Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Scaruffi

A minor debate over at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band has led to the fact that Piero Scaruffi's web site is listed here as a suggested/acceptable source. According to the criteria at Wikipedia:SPS, it shouldn't be since:

• Scaruffi's training and area of recognized expertise is not in music;
• His website and books in the area of music are self-published and therefore not citable.

Discussion? Jgm (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

the last few were self-published. the old ones in italian werent. i think his publisher was called Arcana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.148.170 (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with your observations. That situation is not limited to the Sgt Pepper debate. I have noticed it a few times for other pages with similar circumstances - and similar consensus that the unverifiable sources shouldn't be used. Peter Fleet (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• It seems possible that he has become notable for listmaking itself. Please see the 2006 New York Times article, "The Greatest Web Site of All Time", I think it grants him and his reviews a bit of cred:

"MUSIC magazine editors have few more tried-and-true formulas for boosting newsstand sales and Web traffic than best-of lists. Rolling Stone’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time; Spin magazine’s 100 Greatest Albums 1985-2005; Pitchforkmedia.com’s Top 100 album lists for the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s: vast digests of gathered knowledge and opinion, usually the work of teams of editors, journalists and musicians, painstakingly assembled. But their collaborative efforts pale in comparison to the solo work of Piero Scaruffi...

In the cases where there are many reviews available (e.g. Sgt. Pepper, perhaps though currently the article only cites a few reviews), I'd like to leave it up to the editors of a given article to decide if Scaruffi's content is worthy of the album infobox.

Given that he covers a lot of albums that others don't, however, I'm hesitant to say that his reviews aren't fair game. Besides, is there really formal training in music criticism?

I guess I should note that my opinion is one of a few that has been solicited by Jgm, but not in a way that I think violates any policy. I assume I was contacted for one of two reasons: (1) I've participated in similar discussions on this page in the past and/or (2) I've occasionally cited Scaruffi in album articles (usually for somewhat obscure albums). -MrFizyx (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I find his recent addition to music reviews to unacceptable. He seems no more qualified then you or me to have his reviews posted, in fact it seems that any hotheaded critic can write something unfounded about an album and get it posted on just because people at Wikipedia are so desperate for sources. I'm going to get something together to work to have his reviews removed and also to have Robert Christgau reviews removed if no explanation is given because this would not be music journalism in any way, shape or form. See you around. 156.34.179.152 (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please hold your horses. Robert Christgau's relevance has been discussed several time in the past, most lately here and I do not see any consensus whatsoever to remove him. I would not support that – IbLeo (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither would I. XGau is notable as a critic with over 40 years experience. Whereas Scaruffi isn't quite of the same calibre, do we do a disservice to our readers by including his reviews? We link to them so readers are quite at liberty to follow those links and decide for themselves whether they agree with his assessments. In fact, they are free to do this for any critic. All we are saying is "X says this". We are not saying that we AGREE with what they say, merely reporting WHAT they say. That's the NPOV way of doing things. And as far as WP:RS goes, in the infobox we are not using Scaruffi as such. We are providing access to a resource. It's slightly different in the body of an article, but even there, we may cite what he says, but we also cite what others say and let the reader decide. Exactly what we should be doing. --Rodhullandemu 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove Christgau. Fantailfan (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction (soundtrack)

This article is looking much better. It could use some help sourcing the composition section, which should be fairly easy for someone with access to the liner notes. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got both. Will do. Fantailfan (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, nothing special there. --Fantailfan (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Foreign language capitalization

Is there a rule as to which words should be capitalized in a foreign language song? For example, in Mi Sangre by Juanes, all the songs are always capitalized. But in Nuestro Amor by RBD, the songs are capitalized in the "Track listing" section, but not when you open up the articles for the links to the singles themselves (e.g. Tras De Mí/Tras de mí). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually the MusicBrainz standards are what we use here. The Spanish rule is that only the first word (and proper nouns, etc.) are capitalized. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 00:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed the same inconsistent capitalization on some Danish language albums (e.g. Efter endnu en dag article name vs. contents) which shows that this is an issue in several languages. The MusicBrainz standards clarifies it completely (thanks), and I would propose to add that as a rule in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization. – IbLeo (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully support it. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 13:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am quite new to Wikipedia, so I am not sure where to take it from here. We are two people who think this is a good idea, nobody have expressed their opposition. Is that sufficient to go ahead and update Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization? If yes, I would need assistance on this as I don't know how to indicate an external source (i.e. the MusicBrainz standards) as a standard for the project. – IbLeo (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The MusicBrainz approach is not quite applicable to Wikipedia. Our naming conventions implore use to use English, hence we would either apply English language capitalization standards right away, or at least consult reputable English sources on how they handle the respective medium/language (and then choose a format that provides the most consistent results). The style guide of a user-maintained online community does not quite fall into that category, an example for an appropriate source would be The New York Times. One a side note: The MusicBrainz style guide suggests to give preference to an artist's preferred format, which would open a back door for the use of stylized typography, something WP:MOSCL, WP:MOSTM and the current revision of WP:MUSTARD are intended to prevent. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 15:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm not convinced that WP:UE applies heavily to albums. I have always been encouraged when dealing with this issue to use the "official" (foreign-language) titles for songs and albums, especially since I started a big debate here and found out that I was wrong about wanting to use title caps for that album. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Your motion was well grounded in our guidelines, had good support among other editors and reflected every single review and reference used in the article. It does not get much clearer than that. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 08:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If we apply English language capitalization standards to titles in other languages here (i.e. in the English Wikipedia), then I deduct that we should apply Danish language capitalization standards to all titles in the Danish Wikipedia, German language capitalization standards to all titles in the German Wikipedia, and so on. So Danish band Gasolin's album should be called Efter Endnu en Dag here, Efter endnu en dag in the Danish WP and Efter endnu en Dag in the German WP. Likewise, The Wild, the Innocent & the E Street Shuffle should be The wild, the innocent & the E Street shuffle in the Danish WP and The wild, the innocent & the E Street Shuffle in the German WP. Besides creating total lack of synergy btw. WP's in different languages, it would make language cross-referencing a nightmare. Conclusion: The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me to use the capitalization rules of the original language for an album or song title (or any other title for what it matters). – IbLeo (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly how I see it, and I think that's a very strong argument. Cyrus, I'm a little disappointed you moved Rossz just now, especially when there's disagreement here about how we should do it; even though you cited the MOS and 'outside sources', the MOS can be changed and outside sources don't have to follow any rules whatsoever, and I don't think they should be used for determining whether we should capitalize things or not. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 12:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside sources like Allmusic, Rollingstone or The New York Times have their own internal style guides, in order to achieve a consistent, professional presentation. Our own Manual of Style operates under the same credo but since we don't do any original research here, we are bound to refer to those outside sources not just for content but also on how stuff is formatted in English general purpose publications. Opinions among editors on whether to rely on outside references on a per-case basis or just to get the general practices down may vary (personally, I more often find myself in the latter camp, given that the former again opens up back doors for stylized typography among less publicized subjects), but the notion that established style guides should have no bearing whatsoever on our own is quite unheard of. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 13:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would use the capitalization found on the original album, since it is a title. I think it should be preserved as published... Unless the Spanish album had a title using English words that used Spanish capitaliztion.... -Freekee (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. On many albums all song titles are written with all letters capitalized for cosmetic reasons (example). I don't think it makes sense to repeat this in the article on that album. Furthermore, there is not necessarily any consistency between the way capitals are used on the cover, booklet and on the disc itself. So which one should take precedence over the others? – IbLeo (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about how a title is written in its original language, and not the form that it appears on the cover art. I agree with your statement below regarding titling in the Opera Project. -Freekee (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, we def wouldnt want to write it as it appears on the cover, its all about how it looks on the covers. Also, i dont like the music brainz idea, tho it makes sense, we're writing these in english letters (from greek for example) so i think the capitalization rules should follow the english rules unless written in the original alphabet of the album. Grk1011 (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There recently was a similar discussion on the talk page of the Manual of Style for Japan-related articles, which came to the same conclusion, i.e. capitalizing romanized Japanese titles, save for mid-title particles. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 13:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese issue is in my opinion a slightly different matter as Japanese is written in a different alphabet. In that case it makes sense to establish a rule for writing transcriptions of Japanese into our roman (latin) alphabet. On the other hand, the MOS for French works of art states: "For consistency of French titles on the English Wikipedia, the general consensus has been to follow the rules used on the French Wikipedia, which are those used by the French National publishing house (l'Imprimerie nationale) and put forth in its Lexique des règles typographiques en usage à l'Imprimerie nationale." Likewise, the naming conventions for original language opera titles (within WikiProject Opera) is: "When listing operas by their original language title (provided that language uses the Latin alphabet), the spelling in the original language, including any accents and diacritics, should be preserved, (etc.)". So in both cases the rule is to use the capitalization rules of the original language. I would strongly support to adapt it for albums as well (provided the original language is written in the Roman alphabet). – IbLeo (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay if I add a guideline here stating that the foreign-language capitalization ought to be used? There have been several administrator-approved confirmations of this as the Wikipedia standard recently (specifically, one that I've been keeping track of, the re-moving of Rossz csillag alatt született), and since it is often an issue, I think this ought to have a final word on it placed in the guidelines. Support? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 06:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You have my full support. – IbLeo (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Since no one has objected, I'll go ahead and add it in. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 03:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new album type

We have a type for almost every album out there, studio, live, comp.etc..., but not one for split albums. I think we need one for splits. Undeath (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the various album types for Template:Infobox Album, we do have that. In the "Type" field of the infobox, use whatever type is appropriate (studio, EP, live, etc.). Then add the field "Longtype" directly underneath "Type" and put "split". You should get a result like this. The reason it's kind of complicated is that a split release can be of many different types. It might be an EP, a studio album, a live album, or whatever. The "Type" field displays the type and gives it the appropriate color, while the "Longtype" field adds "(split)" to the display. There's even an option to add an extra chronology for the second act, as you can see in the example I used. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about a new, completely new, category. Not a sub part of EP. Splits are a different type of album in their own. I think we should make a new color and a new part for it. Undeath (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but not always. For example, I have many split singles, split EPs, and a few split albums in my collection. They are splits, for certain, but whether they are classified as a single, EP, or full album is usually a larger consideration. You'd have to create separate album types for each of these in order to cover all the bases, which is why we simply allow "split" to be added as long type to any of the existing types. This could probably be better explained on the template page, I'll grant you, as it doesn't give instructions for dealing with a split release. But these topics should really be brought up at Template talk:Infobox Album rather than here, as they are specifically about proposed changes to the template. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The split album would be a new type. I see a potential need for splitting certain existing Types in Template:Infobox Album into LP and EP wings (the execution thereof being consistent with the existing code of Template:Infobox Album); I used Longtype for clarification of Cover and Tribute LPs, one example being the Infobox Album for the Deborah Gibson tribute LP to various musical theatre shows, Colored Lights: The Broadway Album. See also the "Single, Album or EP" discussion below; Rhino Entertainment is now releasing compilation EPs in the form of the Rhino Hi-Five Series, and I already have a prototype Article for one, Rhino Hi-Five: Debbie Gibson, as of 00:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC) (see User:B.C.Schmerker/Article PrototypeB). As I understand the situation, with LPs and EPs both being studio, demo, live, compilation, &c., Infobox Album may be in need of update to accomodate all known combinations of LP and EP. See also my New Category proposal for the Rhino Hi-Fives. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes a professional review?

I have been removing reviews from infoboxes that come from non-notable review sites. It has come to my attention that policy doesn't really permit this, and I have stopped for the time being. I would like to clarify what is an acceptable review.

Any blog is unacceptable. This is a given, I think. But pretty much anyone can set up a site that's not a blog and get volunteers to contribute reviews. This is my problem with the current policy, which allows "any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff". I could go register professionalmusicreviews.com (really!) and start putting up wildly biased reviews, but as long as it was not a blog it would seem to be an acceptable source for infobox reviews. Is this really the case?

I would like to propose that preference be given to review sites that are both reliable AND notable. Notable in this context means worthy of an article here on Wikipedia. If no reliable and notable reviews of an album can be found, it would then be acceptable to fall back to reviews that are merely reliable. Thoughts? 66.93.12.46 (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not having a Wikipedia article doesn't always equal a non-pro review. A review is ok as long as it meets the criteria for reliable sources—not notability, which is a different issue. Some publications are reliable despite not having an article. For example, AllHipHop was deleted but it's a reliable source since it's used by noteworthy publications.[1] If an unprofessional writer started professionalmusicreviews.com and wrote bias reviews, it wouldn't be acceptable because it's a self-published source from an unreliable author. Spellcast (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There's not really an all-purpose litmus test for reviews. Most of the time an editor with sound judgement can tell when a review source is appropriate or not. Obviously blogs, self-published sources, and most sites with user-submitted reviews (ie. Amazon) aren't appropriate; whereas professional music magazines and websites (Rolling Stone, All Music, Pitchfork, etc.) pretty obviously are. As Spellcast points out, the guiding principle is WP:RS. If the source of the review doesn't appear to be reliable, then go ahead and cut it. If it's questionable, you can bring it up here and we can collectively try to determine whether it's a reliable source or not. That way we'll also be able to add it to the list of review sites on the project page (either as acceptable or unacceptable). --IllaZilla (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's try it out in practice: Diorama (album) currently contains a review from Yahoo! Music which is not currently listed as a reliable source (nor the opposite). For me it is not clear what category it falls into. WDYT? – IbLeo (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. I had a nicely cited reply to this all drafted and lost it. In short, I think it's reliable. Yahoo! is a reputable company, and they claim that their reviewers are music journalists, here. I don't know if I'd make it my "professional review" cite of first resort, though, so I personally would probably not be inclined to add it to either list at the moment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the link provided by Moonriddengirl, it looks reliable to me. I'd list Yahoo Music as an "acceptable" review site (as opposed to "unacceptable", though based on just that one example I probably wouldn't prefer it as my first resort either). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have added Yahoo! Music to the list of reliable sources per above.

One point that needs to be made is that blogs by nature are not excluded based upon this group's policy. The language both clearly sates and clearly implies that "personal blogs" are not professional sources--and that makes perfect sense, because in the example given above (professionalmusicreviews.com), that author would not be a reliable source--but it does not ban new media as a bloc. There is a blurred line between old media and new media, and I think it's dangerous to exclude "blogs" as a whole simply because of the term used to describe them. What's the difference between a web publication and a blog? What's the difference between the online section of a newspaper and a blog, if that blog is published by respected persons within the field? Where do we draw that line? If we exclude new media as a whole, what we're really saying is that the only reviews which are worthwhile or "credible" are those which are presented by major, mainstream media. And frankly, I just don't think that always gives a fair or accurate reading of an album's reception. Do we really want to force the reviews contained in infoboxes into such a narrow frame of reference? From the credibility standpoint, I think we have to judge each publication on its own merits, especially when dealing with new media. Countrymusicfan (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

←I don't think it does exclude personal blogs due to the use of the word "or". :) It says "may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or' found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)" (emphasis added). Given our difference in interpretation, though, I can see that this may not be clear. WP:V says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Personal blogs should, I think, be fine in that context. It's on the basis of the former, I imagine, that we accept [2], as Robert Christgau is a professional music journalist. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose that Rolling Stone reviews not be included in album articles, as they are not appropriate. While it is certainly a notable source, the quality of their reviews is low enough as to have a negative impact on the reader's understanding of the album article. Many people probably use Wikipedia as a source for finding new music via all the convenient connections it offers, and a Rolling Stone review will generally be extremely detrimental to that goal, misleading the reader. Rolling Stone reviews do not add anything to an album article--they are at best derogatory and at worst detrimental and misleading. --WheatConspiracy (talk) 3:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this. Rolling Stone is a reputable professional review source, and it is not up to Wikipedia to agree or disagree with their quality. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So do I, for the same reasons, and particularly I oppose changing the project guidelines while consensus to do so is lacking. We do not make value judgements about "how good/bad" reviewers are, we present information to our readers and let them decide whether they agree or disagree with the reviewer. That's the WP:NPOV was of doing things, anyhow. --Rodhullandemu 19:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Tracklist template

For those of you who haven't seen it, there is a template for setting up track lists. It is {{Tracklist}}. Its use has slowly been spreading, but there are certain people who are reverting it because they say it hasn't been approved (whatever that means). It has both advantages and disadvantages, so most people feel that it should not be used in all cases. Does anyone feel that it should not be used at all? -Freekee (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent move towards presenting a standard "look & feel" for album articles, although not compulsory of course. Two minor points- could it be extended to cover "Various Artists" & Soundtrack compilations & samplers by having "Artist"/"Original Album" fields, and is there a way of having indented listings, say for medleys, as in Live at the Palladium (Carpenters album)? Cheers --Rodhullandemu 16:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Various artists albums be tagged using the "Music" field (see this article for an example). = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 16:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 16:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try it out on Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Duty Now for the Future to see how I like it. Fantailfan (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't like it, I take it? Why not? -Freekee (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I could imagine that Fantailfan did not like the column spacing, given that that this particular use case has rather long names in the writing credits and until recent updates (which added more dynamic spacing), these would only receive a meager 20% of the template's width. I've put the template back in for now, lets see if reactions turn out more positive this time. By the way, would at this point anyone object if the template was added as a (strictly non-mandatory) option to our track listing guidelines? – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 09:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It'll be useful for new, inexperienced users who aren't familiar with the correct way to format a track=listing, but for people who in-the-know, its unnecessary additional code to deal with. There's particularly no need to use the template in articles where the track-listing is already perfectly formatted. indopug (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, I really like the inclusion of a place to optionally include "other" song info, to accommodate non-English-language music. Thank you for taking that into consideration. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cy is about right. When dealing with names like Mark Mothersbaugh and Gerald Casale in the same song credit it looks (a) cramped; (b) it doesn't work with the single track double song "Smart Patrol"/"Mr. DNA" that has separate songwriting credits. Other comments I will leave on the template comment page.

On Indopug's comment, it is a bit... well, let me illustrate by way of response. "In-the-know"? When I was "away" for a year or so, coming back I found many aspects of the standard WP:ALBUM elements had changed, as had some of the metaWiki rudiments, so while my sources had increased (i.e., I bought more CDs) I had to feel my way around again as if I were a "new, inexperienced user" again. Fantailfan (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole "cramped" issue isn't that critical, as it is only "cramped" in two tracks, and the split track is pretty clear, as the credits are given with a slash (/), as is the track title. It seems obvious to me, and I think it should to most people. I think for crediting in this case, the credits could be given as "G. Casale", rather than "G.V. Casale", that would cut the length a bit, and a note could be made of the "arrangement" by Mothersbaugh on track eleven. The technical issues with this template can usually be solved with a little intuition, and while it is a bit of code, the code is much easier than a full wikitable for beginners and intermediate users. Often, the simple numbered list is used, but this shifts information to all different positions, and the WikiProject states that more than three criteria justifies a table (track number, title, and length give the three). I think the template is fine for regular (but not mandatory) use within the scope of WP:ALBUMS. --Jacob ^Talk 23:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely useful if you want a guideline for how to format tracklistings, but there's no reason to convert to the template in articles that already have a formatted tracklist. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

==Personnel== & ==Track listing==

What are the rationales behind using en dashs (–) for these sections, instead of using bullets and tables, which is more readable, legible, and more standard with wp:mos and other standardization projects?68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Custom? Ease of use? These are just my guesses, mind you. :) I've used tables for complex situations (e.g. The Best of the Girl Groups), but I believe they would be a lot more difficult to implement with not a lot of pay-off in some others (e.g. The Complete Hank Williams). That's as regarding track listing, anyway. In terms of personnel, I'm not sure that a table would make things any more readable under most circumstances. And, of course, those are already bulleted. But you may be thinking of situations that I've not run into. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

En dash is preferably used for the tracklisting section to delimit the title from its duration, per WP:MOS. The personnel section has still no guideline yet, I think. --Efe (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mixtape albums

So you can't create articles of mixtape albums then? why?-SCB '92 (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean here? If they have "significant independent coverage in reliable sources", then they are notable per general policy, but I suspect few will attain such coverage. The reason is that there are many such albums around and not many will be by notable artists or be notable in themselves, per above criterion. --Rodhullandemu 13:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Or are you suggesting that we add "mixtape album" as one of the album types for the "Type" field of the infobox? If that's the case, you should bring it up at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Single vs Album vs EP

Hello! I've been doing some editing on an article for a Korean release, Scandal. In Korea, this type of release is called a "single album" or (less commonly) just an "album." They seem to often be releases by brand new artists prior to any album releases, "special projects" to commemorate an event, or special collaborations, and the songs don't seem to generally wind up on a regular full-length studio album (except for those of the first type). I've seen these categorized as both singles and albums on Wikipedia (haven't run across any listed as EPs yet), but they actually seem to fit what I've always thought of as EPs better. Should these all be handled the same way or is it more trouble than it's worth? If consistency is your choice, what method do you think is best? Thanks for your time! --hamu♥hamu (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated - I learned from the article history that it was created as an EP, and was changed to Album by a user who left no notes or explanation. For further info, Show Me Your Love is also called a "single album" in Korea, though it clearly does not approach being a full-length album. The time guidelines set by Wikipedia aren't followed in Korea. hamu♥hamu (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually, the answer is to find out what the record company calls it. In this case, they call it a "single album", so you need to find out what that means. It sounds to me like a marketing term, where they're trying to make a single sound more substantial. The track listing has two different versions each of four songs, so it looks to me like a single. -Freekee (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well this particular release (4+ unique songs, 2 music videos, multinational promotion) seems to meet at least Wikipedia's definition of an EP. What I'm trying to determine is if it should be treated as an album or an EP. The only differentiation I've seen in Korea between what Westerners call singles, mini-LPs, and EPs is one- or two-song digital releases (see Bae Seul Ki as an example) which are indeed called singles. Everything else is a "single album," marketing term or not. My underlying query was if all Korean "single albums" should be classified the same way on WP, but on second though that's clearly not appropriate, so I answered my own question. I think I'll bring this up at Wikiproject Korea, and see what they think, as well. Thanks for your time! Consistency can sure be a challenge, huh? :) --hamu♥hamu (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the scope of this Project, the Extended play (EP) and Long play (LP) releases are both properly here (viz., at WPAlbums), whereas Singles are in the scope of WPSongs. The "single album" term from Korea could refer to a maxi single, which is in the scope of WPSongs. Since EPs could be studio, demo, compilation, cover/tribute, &c. (long the case for LPs), I am considering posting a proposal to Template talk:Infobox Album concerning LP/EP split of applicable types, a matter to be executed only after some agreement on the need is reached. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:IbLeo passed along the fact that the EP is currently recognized as a subset of the album; as I understand things, EP has nearly as many subsets as Album itself. Unfortunately, "single album" is not so clear-cut as I first estimated. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have the impression you misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. My POV is that single, EP and album are distinct, mutually exclusive animals. EP is not a subset of album. LP is a subset of album; an album can be an LP if it is issued on vinyl. The definition of these concepts should be found in the respective article. The Korean "single albums" sounds most of all like EPs to me. – IbLeo (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input & consideration. It's not clear at all, LOL. In my experience, South Korea uses "single album" for pretty much everything that isn't a full-length album or digital-only single. But I could never source that - total original research. I guess it's just a case of looking at each release individually and trying to assign it based on its perceived "intended" role in the industry, and a label that will "make sense" to most readers. If that makes sense. :) I think maybe the best goal is to shoot for consistency in terminology and categorization among similar types of releases from Korea, which will take coordination of effort. Does that seem like a good goal? --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 07:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that taking each release on its own merits is a good idea. Consider leaving an explanation on the albums' talk pages, of why you went the way you did. That might help other editors to reach similar conclusions as you do, which would gain us some consistency. -Freekee (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Split album naming convention

I apologize if this has been brought up before and I didn't see it, but: I was editing an artist's discography and attempting to format the titles for split albums as per convention, but then I looked at Category:Split albums and realized that there isn't one. People have just been titling these albums whatever they feel like, it seems. Now, if split albums have a definitive title, and some do, then obviously the article should be named that. However, there's no consensus for untitled split albums. Some examples of different names are "Artist1/Artist2", "Artist1 / Artist2" (note the spaces), "Artist1/Artist2 split 10″", and so on. I believe there should be a standard. My proposal is to use "Artist1 / Artist2 split", with Artist1 being whichever gets side A (or comes first alphabetically, if sides are inapplicable), as the physical format of the record doesn't matter. Of course, it's not up to me, so does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 03:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll back you up. -Freekee (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Having a standard for a recurring situation is always a good idea so you have my support. I just think we should consider the situation were the same band constellation issue more than one split album. How would you distinguish them? – IbLeo (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean where two or more bands release multiple splits together? Hm… that is a good question, as I've seen this before; the way I know one article does it is to just swap the order of the artists in the title, which I don't agree with. Maybe "Artist1 / Artist2 first split" and "Artist1 / Artist2 second split"? It's hard to say. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 13:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Project guidelines state to first disambiguate using the year. Artist1 / Artist2 (1995). Or should it be (1995 album)?

By the way, why do the article titles have spaces on either side of the slash? That seems weird to me. -Freekee (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh! of course, using years is definitely the way to go. I don't know why I didn't think of that. So it'd be like Artist1 / Artist2 split (1995) (I say don't say "album" in the title simply because it already says "split", but that may not be most correct.) … Also, I don't know why they have spaces…perhaps to look cleaner? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 01:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A few more thoughts, for what they are worth:

• Is "split" really needed? Isn't it implicitly indicated by the presence of the "/" (provided we chose it as standard)?
• Spaces around the "/" looks cleaner to me. I prefer Jimi Hendrix / Britney Spears to Jimi Hendrix/Britney Spears - but this is purely visual.
• Agree about the usage of years for disambiguation. So it would be Jimi Hendrix / Britney Spears (1969) and Jimi Hendrix / Britney Spears (2004).

– IbLeo (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, "split" shouldn't be in the article name unless it's actually the title of the release (or used in the parenthetical disambiguation, which would be rare). The year would be used to DAB two similarly titled albums, while (album) would be used to distinguish and album from some other thing that's called that, like a film or something.

I think it looks cleaner without the spaces, but I won't argue about it. Whatever you guys want is fine with me.

Incidentally, the project guidelines aren't clear on whether the proper DAB for albums of the same title and band, but different years is (1985 album) or (1985). Just sayin'. :-) -Freekee (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The official naming conventions here use the years and the word "album" for disambiguating (as in Artist1 / Artist2 (2000 album)). So then I guess officially the standard should be Artist1 / Artist2 with Artist1 / Artist2 (2000 album) to disambiguate? I'm gonna go add that in if no one objects further. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 03:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree – IbLeo (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com review

I had a question concerning Amazon.com reviews, now before you jumpt to conclusions and refer me to the RS list, hear (or read) me out. While writing the Iowa (album) article, I included a small quote from the "Amazon.com Editorial Review" from Dominic Wills. The review (scroll down, under the track listing) was brought into question during the article's GA review; a comment was posted on the Reliable sources noticeboard and a conversation has evolved. The quote has since been removed from the article, but for future reference I would like to know: Why are Amazon.com editorial reviews deemed unreliable? I can understand the fan reviews, since there's a number of ways to mess with those (and quite simply put people in general are stupid). But why is Dominic Wills' review discounted because of his employer? If he worked for Rolling Stone and wrote the exact same review, it would obviously be reliable, but because he's employed by Amazon why is he not "reliable"? Thank you. Blackngold29 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazon post reviews to make you want to buy the album- Rolling Stone don't care whether you buy the album, instead, they aim to tell you about the album, give an impartial view of it, and, to an extent, entertain you. An Amazon review is little more than a third-party advert. I admit, it isn't an awful source, but for such a (mysteriously) prolific album, it shouldn't be too hard to cite different reviews instead. J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, however, (I should've said this) I didn't use the review in the "Reception" section; I used it to describe how the music itself sounded. It was not a "This album was good" or "This album was bad" type of quote. Which to me would change the situation, but I understand how allowing some would be a slippery slope. Blackngold29 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Category: Rhino Hi-Five albums

During basic research for an Article on Rhino Hi-Five: Debbie Gibson (see User:B.C.Schmerker/Article PrototypeB), I found that Rhino Entertainment has, as of 00:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC), one hundred twenty-nine (129) compilation EPs in the Rhino Hi-Five series available at:
http://www.rhino.com/store/digital/hifives.lasso
That appears sufficient numbers for a dedicated Category for these compilation EPs, to be titled Category:Rhino Hi-Five albums. Support, opposition, comments please. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as I work on album articles, I'm not really familiar with some of the categorization schemes. :) I guess the general notion is that categories are useful search tools, allowing people to quickly view other things "of a kind". So I guess the question would be whether those might be the kind of thing somebody would be interested in as a group. If so, I would think it more useful than the typical "Record Company X albums" category, as it is a more discrete number. It looks like it should be a valid subcategory of Category:Rhino Records albums, handled similarly to Category:Rhino Handmade albums (though looking at that sub-category, I can't say that I'm convinced of the usefulness of it. A little lonely in there. :)). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Point noted, but I see a potential problem of numbers, should the Hi-Fives be lumped with equivalents from other labels into a Category:Digital albums or Category:Digital EPs; there are most likely thousands of downloadable EPs and LPs out there, as of 16:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC). How better can this categorization be approached? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question here, so I'll review quickly. :) You say there are 129 albums in the series. I say if you think the series is the kind of thing where somebody might want to know what else is included, that a subcategory should be appropriate. I referenced the handling of Category:Rhino Handmade albums as a "for instance", with it's topnote of "This category is for releases done on Rhino Records' limited-edition imprint Rhino Handmade. For standard Rhino Records releases, please see the main Rhino Records category linked below", but I did note that Category:Rhino Handmade albums is lonely (it currently has one entry). Review out of the way, are you saying that you think 129 entries is insufficient to warrant a subcategory? Or did I mislead you into thinking that I do? I'm inclined to think that 129 items is quite a nice size for a subcat. There are certainly much smaller subcats out there. Take Category:1632 series books, for instance. :) My only question is whether in your judgment you think people would be likely to want to view the category; if so, I'd say go for it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My first inclination is to create the High-Five category as a subcat of Category:Rhino Records albums. 129 entries is certainly an appropriate amount for a subcat. Go for it. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Importance rating?

Hi. I currently wind up addressing a fair amount of the albums listed for assessment, but I have no background in assessing importance. Since those who do may not be watching the assessment requests, I wanted to point out that there's a request there for an importance assessment on the GA Iowa (album). I would guess that this album may be "Top" importance in its specific field, as it evidently premiered "in top ten album sales in nine countries". Top importance says "Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field." Internationally notable, yes, but is it crucial? I don't know. :) "High-Class" Importance indicates "Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent." That doesn't seem to be sufficient in this case. But the text at the top of "Importance" describes "Top Importance" as "the most vital albums (Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Blonde on Blonde, Dark Side of the Moon, Nevermind, etc)." Is this one of those? How does one tell?

I generally leave Importance out of it when assessing album articles, but I am curious to know how these (and this one in particular) are evaluated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

They're not evaluated. :-) I've only seen importance listed for Top albums, like the ones you mentioned. Either that or whatever some kid thought would be cool to say. I don't think we can go by the general scale. The international thing doesn't quite apply. Iowa went platinum, but "high" seems pushing it, since I can't see a whole lot of influence. But then "Mid" definitely seems low, considering not only how well it sold, but that it garnered them a Grammy nomination, and a #6 in NME's top albums of 2001.

There are only four levels. Top for top. High for big sellers like this. Mid for albums by well-known bands that made an impact on some level, and Low for albums (or albums by bands) that hardly anyone has heard of? ;-) Pink Floyd would get Top for DSOM and The Wall, and High (no pun intended) for most of the rest. Peter Frampton would get Top for that one album, and Mid for the rest. -Freekee (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the insight. I have been, as I said, curious. :) Since I asked this, there's an individual who has been importance rating albums he's working on. Well, actually, he's been rating his own albums, too. I've spoken to him about that a couple of times, and reverted where necessary, but not about the importance rating. (Talk:Porgy and Bess (Miles Davis album), Talk:Radio (LL Cool J album), Talk:Chocolate Factory, Talk:Coltrane for Lovers are all I see.) Is this the kind of harmless thing that most people would ignore, since we don't really use these, or should these assessments be removed?

In terms of the specific request for Iowa, would you think it would be best to go high, low, or politely decline the assessment request? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd kinda like to see importance removed from our template. If someone specifically asked for a rating, I'd either tell them that we don't rate them (even there's no backup for that in the project pages), or rate it. If you rate it, especially after a discussion here, that's better than ignoring it and letting one of the kids give it a "Top", leaving it open to edit warring. I guess I'm leaning more towards "High" for that one, only given its sales numbers. It might also have some influence within its genre, but I can't say about that. -Freekee (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know its influence, either. :) I'll go with high. Any way we can remove importance from our template? I am clueless about such things. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

New Category

I saw there was [[Category:Number-one singles in the United Kingdom]] so I thought it makes sense to make [[Category:Number-one albums in the United Kingdom]]. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Misspellings in song titles?

I was wondering what our policy was when dealing with misspellings in song titles for tracklistings. It is annoyingly common among the underground black metal types (the main sort of music article I edit) for song titles to be spelt incorrectly. Off the top of my head, we have some conflicting policies here- on the one hand, we keep misspellings and formatting intact when directly quoting, but, on the other, we have our own guidelines for capitalisation, regardless of whether the band stylises their album and song names with lower/uppercase. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think misspellings should be kept, as should the foreign standards for capitalization... = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with = ∫_t^c 5th Eye. The phenomena of deliberate misspelling is not new in rock music. Slade had a #1 hit record already back in 1972 with "Mama Weer All Crazee Now". I wouldn't like to see the spelling of that one "corrected". – IbLeo (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Surely capitalization should be based on how the artist captilizes the title, ie. how it might appear if on Windows Media Player or iTunes, rather than rules that we impose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pechark (talk • contribs) 13:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example in mind? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization isn't always consistent for official releases, especially with titles entered into electronic media formats. -Freekee (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why "surely"? This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertizing (not that you are necessarily implying that). Consistency (hopefully of the non-foolish variety) helps users locate pages. If a friend told me about KoЯn or I heard about them on the radio, I'd want a search for Korn on Wikipedia to lead me to the details about the band (along with a mention (on the page) of the non-traditional typography, of course). I do, however, think that redirects should be there for spellings that are used by artists, on packaging, etc. that differ from the Wikipedia Style guide (which I hope satisfies at least some of your concerns). Alan smithee (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the kind of publication that emulates stylized typography (while other venues do and probably should, e.g. MusicBrainz). See the lead paragraph of WP:MOSTM for the underlying rationale. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 21:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I Should Coco Peer Review Request

I've been working on I Should Coco for a while now. I asked for a peer review on 16 June but only got a semi-automated review . Could someone take a look at the article and leave comments here please.

Thanks --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Importance" in project template

In the "Importance rating?" section above, Freekee suggested the idea of removing the "importance" parameter from the WikiProject Albums template. How about it? It could either be removed from the template entirely, or at least made not to display in the banner. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's doable, I'm for it being done. :) Currently, it seems pretty useless. While I'd love to see a ratings drive to get the massive backlog handled of articles that aren't rated for quality, I don't see the value of that blank importance field. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's my 2 cents on why I think importance ratings are helpful. They're a tool for project members to organize their own workload. "Top" importance should be assigned to articles that have a really strong potential to eventually become FAs, but haven't gotten there yet. In this project's case the criteria might be articles about albums that have been #1 or had record-breaking sales numbers. Therefore it's highly likely that tons of good third-party source material exists, but the articles haven't been developed to the point of being FAs yet. "High" importance might be for albums that have charted highly and had high sales figures (ie. certified platinum), and which have been cited by critics as being influential (again, an indication that lots of secondary sources are out there). "Mid" could be for albums that have charted, but not highly, and probably had mid- to low sales (ie. gold, silver). "Low" would be for albums that didn't chart at all and had low sales. These criteria are pretty helpful because they are indicators of notability as well as the likelihood that reliable secondary sources are available. Rating an article's importance as "top" doesn't mean "hey, this album is great", it means "here's an article we should really work on because there's a good chance we could get it to FA." If it does in fact reach FA, then we might change its importance to a lower rating because it no longer needs much work. Thus the importance ratings help us to organize our article work, which is kind of the point of a Wikiproject to begin with. The importance scale is a way of prioritizing tasks; it's not an article assesment (that's what the assesment scale is for). I think it's very helpful (it's certainly helped me the project I launched a few months ago...WP:ALIEN) and I don't think we should get rid of it just because it occasionally gets misinterpreted or because we're overlooking it. We should actually be using it more, because it would help us get better organized and get stuff done. If it's being left blank, it's only because we're not being proactive in using it. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to modify the template so that if no importance rating has been assigned, the banner does not display the message saying "This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale."? In other words, can it only display the importance rating if the article actually has one? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be okay with keeping "importance", as long as we can agree on guidelines for its use. If we can do that, then let's start tagging them. If not, let's get rid of it. -Freekee (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

←Looking at the guidelines proposed by IllaZilla above, I think #1 is a good benchmark for "top", although we'd probably have to define what charts qualify. Are we talking Billboard and equivalent? Billboard_charts#Albums lists a whole lot, including the "Heatseekers" charts. Do those count? Also, I'm not sure how record-breaking sales numbers breaks down. Would that be triple platinum? Something more unique like "top selling country record album of all time"? If we can nail down questions like those, I think we might be able to arrive at workable criteria. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Should charting be the only criteria? And that's a good point about not merely chart position, but whether it was a record amount of sales at the time. Also number of sales over time. Should there also be criteria for sales records in a genre? I hate to have subjective criteria, but I also hate to exclude important records just because they weren't number-ones. -Freekee (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. One could almost argue that sales is more important than charting, since the amount of units an album needs to chart differs every week, but a certification (gold or platinum) remains the same all the time. Blackngold29 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

While chart position or sales can be good indicators of the importance of an album, there are some albums that didn't sell that well but, in hindsight, were highly influential musically in one way or another. That should definitely be taken into consideration. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Help Me

Hi people, I just built an article for the King of Pop (album), however the track list is going to be constructed for the most part by fans. I wasnt sure if it was a tribute album, I then changed it to a greatest hits album. I thing that wrong too, looking at the sources it seems that regular tracks that were never released as singles could end up on it. Could an expert on these things correectly decide what type of album it is. Cheers. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it a Compilation album. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thankyou very much. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Future singles, notability

There has been an ongoing discussion about the notability of Psychosocial (song). I'll try to bring that discussion into this one as little as possible, but one key aspect has been ignored so I'll raise it here and hopefully recieve an answer. Per the policy on the notability of songs there are a few different requirements that a song can be considered notable, and therefore warrent its own article. One aspect that all of these requirements has in common is that the song can only achieve notability after it is released (high chart positions, awards won, etc). Which brings me to my question: Why does the {{future single}} template exist? After all, per the current policy, only songs that have already been released are notable enough to deserve their own article. So basically, there should be no articles which is a "future" song. This question has been asked in the mentioned discussion four or five times by three different people, it has not been answered. I have tried to argue that a "single" is a CD containing multiple "songs", Psychosocial is notable because it is a single, not because it is a song; this has also been ignored. (There are more reasons, but you'll have to read the discussion for those) But anyway, I would like to know why the future single template exists, because per the current policy, the template, and every song in its catagory should be deleted. Thoughts? Comments? Blackngold29 06:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The template exists because a future single can be notable. If it meets the general criteria at WP:N and it is verifiable using reliable sources then it can be notable prior to release. --JD554 (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The notability guidelines for songs are specific for songs because the general Wikipedia guidelines are... not specific. It helps editors to have such guidelines so they can follow established standards without having to look up lots of articles themselves. There are general notability guidelines that the article may fall under, while not meeting any of the song-specific criteria.

Also, this is the Album project. Please see WP:SONGS for future questions about songs. -Freekee (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Songs by Frank Sinatra

Says it was released in 1948 and yet some of the songs were recorded in 1950 (Let It Snow) or later —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.162.121 (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've brought the article inline with the single source, and I'm about to address the copyright violation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 7207 articles assigned to this project, or 10.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark Prindle

Reviewer Mark Prindle is currently being used on 145 Wikipedia articles. User:Indopug has made the claim the reviewer is not notable, when he removed it from an album article. If this is the case, I am seeking a consensus ruling on whether Mark Prindle should be used as a review or not. If the consensus is his reviews should not be used, then Prindle's review should be removed from all 145 articles. Anyone wish to agree or disagree? MegX (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any indication at his website that he is or has ever been a professional. If he is just an individual with an awesome website, then I would agree that he should not be used. Do you know if he's ever been professionally published? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Apparently the Mark Prindle article was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Prindle. According to Google, he has been published but not in regards to music reviews. If the concensus here is to remove, do you know of an admin who can send a bot around to delete the Mark Prindle reviews on all those album infoboxes? There is no desire from the original editor who instigated it to manually remove every one of those entries. Given the numbers involved I nmyself have no desire to do this personally either. A bot might be the best option. MegX (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am completely clueless when it comes to bots. :) I can barely script my own templates. Maybe ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests? That seems to be the place for such things. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. MegX (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And done very nicely, I might add! :D Let's hope some bot-builder is feeling generous. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A request has been submitted so we should know shortly whether a bot can be used specifically to remove them. MegX (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The bot is all ready to go, just waiting final aproval. I've written up an update to your request that can be found here. It has a link to the list of articles that the bot will go through.Printer222 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Printer. Good job. MegX (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, finally. If any one comes across any more variations of the template let me know, but im pretty sure i've got them all. I just kept finding new variations, so it made it a little difficult. Printer222 (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Never! They may take the links, but they may never take our freedom! --NoCultureIcons (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping out. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mini-LPs

I would welcome opinions on the issue of mini-LPs. This has come up both in articles about Pixies and My Bloody Valentine. In the 1980s, when vinyl was the dominant format, record companies released 'short' albums (still 12-inch vinyl releases, and with a title for the release, e.g. This Is Your Bloody Valentine), categorized as mini-LPs, typically with around 7 tracks. These were marketed as albums, and were eligible for and appeared in the album charts, but there are some editors who insist that these be classified as EPs. A vinyl EP was an extended version of the single format and usually quite different to a mini-LP, so retrospectively deciding that mini-LPs are not albums seems ridiculous. This WikiProject does not have a classification for 'Mini-LP', so how should mini-LPs be correctly categorized? It should be noted that articles for bands often include discographies with chart positions, and thanks to some editors who put their POV before chart company rules, record company intentions and published sources, we now have mini-LPs that charted in album charts listed with EPs that charted in singles charts. Given that we have official rules for single/album eligibility, I feel that we have an easy way of classifying releases as albums or otherwise. I have suggested a compromise of a separate category for mini-LPs in discographies/band templates, but there seems little will among other editors of these articles for engaging in discussion on the topic. Your views would be welcome. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with this debate. If some of these charted and were recognized as "albums", that would seem to me to be considerable support for your perspective. It seems that Wikipedia is not the only place uncertain how to class these. AMG lists "This is Your Blood Valentine" as an album in the discography, and "Ecstacy" as an EP. Rolling Stone fails to take note of either of them. Given what little bit you've said here and what little bit I've been able to discover, I'd say that in the absence of anything definitive, I'd probably be inclined to follow suit with the most notable/reliable source. If it charted on the album chart, it's an album. If it didn't, I'd probably drop it wherever AMG does. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: All Music Guide → Allmusic

Resolved

 – "All Music Guide" has been replaced by "Allmusic" in 35000+ articles by User:J Milburn Bot – IbLeo (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I invite everyone to take a look over here and express any concern on replacing "All Music Guide" by "Allmusic" with the help of a bot. Thanks in advance. – IbLeo (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Project template image

Um, what's happened to the image on Template:Album? Looking at the image page Image:Vynil record.jpg it appears to have been vandalised by a non-existent user and I can't see how to change it back. --JD554 (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone has fixed it now. --JD554 (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack albums

I have recently come across Category:Film soundtracks and feel a significant number of its articles have no true independent notability and should be merged into the respective film articles to something like The Truman Show#Soundtrack or Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (film)#Soundtrack. The mergist in me feels that this is the best presentation until someone really wants to expand the information beyond the intro and a tracklist (e.g. add half-decent sections for production, reception, or chart positions), or when a soundtrack has two or more discs or special editions (e.g. Forrest Gump (soundtrack)). I have already bold-merged Pride & Prejudice (soundtrack) into Pride & Prejudice (2005 film)#Soundtrack once, but I am getting qualms now since there was some claim of notability via awards. Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Film Music is inactive, I wonder what people here suggest to do - bold-merge and wait for possible reverts, make merge proposals and wait a while (how long?), or leave such articles alone. I guess about 50% to 75% of the 700 articles in Category:Film soundtracks have only a short intro (two paragraphs at best) plus a tracklist (<15 songs). Comments? I deal mostly with film and television articles up to FA level and have no real experience with album articles, but I don't want to mess up any unspoken-of conventions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is exclusively a question of notability, I think it's a question of content. WP:MUSIC says "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." I think "little more than a track listing" would probably qualify for the state of Pride & Prejudice (soundtrack) when you found it. It did have a little more text, but you merged it all. The appropriateness of that merge doesn't need to hinge on the notability of the album. It's notable by its awards. But you're not deleting information; you're including it elsewhere. And as long as it doesn't overwhelm the parent article, that seems appropriate. If an article is heavily edited, I would not merge without a merge proposal. If it looks possible that somebody could or might expand it into something of more value as a stand-alone, I'd consider tagging it {{expand}}. If it's stagnant and not precisely demonstrating potential, a bold merge should be fine. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

C Class, suggestions

Not real fond of the addition of a "C" class, myself, as evaluating these is already complicated enough. :) Maybe this was developed to keep less marginal B class articles from appealing for GA? I don't know. But if it's there, I guess we ought to consider addressing it--and it might even take care of one pesky problem I have with the "start" class criteria.

Given the wiggle room of C, I think it could be possible to promote some "start" class articles to C-Class articles and, at the same time, promote some that are "technically" stubs to "start." The issue I have in mind here is the list of personnel. By our current guidelines, this Barbra Streisand album is a "stub". With the change I'm about to suggest, we could make it a "start" (without having to WP:IAR). (this one and this one, too, would be uncomplicated "starts". I knew I could count on Babs to have no "personnel" section. :))

Accordingly, I propose altering "start"'s required list of personnel to the more liberal "Reference to primary personnel by name (e.g. a band infobox)." This eliminates the issue with single-artist releases and allows articles that utilize the cursed band infobox (which doesn't verify which band members may have performed on this album, since band line-ups are often unstable) to reach start.

On to the meat: the fundamental difference between B & C are that B-Class articles are most complete, without major issues, while C-Class articles are substantial, but still missing important content or contain a lot of irrelevant material or may be plagued by poor writing or guideline/policy problems. I propose to assign C-Class most of the descriptors currently for B-Class, except in taking the personnel list from "start." Accordingly:

“ C Class

• All the start class criteria
• A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
• At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section)
• A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
• A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians.

A casual reader should learn something about the album. Possible subjects to include are the events leading up to its recording, stories of its recording and release, critical reception, reception by fans or its influence in the music world. Alternately, descriptions of the songs and the album in general may be included.

An article may be rated at C-class if it meets these criteria, even if other problems exist, such as needing substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or violations of policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR), but such problems should be tagged.

”

Example: Fallen. Reason: Article lacks production personnel. (Under current criteria, that would make it technically a "start" class.) The lead section is minimal--it provides an introduction to the album, but does not comply with WP:LEAD.

And so, to B class. Most of the description here has moved to C. This is revised to reflect new general standards.

“ B Class.

• All the C class criteria
• A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
• No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources.
• No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS

Most readers should feel satisfied by the content, although it may not satisfy more expert readers. There are no obvious omissions, but also no obvious extraneous information—such as "trivia". The article flows well and logically. While a few aspects of content and style may need to be addressed, the article overall complies with tone and content guidelines.

”

An example of a B-Class: Mistaken Identity (Previous example, London Calling, has graduated to GA. And there may be better examples of B. I snagged this out of Category:Former good article nominees.)

Sorry for the sprawling nature of this. Couldn't figure any way around that. Objections? Feedback? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

So, does this mean no objections? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's only been one day–patience! :D − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A response! A real live human response! ;) (I sometimes wonder if we have the most introverted project on Wikipedia.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am alive, and I did see this. But as I haven't yet made my way around assessments and how they work (seems pretty complex), I spared you my unqualified comments. Also, have in mind it is summer, at lease on the northern half of the globe. People are probably outside doing BBQs, drinking beer refreshing non-alcoholic drinks and listening to loud rock music! – IbLeo (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And obsessively cataloging our record collections, I would guess. :) Thanks for also being alive. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Lacking any other feedback, I'm going to 'implement this on July 13th (or as soon thereafter as I remember to do so). That will be a week without objection. Let me know if there are problems with it, please, as I'm the type of person who prefers to work it out on the talk page first. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on C-Class criteria

I have a problem with the criterion "completed infobox".

• I know you only mean the basic fields, but we should mention that advanced fields (e.g. Longtype, Director) are not necessary for C-class promotion.
• For the infobox field "Recorded", do we require both the recording dates and recording locations?
• If no legitimate reviews can be found, is the article ineligible to attain C-class?

Now that we have something to discuss, these issues should be addressed before we implement your proposal. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Conversation is progress!

I don't really know what was intended by "completed infobox" when the B Criteria were established, but so far as I know the advanced fields are not required for B class. At least, I hope they aren't, as I don't worry about them when assessing articles. :) I don't have any problem with altering what's been used to indicate that advanced fields are not required. As far as recording dates & recording locations, I don't believe either are necessawrily required, as the criterion says, "most technical details", which allows a bit of wiggle room. But take for example All for You (album), which rated B under that verbiage in spite of the lack of recording location. As far as the reviews, I don't know. I'm inclined to think that in the absence of legitimate reviews, it will be difficult for the article to expand beyond start anyway, without original research. What do you think? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that "completed infobox" was the existing wording. I guess as long as it's understood by reviewers that there is wiggle room, there's no need to make the language overly precise. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this, but what are the chances of a notable album not having been professionally reviewed? --JD554 (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of demos, other early albums, EPs, etc. do not receive professional reviews. For example, Radiohead's Manic Hedgehog and GYBE's All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Building off of the former B-Class criteria, C-Class articles are allowed to have extensive issues with sourcing and original research or whatnot. Currently, start class requires "A reasonably complete infobox." B-Class requires "A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details." What about giving C-Class a munge of the two, with "A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art" and letting B-Class keep what it currently has? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, then. Let's see if there are other issues. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been around. I've been busy. I don't see any big issues. Go ahead an implement if you want. I may recommend tweaks when I have a chance to look at it more carefully. -Freekee (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it a lot. The only issue I have is that the band navbox at the bottom of the page can stand in for a tracklist on Start class. I don't think that should qualify. -Freekee (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel strongly enough that you can't be convinced otherwise? :) So far, I've been evaluating B class articles under the new criteria, so it hasn't mattered much yet, but I've encountered one article that I rated "start" because it only had a band infobox: Polythene (album). The reason I wanted to allow that under "start" is because articles like that just don't seem stubby. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You might be able to convince me not to argue about it. ;-) That album is a good example. The problem with rating it as high as Start is that it doesn't tell who plays on the album. There are six members listed in the navbox, and three seem to be current members, since they're in boldface. The problem with rating it as low as Start is that there's a whole lot of information there. It's definitely C-class, but for the lack of personnel. But the rules say it must at least mention the primary players, so technically, it only qualifies as Stub. But given the amount of information there, it clearly should be higher than Stub. What's the solution? WP:IAR. This album is a special case.

Technically, the rule is Reference to at least primary personnel by name. This article does not do this. The second part of this rule is merely an example. (e.g. a band infobox or personnel section) I feel that it's a bad example, since it's inclusion could break the rule it was intended to support. In lieu of listing (or mentioning) the musicians, we can promote an article on other merits in order to avoid looking foolish (calling that article a stub), while still following the general rules of Wikipedia (IAR). -Freekee (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. That makes sense. :) I can include in the review summary a note explaining that it doesn't technically qualify, but.... I'll remove the mention of the bandbox from the guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(-: And I do like both the criteria you've written, and the addition of the C class. I think it's going to be a little easier to assess articles. But I must say, with B, A, GA and FA, I think they could have shifted those four around, to accomplish the same thing, instead of adding a new level. -Freekee (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Black Parade peer review

Hello, the article The Black Parade has just passed as a GA and I have submitted it to a peer review to help find suggestions on how to further improve it towards a FA. Any help is greatly appreciated.  Orfen  ^T • _C 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to have passed it. Congratulations :) Gary King (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

St. Elsewhere

Here is a ref [3] for the chart performance fo the album mentioned above for anyone who feels compelled to fill it out. Taifarious1 04:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Tense

When writing about an album, what tense should it be in? For example, is "the album contained 15 tracks that she composed herself" okay or should it be present? Grk1011 (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would go with "the album contains 15 tracks that she composed herself"--present tense for the contents, past tense for the composition. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds right. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This might be a very basic or crude explanation but for examples like "the album contains", "the song features", and "the single includes" are gramatically correct since those pieces "never die". They remain present. =) --Efe (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Strikes me as a rather good explanation! tomasz. 12:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Californication

Would anyone oppose Pitchfork being added to Californication (album)? WP:ALBUM, which allows 10 reviews max, lists it as a pro review and it's probably the most successful online review site. There's all reason to add it and no valid reason to remove it. I'm only bringing this here for greater input because an editor opposes its addition. Spellcast (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are only 5 reviews included in the infobox currently so I see no issue with it if the maximum is 10. Pitchfork is certainly a reliable source for professional reviews. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Category redirects

What is the group's feeling about category redirects that are of a non-preferred form? For example:

• Category:Albums by Max Bygraves redirects to Category:Max Bygraves albums

There are also quite a few with variant spellings of the artist, such as:

• Category:Age Of Silence albums redirects to Category:Age of Silence albums

but this is a different issue.

Since category redirects don't work like page redirects, I tend to think they are sloppy. I believe that a bot goes around and fixes anything that you put into them, so they don't cause long term problems, but I also think the naming scheme for subcats of Category:Albums by artist is easy enough to follow without these around.

I have nominated this album category redirect for merge/delete and it appears that not everyone agrees with me, so I thought I'd ask here before nominating any more album categories that I find. Also, feel free to weigh in on the discussion at the CfD rather than here.

I have also just asked a similar question WikiProject Songs but have gotten no reply. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's sloppy, but more important, it's pointless. Readers almost always find categories by clicking on them in articles. If there's a mistakenly named category, it should be fixed. Once it's fixed, nothing will link to the old name. The only possible way to find it is to type in into the search box. That's a good argument for deletion, since finding a category using that name reinforces its use. The main reason your CFD failed to delete it is because "redirects are cheap." There's generally no reason to delete an article redirect - it doesn't hurt anything, and it's probably more work than it's worth to delete one. There is only marginally reason (IMO) to delete a category redirect. Maybe you could try blanking the page, and inserting the {{Db-c1}} template? -Freekee (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Genre delimiters

Excuse me, but if I may be so bold, wouldn't it be a good idea to say that both line breaks and commas are valid, like WP:MUSTARD. Seems to me that the guidlines for albums and artist should be the same.68.63.157.181 (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what others think, but I personally prefer commas as I don't see the reason to take up extra space vertically, especially for long lists. The Infobox sometimes gets in the way of text in an article because it floats to the right. Gary King (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gary King. Some of the lists are quite long and to have a line break makes the infobox overly long as well. --JD554 (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This topic was already discussed the the consensus reached touched on a couple of those points. Keeping the box length short and using the common sentence structured list. The battle within the Musician Project over the use of line breaks has been carried on by a minority of editors who want to make that project box look like a long grocery list. But for this project the consensus was very clear. Note that WP:MUSTARD does not say anything at all about using line breaks. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 09:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that the WikiProject Songs also has rules for their infobox that are consistent with the WP:ALBUM guidelines. The choice to use the prose line list format was also the consensus for them. Line breaks are not to be used for albums or songs. And we can AGF that the musician project will eventually come to a similar consensus there as well and follow the guidelines as set by the other music related projects. The WikiProject Composers has rejected the use of the musician box completely for article under their umbrella but they use the WP:ALBUM and WP:SONG guidelines without any issue further adding to the consensus that both album and song boxes need to stay as is. Libs (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anger22's point that as much as possible, the infobox must be short. Also, its prevalent in Wiki that a comma is desired in each album-related infobox and using either slashes or line breaks are really messy. --Efe (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lyricists listed for instrumental tracks

A lot of jazz albums include songwriting credits for both the music composer and the lyricist, even when the album is completely instrumental. I don't hunt for these errors, but as I find them, I usually comment out the lyricist's contribution (<!-- Mr. Lyricist wrote the lyrics, but this version is instrumental -->), or, less often, will make the same note explicit in the article. I wonder if anything like this has been discussed, or if it needs to be. Anyway, this is also a heads up: Lyricist(s) should not be listed as songwriters when the recording in question is instrumental. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on notability & verifiability

Not sure if this is the right place for this - if it isn't, please indicate somewhere better suited. I need other people's takes on this 'cos I'm not sure if I'm missing out on something.

There are two basic issues that crop up continuously at Wikipedia: notability & verifiability. I have now been directly or indirectly involved in a couple of cases wherein album articles have been nominated for deletion on those grounds only to be "saved" by the common sense of the Wikipedia community.

However, the unnecessary amount of time that has gone into discussing the issues could have been better employed tidying up existing articles, for example. However many times I reread the guidelines, I always reach the same conclusion: Notability is there to exclude non-notable subjects, persons, etc. and verifiability is to "provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged".

Thus, a duly-Wikified (lede, infobox, track listing, personnel and categories, etc.) article based on an album which was recorded by a notable person, i.e. with his/her own article at Wikipedia, backed by musicians each of whom has his/her own article at Wikipedia should surely be notable per se. Only if the lede were to include some sort of commentary liable to be challenged would there be a need to incorporate references.

Have I got this right or am I totally out to lunch on this one? Look forward to feedback - here or wherever better suited. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! Forgot to add the following to the bit 'bout notability: "it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be." Regards, --Technopat (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether this is the right place for this depends, probably, on what you hope to accomplish. :) If you're looking to make a change to WP:MUSIC, you probably ought to bring it up at WT:MUSIC. If you're just looking for feedback, this should be fine.

I think WP:V serves a bit more than that. WP:V must be taken in context with WP:NPOV (according to the policy itself), and that latter policy says, "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." I am a fan of inline sourcing--that which is required for quotations and challenge material--under most circumstances, probably because of my background. But in order to meet WP:V and WP:NPOV, it seems to me that at least general references are necessary, as these demonstrate that the material is not original and assist readers in checking "that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Obviously, there are going to be common sense exceptions to this, but the importance of sourcing is underscored in WP:V where it says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed...." (In other words, lacking sourcing, anything can be challenged.)

This is further complicated by the fact that many of the notability guidelines require the use of third party sources to prove notability. This is also true of albums, as WP:MUSIC says that to meet the notability standard, albums must meet the general guideline at WP:N. WP:N measures notability as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The presentation of reliable sources independent of the subject helps to demonstrate notability. In terms of notability, WP:MUSIC offers some specifics. In general, most albums released by notable musicians are going to be notable, though there are some exceptions (such as demos). Which means, excepting those exceptions, I think you're right on that one. :D But this is because most notable musicians (and their albums) are going to meet the third party sourcing standards by default. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply Moonriddengirl. Yes, I came here just to get feedback and for the opportunity to think aloud. I'm sure the issue has been dealt with ad nauseum and I was hoping to "cash in on" the accumulated experience of editors.

I haven't done a statistical analysis, but I'm pretty sure that at least 25% of the album articles on Wikipedia referring to recordings by highly notable artists I potter around and tidy up are unreferenced. Most third party references are for popular music albums/singles and, barring the basic essentials, there is actually very little on classical/jazz or blues recordings. Which of course doesn't mean that they are not notable - just that no references exist, other than exchanges of comments on serious, specialised forums, which of course are not acceptable sources/references. It becomes a Catch 22.

The problem arises when a particular officially-released recording which is considered not notable by an editor gets merged back to the artist's article page and the track I want to check on that particular recording gets lost. Sure, I can go to Allmusic or Amazon to check it out. But my default information source is Wikipedia 'cos, among other things, it contains fewer errors than Allmusic :) - Regards, --Technopat (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I do most of my work on jazz articles, and, believe me, I share your pain! (Also with Allmusic, which is notoriously bad with older works, particularly in discography listings.) Since sources can be print, however, there is hope. :) I often resort to some of my own reference works. I also take great comfort in the existence of google book search, which has provided me quite a lot of material. There have been album articles I've wanted to write which I simply haven't because I couldn't find anything. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So does the fact that an album has been mentioned in print a book that I've located through Google books qualify it as notable and referenced, even if it is only mentioned as part of the discography? In other words, would that be considered a reference? Please think carefully before answering - this is a loaded question! :) Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Eep! Loaded question! :O Well, I'm not the Wikipedia Authority on Notability, so, of course, this is only My Opinion. :) I am not innately bold, as a result of which I would not myself create an article with only that source. The general answer is (imo) no--an inclusion in a discography in a print source does not qualify as notable and referenced, per se. (Although it is, of course, "a" reference.) In specific application, though, it might. WP:NB, which seems pretty analogous to WP:MUSIC, requires multiple, non-trivial, independent sourcing to verify notability for books, except under certain circumstances, one of which is that "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." (This is a strict criteria, though; they're talking notable to the point of being on college curricula.) It requires verifiable sourcing that this is so. If I encountered an album article with sole secondary sourcing of the type you describe at AfD, I might well !vote to keep if the musician were plainly notable and if inclusion of the material in the parent article were problematic for space or weight concerns. (That is, if we're talking an artist who has 50 albums, incorporating specific detail on this one at the article would seem to give it more significance in his discography than it might merit.) This presumes, of course, that there is actual appropriate detail in the article, perhaps drawn from a primary source such as liner notes, that offers substantial information. Lacking that, I might not be convinced it warrants a separate article, in the same way that I might not be convinced a book warrants an article if all it says is "William Faulkner wrote a book called William Faulkner's 3rd Book in 1928." Maybe not even if it included a list of chapter headings (aka "track listing").

That said, I frequently assess album articles, and I have only very rarely merged or redirected a stub to the artist article (usually then because there are no sources, I could find no sources, and the artist seems of marginal notability, or because the unsourced article is on a type of album not universally regarded as notable--like a bootleg or an unreleased demo).

And sorry for this. Short answers are hard for me, as any of my college professors could have testified. :) I should proofread this one more, but I'm late for other obligations! And still planning to check my watchlist one...more...time! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for letting in that bit of moonlight with your "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." which very nearly, but not quite, solved my dilemma. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've participated in a number of discussions (mostly at AfD) where the crux of the argument is whether notability can be considered "inherited" from a parent topic to a sub-topic. Mostly this is applied to articles about aspects of fictional works, but in this case we can apply it to albums. The pertinent question is, I think: does the fact that an artist is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article automatically mean that all their albums are notable enough to merit separate articles? My argument is that no, we can't assume that they automatically are, but we can assume that for a highly notable artist (ie. the Beatles) that third-party source material is likely to exist to support such articles about each album. So the "readily could be" argument supports having these articles. For artists with significantly less notability, for example a small independent band with few releases, we can assume that reliable third-party sources are probably not readily available and therefore we can be more stringent about creating/merging/deleting these types of articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback IllaZilla. I agree fully with what you put forward - in the case of the extreme cases (highly notable, as in The Beatles :) vs small independent band) there is absolutely no doubt in my mind. The fact that an small independent band may one day be highly notable doesn't enter into it . that's for future Wikipedians to worry about! My problem is with that vast majority of artists that fall in-between those extremes.

One case I dealt with way back was of a notable musician - highly respected among musicians & winner of several awards in New Zealand - who was not considered notable on the English-language Wikipedia - which is notably US/UK-biased -, whereas if he/she had had the article on a non-English Wikipedia, it would have been considered highly notable. The guidelines are rightly, and by their very definition, ambiguous and in the end common sense and the whatever-it-you-call-it of Wikipedians as a whole prevails over the to-the-letter-of-the-law interpretation of individual editors. It's just that a lot of energy seems to wasted - unnecessarily - in the meantime. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject notification bot

There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

UK Albums / Singles chart

As per comments made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)‎ the verifiability of the UK charts have come into question. Traditionally, articles (including multiple FAs) have cited everhit, however it is contested as a reliable source. The site does claim to "only to print factually accurate information," however it does not publish these sources throughout. everyhit is the only site that I have ever seen used as a source for the UK charts. Therefore if it is indeed unreliable than that, in the absence of another source, leads me to believe that there is no UK charts. Am I correct to think this way? Is there another source? Thanks. Blackngold29 20:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There must be UK charts of some sort- a number of reliable sources (UK newspapers, Allmusic, etc) still mention them. Maybe it is worth emailing Allmusic and asking where they get their UK charts from? If they consider everyhit.com reliable, then I am sure we can. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I use [4] with {{UKChartHits}}. Seems reliable and up to date. One or two gaps, but at least he tells you what they are. Otherwise, a copy of the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles/Albums can be found in second-hand shops. --Rodhullandemu 21:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that ChartStats can be classed as reliable, but luckily The Official UK Charts Company has an archive going back to the beginning of 2007 for the Top 40 singles here and to the end of August 2006 for the Top 40 albums here. Those along with the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums that you've already mentioned means there just a short period of the chart histories for which we don't have decent reliable sources. --JD554 (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I've just spent some time at The Official UK Charts Company and they only seem to have a search facility for Number Ones and try as I might, it doesn't seem to be possible to find chart positions for anything else. So reliable it may be but verifiable is moot. I'll stick with ChartStats & Guinness for now. Perhaps it's about time for a template for the latter but since people will have different editions it will be necessary to parse the year to include the correct ISBN. --Rodhullandemu 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I never said it was easy :-). But as the release date will generally be known the peak position can be found with a little perseverance. --JD554 (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviews section / Metacritic

Currently says both that Metacritic.com can and should not be used as a reference. This needs to be clarified. Jgm (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The first line of Wikipedia:ALBUM#Review_sites says: The following is a list of some websites with reviews or links to reviews that you can use in album infoboxes: --JD554 (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Album chronology in infobox

At the risk of yet again covering ground that's previously been well plowed, can I ask whether I am now in the minority that believes the guideline "Only studio albums, usually excluding live albums, compilations, singles and EPs should be included in the chronology" is a good one and we should still be using it as a standard. In the course of changes by other editors, I have been informed that "most wikipedians seem to ignore it anyway". If this is the case, then the guideline needs to be amended accordingly, if not, then how can we bring these editors into line?

For my part, I can see no reason why EPs, which chart on the singles chart, should be categorised as albums rather than singles in Wikipedia. As for compilations I find their inclusion, in the main, irksome and disrupt the flow of an artist's body of work. Ditto live albums, although I can see the case for including contemporaneous releases, but rarely archive releases. What's the current recommendation within the project? — Drwhawkfan (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In its current state I find the guideline concerning chronology kind of flawed. It doesn't say what should be included in compilations and live albums chronologies. Should it link only to albums of the same type or any other? If a compilation links to a studio album and that can only link to another studio album the chain is broken and one cannot browse through all releases and this I think is the point of chronology in infoboxes. Maybe additional chronology for studio albums only and the other one including all albums would solve this. As far as I noticed most album pages don't follow the existing guidline as for now. Maybe it needs an update of some sort so everything is clearer. Pietaster (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Given each type of recording has its own infobox, it seems logical that the studio album infobox should only list studio albums, EP infbox only list EPs, compilation infobox only list comps, and so on. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Context is everything. Live albums' purpose has changed over time. Before 1976, they were usually poorly-produced (Absolutely Live, David Live), or plain cash-ins ('Four-Way Street, Genesis Live, Yessongs, Welcome Back My Friends to the Show That Never Ends) and were not essential to an artist's body of work. However, in 1976-77, the live double (or triple) albums Live Bullet, Frampton Comes Alive, Blow Your Face Out and Wings Over America charted high and became an integral part of a artist or band's discography. In addition, since 1983 or so, there have been post-breakup live albums (Alive She Cried), insta-live albums (Phish, String Cheese Incident, Pearl Jam) and archival (Grateful Dead, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, The Doors, David Bowie), only the latter of which are an important part of an artist's discography, if only to indicate the aging demographics of the artist's fan base. (There are exceptions to all of these off-the-cuff categorizations, of course.) The key criterion here is Notability.

Similarly, greatest hits albums were also non-essential until 1973's Beatles' two double-album sets 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 and 1976's Eagles' Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975), the best selling album of all time. However, I would agree that nearly every other greatest hits collection is "irksome and disrupt the flow of an artist's body of work," despite my own contributions (cf. Bowie, Costello) to the confusion and profusion of comps. (I have obviously changed my mind).

My conclusion is to agree with the other commentators, mostly, with the removal of these albums from the infobox chronology listing. Live and compilation albums should be, generally speaking, relegated to usage of the Extra Chronology template. Fantailfan (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Live at Leeds must the exception that proves your rule regarding live albums ;-). But I think that there is an argument for including such albums in the chronology. --JD554 (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As Fantailfan suggests, the context of the release needs to be taken into account. Some bands have EPs (live albums, etc.) as an important part of their repertoire; take, for example, The Beatles' Magical Mystery Tour (a double EP) and, as mentioned, The Who's Live at Leeds. Or, as Pietaster suggested, have the regular chronology for every release (except singles—these use a different type of infobox, which would break continuity), and the additional chronology for albums only (on album articles), for EPs only (on EP articles), and so on. Releases of lesser notability (e.g. Radiohead's College Karma EP) should not be listed in the "full" chronology, since they often do not have articles of their own, and would break continuity. However, considering such a change will require an immense number of manual and repetitive edits, I think we ought to just let the editors decide the chronology on a "per band" basis, as long as each band chronology is consistent. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot about Live at Leeds! Shame on me. Further comment on live albums: I can't say which live albums can truly be regarded as live and not for, as Peter Gabriel freely admitted, they were frequently massively overdubbed in the studio. Since attending concerts was expensive (complaints about ticket prices are hardly a recent phenomenon), the pressure was on to create live albums increased after albums like Leeds were best sellers. The technology to capture live shows as they truly were was developed (I believe) in the early seventies but revealed that the live experience is best captured by attending the show rather than listening to it in your living room. Frampton Comes Alive is such an anomaly that I can only ascribe its popularity to the times and to Frampton's style, since his other albums have done (relatively) poorly compared to it.

As a postscript on the Eagles comp, since it includes no new material I can only regard it as another anomaly and a statement about the Eagles and the record biz as it was in the good old days (1976). The Eagles were really a singles band rather than an album band. Ten years earlier, they would have released ten or twelve quality singles rather than four or five albums with two or three good songs per album among the dreck. No wonder rock and roll ran out of steam by the late seventies. With labels demanding an album per year, plus hit singles, plus non-stop touring, plus live albums, plus greatest hits comps, only (to put it bluntly) coke fiends like Bowie could manage it, and he almost died.

I agree with Twas (why not, he agrees with me!) as for judging chronologies on a band by band basis.

All IMHO of course. Fantailfan (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cite album-notes

Should a language field be added to this template for cases where the album notes are not written in English? Kariteh (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this being a big problem, it's easy enough to use the format field : {{Cite album-notes| title = [[Wish You Were Here (album)|Wish You Were Here]]|format = booklet, Spanish}} gives Wish You Were Here (Media notes). {{cite AV media notes}}: |format= requires |url= (help) --Rodhullandemu 13:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If really needed, it wouldn't be hard to add a language parameter, but I agree with Rod that using the format makes sense for the few occasions the language is an issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Kariteh (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Many of the sources I use are in Danish or French, so I would also like a language field to be added. I actually put this idea forward over here a while ago, but I guess it went unnoticed. Of course, it can be done as indicated above. It can also be done in a myriad of other ways, I myself did it like this (note 9). My point is that adding a field to the template provides a standard way of doing it so everyone of us doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. The field already exists in Template:Cite book and Template:Cite web and I would propose to do it along those lines. As the field should be ignored for album notes in English, would it be a problem for anyone if we added it? – IbLeo (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Supported. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 15:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:VUE may apply here since we're stepping into non-English source territory. I think that with obvious stuff like lists of personnel, etc. then we don't need to quote anything, but if we're quoting stories told in album notes or a band history from them or something then it may need a quote if it's a non-English source. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto soundtracks

• Grand Theft Auto 2 soundtrack
• Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack
• Grand Theft Auto: Vice City soundtrack
• Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas soundtrack
• Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories soundtrack
• Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories soundtrack

Hi, it's come to my attention that the above articles are tagged as being within the scope of this wikiproject. However, these articles are about the in-game audio content of the respective games, rather than actual albums, so might not be relevant here. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about that when I reassessed Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories soundtrack. :) I didn't want to remove the "album" template in case it was an album and the article just didn't clarify. The template should be removed if there's no album connected. I'll go ahead and do that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps the intros to those articles need to be reworded to make it clearer that they are about in-game audio and not soundtrack releases; I'll have a think about that. Meanwhile, you might be interested in The Music of Grand Theft Auto IV, which is an album made up of tracks from the game. Cheers, Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That one I've now tagged. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Automated archiving

Where do we stand on using MiszaBot to archive threads that have been inactive for, say, 45 days? Or maybe even 30 days? And, if we like the idea, do we think that this is the way to do it: {{User:MiszaBot/config |algo = old(30d) |archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive %(counter)d |counter = 25 |maxarchivesize = 250K }} (I've read User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo; it looks like that should do it to me.) If nobody dislikes the idea, I'd gladly implement it. :) This page gets a tad bit long sometimes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! --IllaZilla (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty please. Fantailfan (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)