Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Review sites: About.com, The Music Fix and Metal Temple

About.com

I got redirected here looking for the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites, wanting to propose About.com as a professional review site. Where can I do that? Dan56 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You can do that here, conveniently. —Akrabbim^talk 02:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Music Fix

Would it be possible to add The Music Fix (http://www.themusicfix.co.uk) as a professional review site? We're highly respected with links within the industry and mentions in the mainstream media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.18.255 (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that such request from a staff member ("We're...") is a conflict of interest which is highly discouraged here on Wikipedia. I would feel much more comfortable if this request came from someone not affiliated with the site. – IbLeo^(talk) 05:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

IbLeo, 94.8.18 is already following correct procedure as indicated in WP:COI. Instead of adding the links themselves, they are encouraged to bring content suggestions to discussion pages, like this. 94.8.18, could you please elaborate on the nature of your website, so we can better evaluate it in light of the Wikipedia policies of WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RS? —Akrabbim^talk 14:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." So IP 94.8.18.255 acted correctly. Mea culpa, IP 94.8.18.255 please accept my excuses. – IbLeo^(talk) 16:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Metal Temple

Hello. I propose to add Metal Temple as a professional review site. It is one of the oldest online magazines on the heavy metal scene with thousands of reviews and live reports and well respected in the metal community. It is a non-profit magazine, run by professional DJs and volunteers. Jimmys Cybertroll (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. 10 years of publication both in print & online, with its own staff of critics. Should pass criteria for reliability. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not familiar with this site but at a first glance it looks OK to me. However, it would be great if you could prove it's notablity by providing a list of reliable sources that have referred to it, as it has been the case in the past when we have added other sites to the list. See e.g. this thread in the archive. Good luck :-) – IbLeo^(talk) 16:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone actually quotes online magazines (and in heavy metal music I doubt if anyone quotes anything but Metal Hammer unfortunately). Metal Temple has been referenced many times in Blabbermouth.net [1] [2] [3] and other online news sites for metal like Metal Underground [4] and SMN News [5].Jimmys Cybertroll (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You might have a point here. Indeed the heavy metal world seems to have its own universe apart from the "mainstream" press. Your justification is good enough for me. If in two days no-one has raised their voice against it, I think we can go ahead and add Metal Temple to the list. – IbLeo^(talk) 05:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree to add. J04n(talk page) 10:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article about Metal Template was recently deleted. I would be tempted to think that this means that the website is actually not notable and should be removed from the list. However, I don't want to rush to any conclusions. Opinions? – IbLeo^(talk) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Review maximum in template

Is there a maximum for review ratings in the new template? It is not stated, but shows a blank template for 12 ratings. Dan56 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. 12 is all there is. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, why is it twelve? Was there a discussion somewhere that lead from the original ten in the infobox to twelve for the template? — ξ^xplicit 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the review template performing a different function than reviews in the infobox did? In which case should the limit be higher than 12? Cavie78 (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When I made it up, 12 was completely arbitrary. I knew we needed more than 8, which is what {{VG reviews}} has, but I wasn't familiar with the 10 rule. —Akrabbim^talk 15:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of the '10 rule' being applied to the new template. J04n(talk page) 16:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what why there was a limit on the infobox (appearance? "float" problems?) but they may not be applicable to the template. Even 10 is rather large; it may just be that a limit is necessary because of the parameter names system, and both 10 and 12 were picked as a large number unlikely to be reached. The limit of 12 has obviously been hit. What would be the consequence of making the limit 99? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should keep the numbers right down. 8, 10, 12 sound excessive to me. Too cluttered, too much info to take in at a glance. Better to identify a handful of key reviews than keep piling in more and more just because they exist. Make it say 5 max. PL290 (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ten review max was fine enough b4. And it seems like a fair, rounded limit; I dont see how it can be too cluttered or informative w/ten ratings in the template. Dan56 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should at this point keep in mind that we are currently in the middle of migrating the reviews from the infobox to the new template. Despite the past 10-reviews-in-the-infobox-limit I have seen numerable articles with more than 10 (but rarely more than 12). So if we now start cutting the limit down to 10 or 5 we will as a consequence lose content when the bot resumes the migration work. Consequently I would be of the opinion to leave the limit as-is (i.e. 12) and take this discussion when the migration has been completed. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not just allow the bot to move the reviews from the infobox to the critical reception section as it has and allow editors to apply the ten review limit? To have the limit being raised out of the blue and then have a discussion to bring it back down doesn't seem logical to me. — ξ^xplicit 01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and also find it a little sneaky if the limit was raised without an initial discussion. I propose as a compromise to re-insert the 10 review limit into the project guidelines until consensus decides to change it, but leave the physical limit in the template as-is (12) to allow the bot to perform the move seamlessly. – IbLeo^(talk) 05:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, I have no objections. — ξ^xplicit 05:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I have restored the original max 10 reviews limit into the project guidelines (this edit). I suggest that if someone wants to challenge it, that s(he) waits until after the review migration has finished and open a new thread. PS If someone wonders about my personal opinion, I would rather go down Knight's lane. I don't see why we need a limit anymore. But let's leave it aside :-) – IbLeo^(talk) 06:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we don't need a limit anymore and can let articles be worked out individually based on consensus/common sense, but 10 will do for now until we get the migrations finished. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely for not having a limit, however we have to consider, people abuse things like this when they are not restricted. I have no doubt that we will regularly see empty reception sections with 20 or 30 reviews in the template. kiac. (talk-contrib) 03:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia way" is to deal with cases like that as they happen, instead of trying to impose restrictions to prevent something that isn't going to do great damage if/when it does occur. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Incomplete infobox" project subpage - redundant?

The last phrase in WP:ALBUM#Album_articles says: "If the page has an incomplete infobox, note the missing details at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Incomplete infobox." That subpage however was only updated 9 times in 2009. With 91.000+ articles in the project scope and hundreds of new ones being added each week, it looks to me like this is a remain from the past that is totally unmanageable today. I propose to delete the subpage and the phrase referred above. – IbLeo^(talk) 23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I say go for it. Looks unused, unmanageable, and not really a useful tool. Fleshing out infobox details should be part of the regular article improvement process anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed the above mentioned phrase from the project page. If I hear no protests before next Sunday I will request a speedy deletion of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Incomplete infobox subpage. – IbLeo^(talk) 05:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, none of the WP:CSD applies to Wikiprojects; instead I had to launch a WP:MFD to request the deletion of this the subpage. You are invited to leave your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Incomplete infobox. – IbLeo^(talk) 05:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Further input from project members over at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Incomplete infobox would be appreciated. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The deletion discussion is now over and it was decided to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Incomplete infobox and tag it as historical. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Another review site for consideration

Would like to hear the community's opinion on Blabbermouth as a site for acceptable album reviews. Thanks J04n(talk page) 21:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Any comments on this? The site is independent of Roadrunner Records and the reviews are written by the site's writers not fans. J04n(talk page) 00:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a perfectly good source. Just have to be careful to spot articles that are largely based on press releases.--Michig (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Nu jazz albums?

After editing One-Armed Bandit (album) and categorizing Category:Jaga Jazzist albums, I wonder if a Category:Nu jazz albums would be (considered) useful. BNutzer (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we officially discourage chart succession boxes?

Per this discussion, there are quite a few valid arguments for not using chart succession boxes, which appear off and on to connect albums that topped the charts. Among the problems: they give undue weight to the number one ranking (charting at number two or even number ten is nothing to sneeze at, either, and there's nothing to stop people from making succession boxes for any other chart number), they contain unsourced information regarding reigns at the top spot and which songs preceeded and succeeded them, and with mega-hits that topped numerous chart, they can result in an ungodly amount of page clutter. So can we outright say "avoid chart succession boxes" for this project? WesleyDodds (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I started the discussion that you reference. What I have done is adopt a compromise position, SEE Tik Tok (song). I have used the 'Order of precedence' template in its 'collapsible' version to reduce the page clutter, but retain the material for anyone truly interested. However if succession boxes are outright totally banned, I certainly will not protest.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose I can easily see this being useful information navigating from one article to another. It's a bit strong to say that I'm in favor of them (I don't think I've ever added this information to any page), but I really don't see the use in deleting them. What I am opposed to is the apparently spurious allegation that this has already been discussed before and some consensus reached on this matter. WesleyDodds has used this rationale before to delete succession boxes and has now resorted to deleting them with no rationale given. If these end up being deprecated by some actual consensus, then that's fine and well, but if it does not exist, then I find it bad faith to appeal to it in deleting passages that you don't like. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Charts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, and Template:Succession box and see no such consensus and the simple fact that he's asking for it here is a tacit admission that it doesn't exist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There's the discussion I linked to at the top of this post. The reason I bring it up here is because I'm hoping we can hash out something more formal, though, because that discussion was hard to find. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines Well, here's the question that I have then (and it may sound sarcastic, but if anything, I'm just dense): If there was a robust consensus reached there, then why isn't it a guideline at either a WikiProject or somewhere else in Wikipedia namespace or why isn't there a note at {{Succession box}} about this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'd like to know, so I brought it up here. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay So this consensus that you referred to earlier never existed then. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum For what it's worth, (virtually?) all of the succession boxes on Wikipedia contain some kind of unsourced information as do virtually all navigation boxes of any kind. For instance, {{U2}} claims that The Joshua Tree is a U2 album, but if I'm on Zooropa, do I need a citation to prove it? That seems a bit excessive to me. I see no reason why albums and singles should require any special citations for succession that do not apply to tennis champions or British Prime Ministers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You need citations for information likely to be challenged. There's no disputing that The Joshua Tree is a U2 album, but verifying the dates it was number one on a specific chart, and what unrelated songs came before and after it are different matters. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment (eventually leading to oppose) Regarding the difficulty in verifying chart info, I've often found that rather sad. Record charts aren't something obscure that only music fans know about; they are very much a "popular culture" recognition of a record's success in its day. Probably because Billboard, the best recognized chart souce in the USA, is also a publisher, they seem to want their chart info to be only available to people who buy their books. Therefore historical charts are not available online for free. This defeats the idea of charts advertising the historical importance of hit records. One would think the record industry, which benefits from chart history being quoted in newspaper articles and reviews, would take steps to create a situation where chart info is widely accessible and verifiable. It is similarly difficult to find reliable souces for record sales. RIAA and IFPI do not provide lists on their websites, and yet news stories often quote sales "according to" these sources. Despite these problems, I do think there is enough interest in chart performance to justify keeping the succession boxes, and I also think the "clutter" issue is overrated. Having any bit of info in a box, makes it easier to ignore it if you wish. I believe these boxes contain a link to an article about the chart itself (or its publisher), and this is where citations should be. If an article for a chart does not quote a source where historical chart data is being taken, a citation request can be raised, but the problem does not call for getting rid of all succession boxes for all charts. Finally, I certainly agree with Justin's concern. If there has been no consensus for removing these boxes, then nobody should be starting up a private project to remove them. It seems like this kind of thing happens a lot in Wikipedia's music projects. Many of us can recall how premature "clean-ups" resulted in large reverts, and as a result, we have seen how most sweeping proposals are discussed thoroughly before any work begins, so a big blow-up doesn't happen An example of it being done right, is the recent removal of reviews from the infobox, which was discussed in advance and implemented virtually without a hitch. Some editors have learned from mistakes from the past, and some haven't, apparently. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: Billboard's historical charts are archived for free via Google Books, which has all issues of the magazine up to the end of November 2008.[6] --JD554 (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

←Just wondering, would it not be better to add links to List of number-one albums from the 2010s (UK), or whichever ones are relvant, in the see also section? --JD554 (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the information is useful in that you can navigate easily from one #1 to another to see what replaced it and what it beat. Yes, other positions are notable - but none so notable as what was at the highest point of the chart. As for them being unsourced, the information must be sourced elsewhere in the article (probably more than once) as chart info is fairly easy to find. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is the number one chart position so important that navigation must be facilitated between other records that have held that slot, but not with other rankings? For example, Def Leppard's Pyromania and Pearl Jam's Ten had long reigns at number two on the Billboard 200. Also, sales charts aren't a contest (unless you're Blur or Oasis in 1995), so we shouldn't be treating nav boxes as connections between "one #1 to another" and "what replaced it and what it beat", because there's nothing to "beat". Another problem is that these albums are only related by the fact that they hit a certain spot on the chart, which is a tenuous connection. As for sourcing, we shouldn't have to deal with sourcing what records hit number one before and after the subject of the article, because that has nothing directly to do with the album being discussed, unless a secondary source talks about it. Personally I like seeing all the chart-topping records, but that's just because miscellany like that interests me. I can't think of a sound encylcopedic reason to create navigation between pages just because they exchanged rankigs on a list. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree: Tuzapicabit, we don't have to include the nav-boxes so people can find this information, since we have all these lists, it is not like we are losing any information if these things were removed. IMHO, that is a better way to display the information, instead of having to click through the nav-boxes. I don't see why they are visually that big a problem (collapsing is easy if people think they are too big, ugly, etc.), but there are definitely better ways to display it. The most good they accomplish at this point is that they link to the lists of number ones, but is there a cleaner way for Licensed to Ill, for example, to link to Number-one albums of 1987 (U.S.), instead of a navbox? As long as people would still find it relatively easy to get to those lists from one of the member albums, I am all for it. Maybe we could use categories, or plugs in the chart history sections, or in the see also section like JD554 mentioned, or pipe the phrase "number one from March 7 to April 24", or any other ideas to keep it easy for people to find this info. —Akrabbim^talk 14:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories are already being used in addition to the succession navboxes. Example Tik Tok (song) shows these Cats
Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles
Billboard Hot Dance Airplay number-one singles
Canadian Hot 100 number-one singles
European Hot 100 Singles number-one singles
Number-one debut singles
Number-one singles in Australia
Number-one singles in France
Number-one singles in New Zealand
—Iknow23 (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me there is a fair amount of redundancy here - we have list articles, categories and succession boxes - something needs to go. --JD554 (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we just worry about albums at this point, or should we include singles as well and bring WP:WikiProject Songs into the discussion? It would make more sense to me to do it all at once, but we do have slightly different infrastructures between the two (for example, there aren't categories set up for number one albums like there is for singles like Tik Tok). —Akrabbim^talk 13:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I used a 'singles' example. I personally never pay attention to succession navboxes or these kinds of Cats, and just presumed that albums had them too. —Iknow23 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for use of succession boxes for #1 albums/singles

Since it's hard to see consensus being reached on this matter, it would be nice to see some standards set to how these successions are put into articles. Let's look at an example using Black Eyed Peas The E.N.D. The succession boxes in the article are a mess and confusing. Here are some of the problems:

• There is no order to it. Charts aren't listed alphabetically by country not even chronological.
• Is there a need to show every "run" at #1? Beyond a re-release or other influence returning an album to the chart (see Michael Jackson), an album has one run. If it happens to drop and return to #1, its run is non-consecutive. There is no need to show every album that preceded and followed it after every time it returned to the top. What if album does that 5 times or 10 times? When determining the preceding and succeeding #1 albums, think of it as having each album and laying them down one by one next to each as they reach the top. If an album returns to #1, you're not going to put another copy of that album next because you already have it.
• There's no verification of the previous and succeeding #1's. Therefore, no succession box should exist unless it has both a wikipage for the chart AND a list of #1's for that chart (which would hopefully be properly sourced). The box then, in this case, works as a "See also" section for this additional info. For either a quick run through the succession directly by clicking on each album or a higher level of view of #1's on the specific chart.
• There's no verification of the dates at number one AND dating is not consistent. The wikilink to the chart list will show when it was #1. Also, take for an example an album that was #1 for two weeks, reaching on an issued dated March 6. Do you list only this first date ("March 6, 2010")? Maybe the first date and number of weeks ("March 6, 2010 (two weeks)")? Or the weeks at top ("March 6 – 13, 2010"). But that looks like it was #1 for 8 days. Well, we could always put the full date range ("March 6 – March 19, 2010"). Or would it be "February 28 – March 13, 2010, depending if the chart uses a "week ending" or "week of" date? Lose the dates in the succession box and the link to the list of #1's will show the Issue date(s) when it was at #1. The succession box within the article will then simply show what was the previous #1 and the next #1.

So, please take a look at the current configuation of succession boxes in the article for The E.N.D, and, based on the issues noted above, compare it to the modified succession boxes below. No dates, no multiple runs, no charts that don't have "list of number ones" pages. It's basic info that does what a succession box is supposed to do: tells you what was #1 before this album and what was #1 after. The curious reader can follow the links to find out more. Links to the same album/artist more than once should be acceptable here because a user may only following the succession of one chart and this makes navigation easier.

This proposal is only made as an alternative if consensus cannot be reached to discourage their use or remove them entirely. Some tweaking may be necessary and the Wikiproject groups for songs, charts, and even succession boxes should be involved for their input. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, looking at some of the more loaded examples, yes there may be a problem with them. I was going to suggest maybe do a limit on the charts used - not all these Airplay and R&B charts etc, but just mainstream charts. Perhaps also the foreign language charts could be taken out since they have their own wikis and heir own national chart succession box could be listed there. But this could be quite controversial and hard to control with people adding charts back in everywhere. Consistent dating has also proved to be a problem as I have found in the past. Maybe just a see also section could be added (Number one albums in the United Kingdom and so on).--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

AGREE with Tuzapicabit. I would dislike them less if there was a limit on them. Perhaps use the same criterion that is used for WP:MUSIC/CHARTS in that ONLY the charts that appear in the Peak table are 'eligible' for the Succession area as well? It seems like currently the succession area is being used as a 'loophole' to display material disallowed in the Chart peak table.
Also like the removal of the dates as in Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars example.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If the album/song reached number one in any country, it's going to be listed in the chart table (as long as it's not a bad chart). One way to limit the number of charts used in the succession box was to use only those that have List of #1s (not that those can't be eventually created if they don't exist). That's where the sourcing of succession and dates would be. I wouldn't mind a limit to only a country's main chart (no genre or component charts). Having some set standard and policy, if we're going to have to live with succession boxes for #1 albums/songs, will avoid controversy and people adding any back in. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Billboard charts discussion

There is a discussion taking place here that project members may wish to participate in, as it concerns the content of album articles. The basic issue is whether to include chart listings in album articles for Billboard's various "subcharts" (Alternative albums, Rock albums, Independent albums, etc.), or to exclude these and only include listings for the Billboard 200. This pertains to cases in which an album has charted on the Billboard 200 as well as one or more sub-charts, and seems to have the most relevance to albums which held a higher position on the sub-charts than they did on the 200 (for example This Addiction, Crash Love, and Nothing Personal). Interested project members are invited to add their opinions at the linked discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced album articles

Lately, several album articles on my watchlist have been flagged as unreferenced. I've created several articles about albums myself, usually with a copy of the album in hand and reproducing the information from the album cover, label, or CD booklet. How does one cite the album itself as a reference in the article about the album? Or would that be precluded as a primary source, and if so, what are acceptable sources for basic information one would normally get directly from an album, such as personnel, track listings, track times, songwriter credits, etc.? --mwalimu59 (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've used {{Cite album-notes}} for this in the past. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

However, according to a strict interpretation of WP:NALBUMS, one should never be satisfied with an article that only references the primary source. Even if it is understood that the article shouldn't be deleted because of the notability of the artist (because it is almost certain that there is something out there), we shouldn't settle for just knowing that there are probably RS's out there. I understand that this is an ideal, and that there will always be stubs, but the information should still be independently verifiable and the album's personal notability established. —Akrabbim^talk 16:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New album articles

Hi everyone.

I hate to sound whiny but over the past month the amount of unassessed album articles has increased over 6 000; I just want to know who is behind that? Zidane tribal (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean many existing untagged album articles are being tagged without assessing them, or does it mean that there are many new album articles being created? —Akrabbim^talk 02:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Both, I imagine. Only 33,043 in Category:Unassessed_Album_articles get busy!! 33,044, 33,045.. LOL. On a more serious note I will look at using a Xenobot to assess some once I've finished over at WP:SONGS. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

33,086 now. So albums got created at the rate of 43 in the last hour. If that is constant it's over 1,000 a day. 7,000 a week. It soon adds up! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The recent tagging is being done by User:Koavf see contributions Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

33,461 right now. When i started a year and a half ago, there were over 37,000, gotta speed up. Regards. Zidane tribal (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Xenobot Mk V to tag articles in project scope and/or auto-assess unassessed articles

A request has been made to tag & auto-assess articles in the scope of this project based on categories and/or auto-assess the project's unassessed articles.

To auto-assess, Xenobot Mk V (talk · contribs) looks for a {{stub}} template on the article, or inherits the class rating from other project banners (see here for further details).

Feel free to raise any questions or concerns regarding this process. The task will commence after 72 hours if there are no objections.

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

SunCreator, I think it's a great initiative! However, I would like to issue a warning about the auto-assessment part, especially the inheritance of class rating from other projects. Take as an example Reservoir Dogs. This article has been rated GA-class by WP:FILM. It is also part of WP:ALBUM (currently unassessed) because the film has a soundtrack that is mentioned in the article. However, if you rate the soundtrack section per our standards, it is hardly more than start class. In conclusion, I am personally not convinced that assessment is inheritable. What do people think? – IbLeo^(talk) 05:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Certifications, Invite to discussion

Certifications in some countries are for 'shipments' and in others are for ACTUAL Sales. I believe that some improvement/clarificaton is needed at List of music recording sales certifications. To this end I have posted in the Talk there.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Album articles by quality sub-categories

I would like to propose rename of the child categories of Category:Album articles by quality, Category:Album articles by importance, etc. from Albums to albums. For example, Category:Start-Class Album articles to Category:Start-Class album articles. If there's objection to putting them up for CFR, I will refrain. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Category:" is a prefix, "Album articles by importance" is the actual title, so the page name looks right to me. But I agree with changing "Start-Class Album articles", actually it should be "Start-class album articles" (2 case changes). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, all I meant were the sub-categories. While I agree with "Start-Class" to "Start-class", that change can have implications on the entire "class" structure on wikipedia (for example, Category:Start-Class board and table game articles). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The category names are built up by templates. In this case, {{WikiProject Albums}} provides the two words "Album articles" to {{WPBannerMeta}} via the |ASSESSMENT_CAT= parameter, which in turn passes it on to one of its sub-templates which adds on the other words together with the "Category:" prefix. Therefore, amending these specific words "Album articles" can be done, but amending "Start-Class" to "Start-class" will affect many pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point, there are hundreds of categories that need to change under this rationale and/or to stay consistent. We have "X-Class Topic articles" and "X-importance Topic articles" (note the capitalization), for nearly every WikiProject. This should be taken up at one of the village pumps or an RfC before starting a CfD discussion, because this would be a pretty intensive change. —Akrabbim^talk 02:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Certifications subpage - isn't it redundant by now?

It appears to me that our Certifications subpage is completely redundant with List of music recording sales certifications. What about tagging the subpage as historical, or even redirecting it to the latter? – IbLeo^(talk) 20:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AGREED. Redundant, but both state 'sales' when at least in some markets, like USA RIAA it is 'shipments'. More clarity is still required.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like parts of the opening paragraphs were intended as advice on how to add certification info to an article. These parts could be moved to the main project page, with a link to the current article that has the details. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I have updated the Certifications section on the project page and marked the subpage as historical. Knight, I am not quite sure about which parts of the opening paragraphs you think would be of any value to our members. As far as I can see, all the information is either available on Music recording sales certification or List of music recording sales certifications, which are both now linked. But feel free to improve. – IbLeo^(talk) 20:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo comparison opinions wanted

File:AllDayMusicWar.jpg

Please have a look at the "file history" thumbnails in the page linked above. I am trying to replace the original picture, taken from a CD reissue, with a photo of the original LP. One problem is the LP was printed with a background of metallic silver ink, and I predicted it may not photograph well. The CD reissue is printed with dark grey instead, which gives better contrast and colour. But I wanted to replace it with the LP cover because the layout is a little different (picture centered, and band name at very top), which is a more "honest" depiction of the cover.

Problem: I have two computers, and on one it looks fine, but on the other, it looks awful! As soon as I uploaded, I saw how it looked, and reverted to the CD cover, which is why there are four pictures in the history thumbnails. Then I tried fixing the picture and uploading again. On my first computer, the latest picture looks fine, and its colours and contrast match the cover when I look at it beside the monitor. On my other computer, the first attempt looks muddy, and the second has a strong green tint. I also see a halo in the top half, of bad colour resolution, which I don't see on computer #1.

How does it look to you? If the current picture looks bad to others, I'll give up and revert to the CD cover. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

To me, the latest version has a faint green tint but I wouldn't worry about that. I don't think you can get any closer to the original silver background. – IbLeo^(talk) 17:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep it then. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Album titles that are numbers or volumes

I've put a comment here > [7] about Black Sabbath's album Vol 4 which I (and others it seems) think this album should be titled just "Vol 4" not "Black Sabbath Vol 4". I found this Stone Temple Pilots album [8] which is named "No. 4 (album)" not "Stone Temple Pilots No. 4" or even "No. 4 (Stone Temple Pilots album)" so I was just seeking a bit of guidance on the whole area of numbered rather than named albums. I had a look round wiki for a bit of guidance but couldn't find any. Cheers. JSL595 (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not unusual to see a title like that written out in full on an LP label, i.e.

• Black Sabbath
• Black Sabbath Vol. 4

I don't own a copy of that particular album so I can't confirm how it's stated on the label. (Though it is on my list of albums I'd like buy sometime.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We have 1 (The Beatles album), 1 (Pole album) and others. So Vol. 4 (Black Sabbath album) would follow the pattern. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise Vol._4_(Lullacry_album) and Volume_4_(Joe_Jackson_album). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Another case for the longer title: "Volume..." is more common in book titles, and is an appendix to a title (A History of Cowbells in Rock and Roll, Volume 3), not a title in itself. So stating "Vol 4" as a title in itself seems strange. It is Vol. 4 of Black Sabbath's series of albums, not "Vol. 4" of nothing in particular. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Manfred Mann Chapter Three Volume Two. The sleeve pic shows "Manfred Mann Chapter Three" in one colour, and "Volume Two" in another, so the album title is probably "Volume Two". I don't have a vinyl copy, only a CD reissue, which gives the title three different ways! --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Knight, you're right that it does seem strange, but I would think that these days, most bands intend for the short title (Vol. 4) to be the full Title. There's a certain humor in that. I think the only way to know for sure is to ask them. Or find out how the label lists it. Also, see Volume One. -Freekee (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that, as much as we like logic and consistency, our job is to repeat knowledge that is already out there, not come up with our own ideas and standards. We shouldn't create a all-encompassing guideline because of things like Led Zeppelin III, which has a pretty strong consensus for its title, based primarily on common usage. If we can't figure it out from the cover art or record label catalogs or official discographies, the title of the Black Sabbath album here on Wikipedia should reflect the most common usage, with redirects and possibly a comment in the lead sentence or something clarifying other common names for it. —Akrabbim^talk 18:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The album's name is Black Sabbath Vol. 4, see RIAA and Billboard. J04n(talk page) 17:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The record itself would be a more official source. The band's own intentions would be the ultimate source. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the band doesn't qualify as a reliable source. As for the record itself, we can't tell. That's why we're discussing it. -Freekee (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Akrabbim: an across-the-board rule can't work here. The STP album is definitely No. 4 and the Led Zeppelin album is definitely Led Zeppelin III. The Black Sabbath album is ambiguous, so it should reflect whatever reliable sources agree on. If there's no agreement, list both titles. (In response to A Knight Who Says Ni: keep in mind all the weird cases, like Led Zeppelin IV or Sign o' the Times, where we defer to other sources, not the album itself.) —Gendralman (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the CD in my hand, along the side it says 'Black Sabbath/Black Sabbath Vol.4' and on the disc itself it says 'Black Sabbath' and under that says 'Black Sabbath Vol. 4'. J04n(talk page) 10:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You would really need to go back to the original vinyl release - later CD packaging isn't really relevant. The LP cover has 'Black Sabbath Vol 4' - whether this is the title of the record, or whether, like most releases, it's a combination of the band name and the title, is open to interpretation. The original label, however, has both 'Black Sabbath' and 'Black Sabbath Vol 4' [9], which suggests the correct title is indeed 'Black Sabbath Vol 4'.--Michig (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the CD I have and on the CD itself it says "Vol 4" (Castle Communications 1996 GAS 0000304ESM) but as this CD is such a poorly printed affair with incorrect lyrics in the wee booklet etc I wouldn't trust it 100%. The website www.black-sabbath.com refers to it as "Volume 4" [[10]] and as far as I know this website is the official one. SunCreator above mentions other similarly named albums which follow the "convention" I would expect to see... namely "Vol 4 (Black Sabbath album)". But wikipedia doesn't have a convention in this area it would seem. Sadly I gave my original vinyl copy to my brother years ago... who promptly lost all his vinyl (yes he is that useless) so I can't refer to it. Freekee says that the band themselves wouldn't be a reliable source which I find strange to say the least. JSL595 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've provided a link to the original vinyl label above. The sleeve just has 'Black Sabbath Vol 4' on the front.--Michig (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For something originally released on vinyl, when the CD version first appeared several years later, the CD is not a reliable source. I have several CDs where the title is at variance with the title on the label of the original vinyl. In the case of Black Sabbath Vol. 4, the original release was in 1972 so a CD liner cannot be used. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic.com changed their review links

So, how do we go about this? Taylor Karras (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I just went to 5 different articles, clicked on the allmusic links, and was taken right where I expected: to the review of the album. So it appears nothing has changed. What do you mean that they have "changed their review links"? --IllaZilla (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Xenobot Mk V request for Category:Jazz albums etc.

Hello, I am proposing/requesting that Xenobot Mk V would tag and auto-assess the articles in Category:Jazz albums and its subcategories. I have prepared a list (User:Gyrofrog/jazzcat albums‎) of these subcategories for the 'bot to use (rather than having it automatically go through all of them itself). I would like for it to add the {{Album}} template, in addition to {{Jazz-music-project}} (I have already brought up the latter at WP:JAZZ regarding the Category:Jazz articles in general). Thank you, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Misc/additional chronology

The extra chronologies seem a little too big, with the text size, like at the Blackout! 2 article. Is there a reason for this or had it not been addressed yet? Dan56 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is indeed a problem. I believe it is caused by the 28 March edit to {{Extra chronology}} by MSGJ. Not sure that I understand the rationale behind as he refers to a discussion about track listings in the Song infobox. – IbLeo^(talk) 06:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, IbLeo my good man, the change's edit summary has a wikilink to the discussion, in which we see the change was made because YOU agreed to it!!!!!! (And I agree with it as well; I don't see anything wrong with the current version, looking at the article in the link above.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Knight – my good man ;-) – in the referred discussion I agreed to a change to the "Track" parameter of {{Infobox song}} so it matches the font size in {{track listing}}. MSGJ implemented this change on the 16 March, as stated in his own closing edit of that discussion. Then on 28 March (so 12 days after) he did the edit I refer to above, pointing to the same discussion. Maybe there is a connection between the two, but for the moment I am missing out on it. And to my eyes (although through thick glasses and FireFox 3.6.2) the extra chronologies (i.e. the last 3) in Blackout! 2 definitely displays with a larger font than the first one. I don't mind if they are bigger or smaller, but at least they should be the same. – IbLeo^(talk) 17:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I dropped a word on MSGJ's talk page to get him to comment. He is probably the best man to clarify this. – IbLeo^(talk) 17:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I responded to a request on Template talk:Extra chronology, which was:

Please fix Similar to Template_talk:Infobox_song#Suggested_change, the font on this is unnecessarily small. Why are the title to the second chronology smaller than the main one (see the above transclusion)? Please standardize the size of these fonts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I assumed it was related to the other discussion. Let me know if this change needs to be reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Back in July last year, when the infobox font was standardized there was quite a stir about the size of the chronology sections and it took a while to get things sorted out: See Template_talk:Infobox_album/Archive_5#New_look. In conclusion, I think you should fall back this change as it has introduced a coherence issue. Furthermore, I really don't see much of a consensus for the change; I would think that it should be properly discussed at a more visible place than at the sub-template {{Extra chronology}} which I suspect very few people are watching. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

IbLeo, apologies for any misunderstanding. Right now I'm looking at the Blackout article on 2 different computers (running different versions of IE) and on one the font of chronology 1 is the same size as the other 3, and on the other it is a little smaller. It's possible that Martin/MSGJ is not able to see the difference, as I was not, before. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, no worries. In the mean time Martin has undone his change, so it is really worrying if you still see a difference in the font order on ANY of your computers (except if one of them cached an old version of the article). Cheers from your man. – IbLeo^(talk) 16:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

citation archive

How can I use the citation archive from webcite.org, like it was used on the 1st Born Second article (ciation [6]), to archive this url which is a monthly feature that is not archived by the website? Dan56 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose to mark more project subpages as historical

I found three more project subpages that looks more or less redundant to me. I suggest marking them as historical, unless someone thinks otherwise of it. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Articles – last update: 13 December 2006 – IbLeo^(talk) 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I tagged the subpage as {{Historic}}. – IbLeo^(talk) 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

audio samples

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/audio samples – last update: 29 December 2008 – IbLeo^(talk) 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I tagged the subpage as {{Historic}}. – IbLeo^(talk) 20:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured Albums Project

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Featured Albums Project – last update: 10 June 2007 – IbLeo^(talk) 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I marked the subpage as {{Inactive}} and removed references to it from the main project page. It can obviously be brought back to life at any time, should someone wish to do so. – IbLeo^(talk) 20:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Album articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 01:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Fan club releases

Category:Fan club releases, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A note for the crusaders of this WikiProject

Let me reiterate something for certain editors here who go on their crusades making pointless changes to album articles - this is a WikiProject, and whatever ideas it dreams up from week to week, are just that - ideas, guidelines. They aren't policies, and aren't mandatory. I thought I should point that out to some here who seem oblivious to this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, every day I see pointless changes to album articles, and don't know if it's worth kicking up a fuss. But I wonder why you are posting this here. You say "Let me reiterate", but I don't see any previous posts from you (without going into the archives), so I'm not sure where the "re" is in "reiterate". What articles are giving you problems, who is doing it (if naming names is necessary), and how is this related to the WikiProject? If someone is making changes to articles you have worked on, based on project guidelines, my first impulse is to say those changes may not be trivial after all, and may have validity. But I can't say for sure without knowing more. Don't treat the WikiProject as your opponent. Use it to gain allies if you're having struggles with others. But that means you have to discuss your concerns, and accept that your point of view may not be in the majority. (Don't take offense; without knowing what the problem is, my reply is all hypothetical.) Anyway, please, don't leave us in suspense. Tell us more! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: I'm going to presume your post was in response to this revert edit which you made. The infobox rules for the "released" field state that there should only be one release date: the earliest one. I don't know that this rule has ever changed. Also, flag icons are discouraged in infoboxes Wikipedia-wide, and always have been, as far as I know. I can certainly say that rules like this do not change "week to week". Nor do I see anything in the edit summary of the person who made the change, which you undid, that refers to this WikiProject. Nor can I find any conversation between yourself and the other editor on either of your talk pages, or on the article's talk page. Apologies if it's there somewhere and I missed it. But it looks like your edit summary is going "on the attack" and insulting the work of others for no reason. If you're asking for an opinion on the 2 versions of the article, aside from the standards issue, I think the flag icons, as used, are not informative. Not everyone recognizes flags of the world, nor understands that a flag icon beside a date means "released in this country on this date". Furthermore, the Europe flag just looks like a blue box. The other editor was making a good improvement to the aritcle by taking out the icons and replacing them with a "release history" table, where country names are spelled out. What objections do you have to the table, aside from it just not being your preferred method of presenting this information (which becomes an article ownership issue)? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles about songs are covered by WP:SONGS, surely? B.hotep (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hah, I missed that! A possible explanation: maybe the two editors did have a discussion somewhere, and the other editor pointed out that the album's infobox has a better description of what the release date should cover, and what to do about reissue dates. To quote Template:Infobox album: "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section". Which is exactly what the editor created, and what the poster above objected to. So I can add another admonishment to the editor: this isn't about "policies (that) aren't mandatory", it's about official instructions on how to use the fields. (Of course, since this is a rule in the album infobox's instructions, the editor is just using it as advice on what to do with a song with multiple release history, but in my opinion, it was a good call.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Article on Music recording sales certification

Someone recently added the article Music recording sales certification to the Albums Project, which I noticed because it is currently on the "Unassessed" list. I'm not sure if adding that article to the project is appropriate given its topic. And how would it be assessed, especially regarding Importance for the project? I would consider removing it from the project altogether, but see no need to be so bold because the article might have some use as background info for project work. Comments? DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I add the WikiProjects tags as recording sales certification is something that is relevant to albums. It's commonly link directly whenever a 'Certification' is used, so it's used on perhaps many thousands of album articles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify... it's information that is certainly relevant to albums, but the article in question is not about an album itself. That's my concern. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

See Album, Historical album, Remix album etc. They belong in WikiProject albums, almost all WikiProjects have some concept articles are part of there project, because they are so relevant and if WikiProject Albums don't include album articles who else is going to? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:The Essential

Category:The Essential, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)