against the new editors who are excited that they get to make such a cool change to their favorite band's album page. And those kids see many examples of best-of records in other bands' chronologies... you know the story. Anyway, separating the chronologies (like we often do with discographies) might be a way to get people to think about the importance of records. -Freekee 03:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I recall a previous discussion on inclusion of live and compilation albums. Freekee, you've hit the nail right on the head re. the excited newbies adding all and sundry and the experienced ones putting a boundary on it. My position is the same as last time we talked about it, at least regarding 'established' artists with a decent bibliography: the commentary on those artists will include certain live and compilation albums as 'canon' and leave others out. Allowing for variations in professional opinion and the vagueries of different releases in different countries, we can use that as a measuring stick. Same as anything in Wikipedia, if you can cite reliable sources for a work's place in the canon, there's an argument to include it. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem with leaving it up to the judgement of the editor has been touched upon. Enforcing a non-obvious guideline among editors largely unaware of the guideline is an uphill battle. However if there is an infobox with "Chronology=U2 EP chronology" editors will be significantly less likely to add non-EPs to it, and since they won't do that, they will also be less likely to add the EPs to the studio album chronology. This rule would make it much more obvious how chronologies should work for editors unaware of the guideline. On the other hand I can certainly see how this would make the chronologies less useful for artists with well thought-out chronologies including only the essential live/compilation albums. Unfortunately I think such chronologies are quite rare. --PEJL 09:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If the discography presents an explicit rationale for what live or compilation albums are considered 'in sequence', then this can serve as a guide to the chronology. A good example of this is the Grateful Dead discography, where it is explained that "current" live albums go with studio albums but "retrospective" ones don't. Wasted Time R 10:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think to distingush current from past albums is a sily idea, considering neither is mroe important nor notable than the other. The thing that sullies the whole matter is that many Greatest Hits and Best Of albums contain unique tracks not found on any other albums (almost every artist in the last 10 years has done this at some point or another). Another thing that messes the matter is when in discographies people insist on putting all versions of the artist's live series on the chronology (Pearl Jam, anyone? They claim to be all for peace these days, and yet still will release over 200 bootlegs? WTF?) when there literally could be hundreds of recordings where none is any different to another. I think it does come down to editors being considerate of the purpose of the listing. I consider "key" best of and "key" live albums to be suitable to belong in chronologies and in the categories (as can be seen through my editing of Powderfinger and John Mayer content). --lincalinca 03:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(i'll be ranting and raving, but i've had my shots) What happened to the "Official Releases"? If I am understanding the problem correctly. Isn't there just one Discography page...for one(1) band? How many should there be? If you want to have a page for bootleg copies or the chart listing for downloaded copies or (in an earlier discussion I had in [|Release Dates] ("Well, it was initially released as a demo in july of 1982 in Japan, then later that year, part of a 2-disk compilation album 'Buckle-Up Razzle'(sorry bad humor)in Germany, then officially released in the US in 1983, but don't forget the pre-leaching and stolen songs (including the ones that were ripped off from the thief that stole them, that were officially-unofficially released on the internet (that you could only exclusively use at Al Gore's house(back in 83'))"...Link it!

I'm being slightly sarcastic, but there can only be a few categories for albums of a band. Hence Live, EP, Studio, etc., Compilation?, Best of?, Etc. Can these not all be listed on one page using level 2 headlines so as not to have my computer catch fire because I have 200 windows open? From there they then link to the album page that has the in-depth info on the album itself. "Wasted Time", I agree that segregation within the article of 'relevant content' is bad, I don't agree with editor perogative to decide what content is relevant. If it was officially released live then list it live. It's not up to you or I to determine the newsworthyness of the content. One(1) album could have been sold, if you take it upon yourself to censor the material i'm trying to explore, i'll resent it. "Freekee", whose 'judgment call are you making? yours? mine? Can't I make my own call within the article? whether or not I want to explore the "The Best of" link? If the band had *no* studio albums then leave it blank, fill in the live and compilation section and get on down the road. (i'm really harmless)
Good God, having chronologies for chronologies makes my head hurt. There's a saying, "MAKE IT BIG, but keep it simple" If the band in question is a MONDO GIGANTICUS then by all means it will naturally expand to obscure reference pages. I'm with "Linca" on this one. "Ian Rose" says: "if you can cite reliable sources for a work's place in the canon, there's an argument to include it". Touche'(sp?). "PEJL" said this discussion is about 'the studio album only policy for chronologies'. I think on the "Chronology" page(studios only?), is absurd. I think in the INFOBOX, it could very well get bogged down with insignificant album after another before you finally get to a 'meaty' studio cut. But policy, either way, is something anyone can get used to if it is used long enough. This is a complex issue...sometimes I like it six one way and sometimes I like it half a dozen the other.--ZapperZippy 19:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

DVDs and videos

Do things like live concerts and music video compilations released on DVD/VHS fall under the scope of this wikiproject? If so, should they be categorized in the same way as other albums? PC78 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked that a long time ago and nobody ever gave me an answer. I don't know. Violask81976 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
They can be treated similary. Do you have a specific question? They shouldn't go in album categories. No project seems to want to step forward and take them. Has anyone seen video infoboxes? -Freekee 05:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
There is an infobox for them (Template:Infobox music DVD), as well as a category (Category:Music videos and DVDs). I was wondering if articles like (for example) Kylie Showgirl belong in Category:Kylie Minogue albums? PC78 11:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I would say no. It should be under Category:Kylie Minogue videos and DVDs, which would then fall under Category:Kylie Minogue, alongside the albums category. It's a bit wordy, but it's the best way to catagorise, however the rule with albums is that even if an artist has only released one album, we create the category, but I'm not so sure the same rule should apply for music DVDs, as the majority of them are only one-shots except for really top end artists. I say we put it to the floor to see what people think about this. --lincalinca 02:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unorthodox extra chronologies

How do people feel about changes such as this change that add extra chronologies for the releases by a certain record label? Personally I think they're inappropriate and set a bad precedent, but since there are so many of them, I though it best to bring this up here before removing them. --PEJL 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Waste of space to me. Plus, not every release by a record label will ever have articles, and there are always gaps in the catalogue numbers. How would it be organized, by release date or number? Violask81976 20:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This is pretty much also how i feel. tomasz. 20:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ditch them, I say. Sounds like the label adding articles in to make their contribution to the album more noticable in the public eye, the greedy assholes. Ditch them all. Burn them. --lincalinca 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've taken care of this. Jogers (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to be un-taking care of it. I'm the one who added that chronology. I have never worked for SST Records, which was a much more important label in contemporary American music than some of the garbage you people listen to. --CJ Marsicano 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Really? I left a message about this discussion for the user who actually made the changes, User:Roman Dog Bird. Are you using multiple user accounts or something? As for whether these chronologies should stay or not, we'd be interested to hear actual arguments in favor of keeping them (preferably without insults about others musical tastes). --PEJL 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No, he's really the guy who started doing it. I thought it was a good idea and started where he left off. Roman Dog Bird 22:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
And a new WikiProject is being established by me for all SST Records releases artists, and one of the eventual goals of the project is going to be to reestablish the chronology. Roman Dog Bird picked up the ball where I had left it. --CJ Marsicano 15:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You should probably seek consensus for adding such chronologies here before adding them back. --PEJL 19:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
PEJL is right. You still didn't provide any arguments in favor of them. Jogers (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Jogers, since CJ Marsicano apparently added some of these, did you remove those as well, or just the ones by Roman Dog Bird? (We may want to hold off on nuking them for now if so, to allow arguments in favor of them to be presented.) --PEJL 19:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed all of them from pages that both transcluded {{Extra chronology 2}} and linked to SST Records. I missed Crazy Backwards Alphabet somehow, though. Jogers (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Album cover thumbnails: Dispute at WP:FURG

I've taken my wiki-life in my hands and put a disputed tag on the Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline page, becuase I do not believe the text there reflects either the underlying legal position, nor the consensus view on the subject in this project.

Specifically I believe, on the basis of the legal case-law precedents, that it is sufficient for album cover thumbnails to be attached to pages that discuss the album as a whole, regardless of whether or not the page discusses particular features of the cover-art.

The discussion is now on the talk page there.

Unfortunately I have only one revert left for the guideline page itself, and my stance appears not to be popular with some of the more extreme no-fair-use proponents over there. I will respect 3RR, so if people agree the presence of the dispute tag is valid, I probably won't be able to keep it on the page myself. Jheald 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, protected now sadly. The actual transition to guideline status seems to have occurred with very little discussion, and no real testing of the guideline. Now it has its first big test - the bot tagging nearly every album cover (and nearly every fair use image) for deletion within 7 days - it is evident from the mass confusion that the current guideline is insufficiently explained. --Iae 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Your dispute is not with that page, but with WP:FUC. -- Ned Scott 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ned, I don't see a problem with WP:FUC, but rather with its interpretation at WP:FURG. Okay, perhaps WP:FAIR could be clarified to make clear that what is required is critical commentary of the work as a whole of which the cover art is a part. But I think that is mostly taken as read. A real problem is the section of WP:FURG which is identified in the Wikipedia talk:Fair use rationale guideline discussion, and - more pressingly - that the people operating Betacommandbot flat out won't stop to see if we can resolve this point when they are constructively asked to, nor indeed give any constructive responses to issues raised at User talk:BetacommandBot.
That is why this issue is now also hitting WP:Village pump Jheald 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You want to use a generic fair use rationale, and that simply won't fly. If a user uploads something without reading all those warning tags on the upload page, then they have no right to bitch about it. "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't read the RULES". -- Ned Scott 21:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify:
It seems that the best-case scenario will be that all album covers get fair-use rationale added and (except for very few cases where the imagery itself is the subject of critical commentary), most album covers, while not having boilerplate fair-use rationales, will have essentially the same text as Image:BizarreRideIIthePharcyde.jpg, with small variations in phrasing or some lines swapped around.
Is this actually a satisfactory conclusion to all this? Have I missed anything? –Unint 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Category A cappella albums?

Please note the thread at Talk:A cappella#Category A cappella albums?. Cheers, BNutzer 20:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Standardizing upper caption of extra album cover

I propose the following text be added to WP:ALBUM#Template:Extra album cover 2:

The upper caption should be "Alternate cover" for alternate covers. (amended text below)

to codify existing practice. Any objections? --PEJL 21:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Cheers, Ian Rose 22:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It is sometimes helpful to see exactly what kind of alt. cover it is, i.e. why is there multiple covers (int'l release, re-release, censored original, etc.) Nonetheless, this could/should be covered in the article so I can't say that I completely disagree. (Sampm 03:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Such information can (and should IMO) be provided in the lower caption. That's actually what I meant, but failed to mention. I amend my proposal to the following:

For alternate covers the upper caption should be "Alternate cover" and the lower caption should mention where that cover was used (int'l release, re-release, censored original, etc.).

which reflects current practice to almost the same extent. Any objections to that? --PEJL 09:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The clarified wording sounds good to me. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. --PEJL 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Update on the fun at WP:FAIR

Currently under discussion on the talk page for the Wikipedia fair use page:

  • Whether to add the following text to the fair use policy:
Examples of unacceptable use
  • A CD cover, album cover, or boom cover used to illustrate an article about the CD, album, or book, when the article does not include critical commentary of the cover art
Discussion here.
  • Whether discographies should ever be allowed to include album cover images.
Discussion here.

These discussions are where policies are being fixed that the Album project will have to live with, so if you have a view, now is the time to make it heard. Jheald 18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Yea...I'm kinda sorry..but the whole Betacommandbot/WP:FAIR is too much shitcrap for me...I get extremely mad everytime I even come on here now because of the chosen few who have the power and just say "No...read the policy", "It can't happen" or just don't say anything to me when i try to talk about it. I'm tired of fighting a losing battle...face it. Wiki will be Free As A Bird, and 99% of the music articles. Let them become like every other enyclopedia that doesn't know what IV and Smash Hits would look like if they saw it in a store. I'm about to do what I've wanted since I found out what a wiki was: have a whole wiki dedicated to music. So I'm pretty much going to leave. When The Bled released their new album, I might make that article. Whenever DT puts out an album, I might help. Once all this whole fiasco ends, I'd love to know so I can watch the Wikipedia empire fall.

The only thing that's still holding me back is my un-knowledge of template-making. I've tried to copying the sourse codes of the Album infobox and it's transcluded templates..but it isn't worknig out. If anyone could help me with templates, I'd love it. If you're gonna help me out, then that'd be great. Lemme know if you do here: Forte. Violask81976 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh crap, I forgot to say why I'm needing the template: I am starting a wiki solely for music, and would like templates for things like albums and bands and genres and instruemtns. I don't sepcifically need wiki-type infoboxes..that'd probably be a bad idea-just to copy- because people whould see it as a knockoff. I dunno. Violask81976 20:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you for real? Do you know how long that would take? That's a colossal project. Good God Man, someone's smoking reefer and it's probably me... I would need some type of royalty for this or somm'm. Seriously though... Dude, my eyes are burning from just the few pages I put up *here*. If you think fighting the Wiki Purple Power Ranger Death Bot is bad, wait till you get legal notices from content you thought were free.(which is *nothing* in the music industry) I wish you best of luck brother. If I get tired here on Wiki, i'll just be archived, what are you going to do if you get tired?...On VioWikilask.--ZapperZippy 05:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, i know it's huge, but at least i have a model to go by that Wikipedia didn't-Wikipedia. And if i get tired before I can get others to help then...i jsut had fun. As far as legal notices...Wikipedia isn't getting them, why would i? Violask81976 13:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Singles and quotation marks

Hi, I'm member of polish wikiproject Music. We are wondering why singles are in quotation marks. Can someone send me a link or reply (best on pl.wiki). Thanks in advance. Yarl talk • PL 14:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines are here. I don't speak Polish, but you should check the Polish Manual of Style, as I believe each country tends to have its own standard style guidelines. - Alex valavanis 23:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know how, question is why. We want to change in plWiki quotes into italics, because single is a kind of release (like LP, EP etc.). Yarl talk • PL 11:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
singles are also songs, which should go in quotemarks a la Manual of Style. in terms of why, i suppose the simplest answer is because it's consistent, distinguishes from album titles, is non-cluttery and looks better. tomasz. 11:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Christgau bonus reviews

I just started adding Xgau ratings to a few infoboxen, and ran into a letter grade plus seperate review. Both are useful, and since most Xgau reviews are letter grade capsules, I don't want to break consistency by losing the capsule review in favor of the long one. Is there an agreed-upon way to squeeze these both into an infobox? I'm looking at these:

  1. Robert Christgau (C+) link
  2. Robert Christgau (C+) link (review)
  3. Robert Christgau (C+) rating (article)

#1 is inconsistent and ugly, but concise

#2 is my favorite, tho is suggests the capsule is "not a review".

#3 is a compromise, but deviates most from the current standard.

I confess I did not read all the WT:ALBUM archives. If this has been agreed upon before, please link me and I'll do my best to conform to precendent. / edgarde 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a few (about ten, I'd guess) other album articles with two different reviews from the same review source. In all those cases there were two separate entries for the reviews. This makes sense, since the recommended text to replace "link" is the date of the review, which should differ in most such cases. I don't know if that solution has ever been agreed upon, but it is in use. To me, it seems reasonable to have two separate entries, since they are two separate reviews, and since the list of reviews is a list of reviews, not a list of review sources. --PEJL 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you link me to some examples? Not 100% pleased with that solution since it's the least concise.
I actually linked a third Xgau review of Death Certificate from the external links section (tho that one is more a polemic and less about the album). There are also a cases where Xgau changes his review completely, either with rewrites for his books, or in simply changing his mind.
My ideal would be a standard for infobox Xgau that could be templatized — by the way, thanks for {{Rating-Christgau}} — to the current main (non-historical) capsule link (or rating if that's all there is) from RobertChristgau.com, plus an optional additional link to a "proper" review, e.g. his contemporary article from Village Voice music review section. / edgarde 14:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Here are all articles with duplicate review entries from my sample (11 out of ~1700):
The following also include two reviews, but in separate sections:
Note that including review links in the external links section has recently been discouraged, see #Duplicate links to All Music Guide.
I dislike your first option for the same reasons you do. Your second option does, as you say, suggests the capsule is "not a review". But it does this by using the term "link", which does not have this meaning in general, which may be problematic. (I can foresee people changing "link" to "review" for reviews by other reviewers if we were to adopt this.) I think option 3 is better than 2 for this reason. Or maybe just "link1" and "link2"? That makes it more obvious to the reader that there are two links. --PEJL 17:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Review-Christgau template proposal

Based on this list, there are not many facts on the ground yet for Christgau. My goal is to include longer Xgau reviews (in addition to linking Consumer Guide), but I'd like to keep it to one line.
Personal prejudice: I have difficulty naming links "link" (redundant, not descriptive), let alone "link1", "link2" (ambiguous). Dates aren't always clear for Xgau cos much on his site is revised for the Consumer Guide books.
For consistency's sake, I made this template: User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau, which is an enhancement (maybe) of Template:Rating-Christgau. Parameters:
             {{Review-Christgau 
              |cgrating =
              |cgurl =
              |reviewurl =
             }}
Third parameter is optional; "link" changes to "rating" if the third is included. Letter grade is changed to upper case. Here are two examples:
I'm not sure it's worth having. If no one likes this, I can write it off as template practice. If it seems useful, I'll fix the documentation and move it to Template space.
Suggestions encouraged please. / edgarde 00:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think it may be useful to include two links for one review entry iff they refer to basically the same review. In the example you have provided they do. In other cases they don't (The Doors (album)), in which case I think it is better to provide two entries. If we want an entry to not occupy more than one line, the text "rating (article)" is too long, it will wrap to two lines. (I have no problem with "link" in general, and don't see anything that would be less redundant. review and [43] are just as redundant, link is quite short but more comprehensible and more consistent than [1].) Perhaps rating link? That would keep things on one line, while maintaining visual consistency with other reviews since it ends in "link". --PEJL 01:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
How about now? Is that superscript an improvement, or a distraction? Added a third line to see if it interferes with line spacing — it does somewhat at small font settings in Mozilla SeaMonkey.
/ edgarde 02:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In Safari it does interfere with line spacing at all reasonable font sizes (all except very very small). We're getting into very subjective territory here, but I don't think the superscripting is an improvement. To me the little symbol after external links makes it clear that there are two links, even if these look identical and are only separated by a space. If we actually want to de-emphasize the rating link, I guess using smaller text might be appropriate (for example by using <small> instead of <sup>). On the other hand having them the same size looks more neat. --PEJL 08:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Subjective's okay by me, and I want neatness too. First link unnamed if 2nd URL present:
First link named "rating" if 2nd url present:
Which is better? / edgarde 11:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I think using a named link is more comprehensible and more consistent than using an auto-numbered one. I believe this is why we recommend "link" instead of auto-numbered links. I see no reason to make an exception for the rating link.
BTW, there is a discussion about Christgau ratings in album infoboxes at Talk:Robert Christgau#How legit is this guy? that you may be interested in. --PEJL 12:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that discussion is what got me thinking I wanted to add more Xgau reviews, and find a way to include longer ones. I thought that conversation was supposed to move to this Talk page, but on your suggestion I've added a comment on Talk:Robert Christgau. / edgarde 12:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming to article space

So is this good enough to add to WP:ALBUM? If so, I'll move it to Template space. For consistency, the name should be {{Review-Christgau}}. Would make a redirect from {{Christgau}} as well. / edgarde 12:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume we agree on the formatting then. As for whether we should recommend using the Review-Christgau template, I am not sure that is needed. Most Christgau reviews will still have only one link, for which using a template is no more warranted than using one for any non-Christgau review. Assuming no superscript or such is used, including two links for an entry isn't very difficult as it is either. The main thing a template buys us, that might actually enhance consistency, are the labels "review" and "link". Even if we do recommend using the Review-Christgau template, I still think we should document when multiple external links may be used at WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews, with something like the following:
You may include additional external links for a review only if needed to fully portray the review, with the main link (as a date or "link") last, for example "Robert Christgau (C+) rating link". Different reviews by the same reviewer should be listed separately, if including both is warranted.
That would be applicable for non-Christgau reviews as well. Assuming we have this text, is using the template worth it? The template requires the user to know the difference between a capsule review and an expanded review, a distinction that is less than obvious. I think the template may just make things more complex than is needed. --PEJL 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we agree on the formatting. My goal was to have something standardized, like {{imdb name}}. If in practical terms the template takes an uncomplicated task and makes it a little complicated, then I guess it's not needed. / edgarde 14:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thinking more about this, perhaps the template could be simplified. {{imdb name}} by comparison is much simpler and more obvious to use. Looking at that example, we could simplify Review-Christgau to:
*{{Review-Christgau|dud|http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Ice+Cube}}
*{{Review-Christgau|A+|http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/music/rbicecub-91.php
  |rating-url = http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Ice+Cube}}
The idea being to make it as simple as possible for the common case, when only one link exists. The first two arguments (the rating, and the main link) would be mandatory and not require a named argument, while the named argument rating-url would be optional. What do you think?
Also, anyone object to my proposed text (italicized) above? Opinions requested. --PEJL 15:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In Christgau's case, I favor the distinctions I listed below — contemporary reviews, but not requiring clearly same review writ longer — but if that's not a popular idea it's no biggie to me. All the intentions I brought presume a familiarity with how Xgau works; that assumption might leads to a broken policy.
I agree {{Review-Christgau}} would be much easier to use with unnamed parameters (since there are only 2-3). I'll make the changes tonite — I want to figure out how to accept entry both ways (named or unnamed), but not require either. / edgarde 15:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, which distinctions? Capsule reviews versus longer reviews? If we're basically hard-coding support for capsule reviews from www.robertchristgau.com anyway, we might be able to simplify even further. Instead of having to specify "http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Ice+Cube" we could just take input like "Ice Cube" and transform that to the URL in the template. That assumes all such URLs are from that site and follow that naming scheme. I looked at the URLs in my sample. Out of 360 reviews by Christgau 2 had no URL, 1 had a URL not from www.robertchristgau.com (http://www.music.msn.com/music/consumerguide), 2 used get_album.php, 340 used get_artist.php, 12 used get_artist2.php, and 3 used other URLs from that site (to longer reviews). I've verified that the get_album.php and get_artist2.php URLs could be converted to get_artist.php URLs. --PEJL 16:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes you can snag a particular album — http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_album.php?id=2777 was direct-linked from a "later" link[45] . I'd like to leave whole-link in for flexbility, especially if updates on RobertChristgau.com allow more direct linking to album reviews.
By "distinctions", I meant the guideline you propose would allow 2nd link to only the expanded version of the same review, as with the Ice Cube link. I was suggesting (for Xgau) including contemporary reviews of same album, like the Rolling Stones link. But, from what you are saying, that will cause confusion and inconsistency. My idea was pretty vague as "distinctions" go. / edgarde 16:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unnamed parameters

Bloody equal sign. Wish I noticed that earlier. Equal signs in parameter values break unnamed calls. Closest I can get to unnamed would be with explicit numeric names, like this:

*{{Review-Christgau|1=dud|2=http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Ice+Cube}}
*{{Review-Christgau|1=A+|2=http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/music/rbicecub-91.php
  |3=http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Ice+Cube}}

Does that sink the vessel? Since Xgau is writing for multiple sites, I think standardizing on a URL up to the equal sign would tie our hands somewhat. The "1=" isn't strictly needed, but "2=" and "3=" are. / edgarde 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If we need numeric parameters for the second and third arguments, we might be better off with named arguments for those arguments, assuming the names are good. We wouldn't have to tie our hands if we supported both the standardized URLs and other URLs, for example by supporting both "link-url=http...name=Ice+Cube" and "link-artist=Ice Cube" (and "rating-url=http...name=Ice+Cube" and "rating-artist=Ice Cube"). We could even support "link-xg". Putting that all together:
*{{Review-Christgau|dud|link-url=http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Ice+Cube}}
*{{Review-Christgau|dud|link-artist=Ice Cube}}
*{{Review-Christgau|A+|link-xg=music/rbicecub-91|rating-artist=Ice Cube}}
Pretty concise. Too cryptic? --PEJL 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Currently User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau takes 6 parameters, including four different ways to cite Consumer Guide ratings, plus this concise method:
      {{Review-Christgau|A-|411}}
... which produces:

Robert Christgau (A-) link

...linking to http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?id=411, the artist page for Elastica.
I would prefer to link just albums instead — http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_album.php?id=411, a Bonnie Raitt album — but these links are hard to find, so it's not convenient for a default. Currently the album parameter goes there.
I'm emailing the RobertChristgau.com webmaster to ask if finding album links is or will become easier than I think. / edgarde 21:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay I just heard from Tom Hull. Individual album reviews (and thus their album_id's) are linked from the List By Year pages:

http://robertchristgau.com/get_ylist.php?yr=2006

This does not include reviews without content (such as (dud)'s), but it's enough to make direct linking individual albums practical. I'll change the template back to accept unnamed IDs to album.
Any other suggestions before I move this thing to Template space? / edgarde 14:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Review-Christgau template usage

I didn't envision this system as being strictly for expanded versions of the same review — in my later examples I use the Rolling Stones Dirty Work review which is more different. My initial presumptions were that Xgau would seldom write more than 2 reviews of the same alb, exceptions being:

  • revisions for CG publication, in which case the last would be be "canonical" IMO. Radical changes (like his review for the last Minutemen, and maybe first Doors) may merit a 2nd entry.
  • Albums that stuck in his craw sufficiently that he felt a need to write a 3rd essay, such as Ice Cube Death Certificate. In this case, the 3rd review might be sufficiently notable to include in External links (tho I still haven't looked over that AMG case you pointed out).
  • Albums where he felt the reissue merited a review, such as Bill Withers Live At Carnegie Hall (great album, by the way), which got a new rating. This obvious necessitates a 2nd entry.

Does that make sense, and shall I encorporate this into User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau/doc#Usage? / edgarde 12:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to make more work for anyone, but as a thought, what if the chrstgau changes were implemented into the regular Please specify a rating. template? All of the variables could remain the same, and so you could simply add the variables you've created and add it to the rating template. What do you think? It wouldn't be too tough to work out. --lincalinca 15:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you link that template? I don't know what you are referring to.
Christgau uses an eccentric set of ratings, so at least some of this won't translate. / edgarde 15:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) That is a possibility. I assume you mean something like {{Rating|dud|Christgau}}. What would be the advantage of this over the current {{Rating-Christgau}} template though? Alternatively, we could rename {{Rating}} to {{Rating-stars}} to make the name accurate for its current purpose. --PEJL 15:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to hear more specifics from Linca. This might be fun to do.
I'm imagining something like {{Rating|4|5|amg|}}, where adding the 4th parameter would expand the output into a line suitable for the infobox (then allowing a 5th parameter for the URL). Since different review sources would need different automatic information, we'd have to agree on a basic list of such, and add when new ones were identified.
Might get unmanageably complex quickly. Since I only started learning this stuff yesterday, I don't know if potentially hundreds of complicated template transclusions cause problems for Wikipedia, so I'd want to look into that first. / edgarde 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should conflate the concepts of a rating and a review, so I'd prefer it be named {{Review}} if it should generate the entire line. (All lines don't actually include ratings.) See also #Professional review sources about maintainability of lists of review sources. UPDATE: Oh, I see {{Review}} already exists. Perhaps {{Album review}} then. --PEJL 19:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
What about making it {{Rating/XGAU}} (and such) and {{Rating/Star}} and {{Rating/Review}} and {{Rating/Misc}} (for things like thumbs up and whatever) so they all stem from the same page and share a single usage page, though have different variables and different outcomes but all serve the purpose of going into the professional reviews section of this infobox? --lincalinca 04:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The forward slashes won't be in there because the create sub-pages, and anyway hyphens are the precedent. The following templates currently exist:
A general purpose review template doesn't exist yet. Might be worth making, may be a challenge. / edgarde 23:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Also {{Rating-5}} and similar, which are still in much wider use than {{Rating}} that was designed to replace them. {{Rating}} is only used in about 200 articles. --PEJL 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's alive

I still need to clean up the documentation, but {{Review-Christgau}} is working.

The documentation (which still needs cleanup and organization) contains a few undiscussed recommendations on which I'd like feedback.

Unnamed defaults assume the album ID, so ...

*{{Review-Christgau|A-|411}}

... returns [UPDATE: returned at the time of writing, now doesn't, see #Idiot proofing]

Album IDs can be found on List by Year pages: http://robertchristgau.com/get_ylist.php?yr=2007

Syntax details are on the documentation. I'll be watching the Talk pages for both the Template and the Template/doc page. / edgarde 15:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! I'm not sure it's appropriate to make the "album" parameter the default third parameter. I think it would be clearer if it required it to be a named parameter. While that would make the required input slightly longer, it would make it significantly clearer for someone who has never seen the usage page, especially since most existing reviews use get_artist rather than get_album. Other than that, "album", "artist" and "name" are pretty obvious. (The difference between "cgurl" and "review" is a bit less obvious, especially when only one review link will be used. I know you say that they should only be used in the the correct way, but what happens if someone uses the wrong one? If that doesn't make any difference in practice, I foresee people using the wrong one quite often...) --PEJL 15:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

2d parameter

Should the 2nd unnamed parameter be disabled entirely, or should it default to the whole-artist review page? Neither of these options seem really desireable for me.

I think links from album articles should be to single-album reviews. This spares the reader some scrolling on artists with long histories. Single album pages all link to whole artist review pages, so it's easier to get from fine to coarse than from coarse to fine.

Links made wrong can be fixed, but one imagines users would try the links they made sooner or later, so I don't expect widespread wrong-linking. I don't favor crippling the template to prevent these mistakes.

Anyway, if I recall correctly, the requirement for named parameters was considered a problem in the first version of this template. / edgarde 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that single-album reviews should be preferred. However, as I previously showed, the vast majority of existing articles link to the artist listings, a fact that should be taken into account. I don't think requiring "A+|album=411" instead of "A+|411" makes linking to single-album reviews significantly more difficult, or that that constitutes crippling the template. I want us to dissuade people from mistakenly changing get_artist=411 URLs to A+|411 template invokations. A template should ideally be so obvious that users can use it without ever looking at its documentation. My suggestion is simply to make the "album" parameter not be the default third parameter, but require it to be named, just like "artist" and the others. (That would mean ignoring the second and subsequent unnamed parameter, but recognize the "album" named parameter.) --PEJL 16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the the main reason for having the artist parameter is to provide backward-compatibility for whomever takes the initiative to revise all the existing reviews to include a template. All they need to do is change to A+|artist=411. It's not hard.
Agreed, and using A+|album=123 isn't any harder. --PEJL 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I want us to dissuade people from mistakenly changing get_artist=411 URLs to A+|411 template invokations

Of the editors who will make that particular mistake, how many would still put the artist_id into a parameter explicitly named album?
We can only speculate. I just know I wouldn't. --PEJL 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The template can only be so intuitive. If one doesn't read the documentation, one at least tries the link and figures out to where it points. I think the concise form ({{Review-Christgau|A-|411}}) should be kept as a convenience for editors who are doing the right thing by linking album_id pages. / edgarde 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure that everyone would try the link. People might not realize there are two sets of numeric IDs, and just assume there was one. Seeing A+|411 elsewhere, they might think they could change get_artist=123 to B+|123 and have that work.
Well, we disagree. But you get to choose, since you're the one doing the work. Good work, BTW! --PEJL 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Idiot proofing

Changed input validation to fail unnamed 2nd parameter, so this no longer works. (To view what this looks like, see above.) Rest of template basicly supports unnamed 2nd, so this can be easily restored once album_id links become commonplace. / edgarde 18:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

3d parameter

The third parameter was intended as essentially an advanced option. Most users won't know about these unless they read the documentation, so clarity in the documentation should minimize off-label usage.

I think what I'm hearing now is an objection to any inclusion of a 2nd link in the template. Is that really the issue? Should this be removed?

Is there a specific recommendation for how to improve this? I don't think incredibly long parameter names will fix this problem. Should this ability removed? Should we just not use this template? / edgarde 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to including a second link, I was merely noting that a potential editor might have problems understanding the difference between the "cgurl" and "review" parameters, if there really isn't one in the majority of cases (when only one link is used). As I noted before, one alternative is using parameters that differ on how they would actually be used (a separate "rating" parameter), rather than the type of link target (Consumer Guide/capsule or not). But that has problems of its own (two sets of album/artist/name/url parameters), so I'm fine with this implementation. --PEJL 16:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Got the album IDs

So the webmaster for RobertChristgau.com graciously sent me a file of the album database, just names, titles, IDs, grades and other IDs not of interest to this project. Given a list of all these, I wonder what is the best way to make this data convenient for {{Review-Christgau}} users?

While this hasn't been declared free, he seems amenable to making it public from Christgau.com at some point.

Interestingly, this webmaster appears to be Tom Hull, another published music critic whose tastes, writing style and ratings system resemble Christgau's, but whose website(s) ("Recycled Goods" and Jazz Prospecting, maybe others), are differently organized. Good jazz coverage. / edgarde 05:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)