Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

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 Category:Albums without a by-year category and Category: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 Category: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 Category: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 Category: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 Category: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)
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 Category:Albums needing categories instead of Category: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 Category: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)


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)

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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_12&oldid=1190102659"