Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

"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 – 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 @ me}Who'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 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)
   • Originally performed by The Damned
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? RENTA^{FOR 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 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: [1] [2] 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 [3] [4] [5] 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
   • performed by Marvin Gaye, 1968

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?

• All Music Guide (5/5) link (Sire Records release)
• All Music Guide (5/5) link (Rhino Records expanded release)

or just:

• All Music Guide (5/5) link
• All Music Guide (5/5) link (expanded release)

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. COME ON ENGLAND! DJR (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? COME ON ENGLAND! DJR (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. COME ON ENGLAND! DJR (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)