Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Archives
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17

Category:Uncategorised albums

Starting to get filled with articles that have been there since June. 172.135.96.6 01:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I worked on some of these - artist, year and genre anyway - but most of these are barely stubs. I can't even tell what some of them are. Categorization is the least of our worries, but they are more likely to get fixed if they show up in some categories. Hopefully someone with more knowledge/time can help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sampm (talk • contribs).

Personnel

Isn't it rather redundant to force a list of personnel at the end of an album article when all of the personnel is mentioned in the prose of the article? Teemu08 02:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is redundant information (as is the data in most infoboxes) but it is included for quick reference. Papa November 1 10:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really redundant, I believe. It's a matter of summarising information that may not be as accessible as in list format. --linca^linca 12:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Chronology conflicts

What are we to do when an album is by two or more musicians and we are chronologically ordering both musicians' albums? Thank you. (Mind meal 11:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

Do you mean like this?--Fisherjs 11:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example? You can use the {{Extra chronology 2}} template to provide the second artist's chronology in the infobox. See documentation for details. - Papa November 1 12:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jazz albums by artist

There is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9#Category:Jazz_albums_by_artist. I believe that all Category:Albums by artist should be broken down into genre+albums+by artist, as Category:Jazz albums by artist has done. Nobody ever browses Category:Albums by artist. If they want to find someone, they will just search for their article and look for a discography there. Please see Category:Jazz albums to get a feel for what potential this wields. Far from impeding navigation, I believe this accelerates it in a much more useful manner. Otherwise, people have to just randomly click on an album title in say, Category:Jazz albums, not knowing anything about it. Albums need major work in terms of categorization, and I think that this is a good first step. (Mind meal 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

Album article names vs WP:UCN

I'm involved in a discussion at Talk:Pussy Cats (The Walkmen album), where the argument was made that album articles should use the most common name, citing WP:UCN, even if this is not what is (considered to be) the actual album name. In my experience this is not something that is usually adhered to for album articles. Instead we almost always use the actual album name as the name of the article (with disambiguation as necessary). I note that our guideline at WP:ALBUM#Naming doesn't say anything about this. Should we be taking WP:UCN into account for album articles names, or should we disregard it (as we currently do)? Either way, I think we should clarify this at WP:ALBUM#Naming. (There is also a question about what the official album name is in this case, but that is a separate issue.) --PEJL 17:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The article name for an album article should be the name of the album, but needs to be able to reflect both necessary disambiguation and differences of opinion about when the album title starts and stops. While I haven't seen the disc, if the cover image for Pussy Cats is accurate, then I personally wouldn't include "starring The Walkmen" as part of the title. -Acjelen 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The position of the editor I was discussing with was that the official title included the band name (because that's what the website referred to it as) but that the article should not be at what he considered to be the official title (because of WP:UCN). The second point is what I was asking about above. To the first point I responded as follows, which might be worth repeating here:

I said "if you consider" intentionally, because what is the official title of an album isn't as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Most albums contain both the artist name and the album name in some combination on for example the front cover. The album never explicitly says which is which ("This is the official title of the album: ..."), we just assume that the artist name is not included in the album name in most cases, because it is written in a way that makes this likely (on a separate line, for example). Other cases are less obvious. There are lots of examples of "Artist Album", "Artist: Album", "Artist's Album" and "Album by Artist" and the like that are in a grey area. I contend that "Album starring Artist" is also in that grey area.

--PEJL 20:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've always held that Macy Gray's first album is Macy Gray On How Life Is, not just On How Life Is. -Acjelen 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Love and Theft" was just moved to Love and Theft, even though the former is considered the actual album name. I think we need a guideline that says to use the actual album name as the article title, for example with a new sentence at the beginning of WP:ALBUM#Naming:

The article name should be the title of the album, disambiguated if necessary.

I think we can choose to interpret WP:UCN as not forbidding such a guideline. Anyone opposed? --PEJL 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say avoid initial quotation marks for reasons specified in Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

To maintain the functionality of Alphabetical Indexing and avoid needless redirect pages, page names should not begin with non alpha-numeric (A-Z,0-9) characters used solely for emphasis.

So, Love and Theft, not "Love and Theft". Anyway, most users would probably enter the name non-quoted.

I think album article names should favor the "actual album name", but modified as needed to defer to Wikipedia naming conventions. So if Pussy Cats Starring The Walkmen really is (ignoring quotation marks) the official title, I think that would be the right article title.

Since I'm unfamiliar with this band, I have no opinion on what the official title would be. In the absense of other deciding factors, the band consistently referring to the album by the long name on their website would probably make the long name common enough. / edg ☺ ★ 14:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As for quotation marks on "Love and Theft", note that the problem with indexing order can be fixed by piping categories, as is currently done for titles beginning with articles such as "The". (The naming conventions guideline similarily says that articles should not begin with "The" (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Avoid the definite article ("the" and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name), but makes an explicit exception for titles. No exception for titles is made for quotation marks, but that might just be because it is relatively rare for titles to begin with quotation marks.) I also don't think the quotations are used "solely for emphasis" in this case, as the title actually includes the quotation marks. That said, WP:UCN does suggest that the title should not include quotes, but makes no mention of the relevance of that guideline for titles. Another aspect to consider is the article itself, which (currently) uses quotes to refer to the title (in the intro and in the infobox for example). Having the article name not include them just seems inconsistent. My position on the other title mentioned is similar: Pussy Cats or Pussy Cats Starring "The Walkmen" are reasonable title alternatives, but one of them should be used consistently. --PEJL 14:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Heroes" is another example of such a title. --PEJL 15:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is quite the same, but in all english speaking countries, the Billy Joel live album Концерт was released under that title, however for some reason that i can't quite discern, we have the article listed as Kontsert, despite not being an accurate reiteration/translation of the title (it may as well be "Concert" considering it's the accurate translation). I think it should either be "Concert" or Концерт but not "Kontsert" as that's not quite the phoenetic translation (I don't know how to construct IPA, but the description on the page isn't right). --linca^linca 01:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a change to album categorization

Hello fellow WP:Album members. Recently I found what I feel is a gap in our current method of categorization. Wikipedia, as per it's own definition, can be used either by search or browse. These are two legitimate methods. I ask everyone to put their bias at the door, and listen to this proposal with an open mind. I am going to number my points, so to make them more readable. My proposal is that we begin subcategorizing Category:Albums by artist into Genre Albums by artist.

1. As Category:Albums by artist currently functions, there is absolutely no way for users to find artist albums by genre. Users have no way to browse jazz albums, or hip hop albums, or any genre you can imagine, by artist. Instead, they are left with the odd option of clicking on a random album title. They know nothing of who made it. There is no context. Only that the album mysteriously falls into this certain category.
2. It has been suggested previously that something like Category:Jay-Z albums simply be placed in Category:Hip hop albums. My proposition is that this practice is incorrect. Category:Rap albums doesn't say anything about artists, so we need a Category:Rap albums by artist to function as part of the Category:Rap albums to organize these people. In most categories, when albums by artist are placed in a genre+albums category, the list goes on for page after page; it distracts users from the actual albums below the artists.
3. This encourages browsing, and allows people to find musicians they typically would never find. This is the purpose of an encyclopedia, to educate people and help them access information as efficiently as possible.
4. Category:Albums by artist is, quite simply, far too large. We categorize musicians by genre, why not those musician's albums by genre? Users do not browse the category Category:Albums by artist. I highly doubt anyone has EVER searched for ANY artist in that category. It doesn't really serve a purpose, aside from a potential mother category for subcategories. But for some strange reason we subcategorize them by everything BUT by artist. WHY?
5. Music lovers enjoy certain genres more than others, and it would be optimal to give them that option without forcing them to randomly click on album titles in guess mode, trying to find something. I have more to say on this, but I've made my case. (Mind meal 18:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

How is your proposal that much different than current practice. The category Category:Thrash metal albums is already divided into subcategories by musician/group. While some of the articles in the category need to be placed in an artist subcat, I don't see that as reason enough to change the structure. -Acjelen 19:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• It isn't. In that case all that would change is a Category:Thrash metal albums by artist would be created to house all of those artist albums; of course it would reside at Category:Thrash metal albums. These albums would still of course go into Category:Albums by artist also. Essentially it just leads to better organization. Technically those albums by artist do not belong there, as supposedly Category:Albums by artist is "all inclusive". So if someone wanted to move all of those artist album categories from a given album by genre page to the albums by artist category only, they would currently be justified in doing so. Not to mention that on some categories those albums by artist go on for many pages. This just serves to better organize things and condense the categories for easier browsing. It seems to me that Category:Thrash metal albums is for just that, thrash metal albums. If we want to have a category for thrash metal albums by artist, then it is logical we create a category for that. You see what I'm saying? Apparently this is controversial though, as you can see at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9#Category:Jazz_albums_by_artist. (Mind meal 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

Aren't you just renaming an existing category, but not changing it otherwise? I suppose if you wan't to do something like what we did for Category:Paul McCartney classical albums across the entire encyclopedia for all album articles, that would be different, but I don't see you suggesting that. -Acjelen 19:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I did do that in some instances but it is actually very laborous. See Category:Ornette Coleman free jazz albums as an example. This was criticized as being overcategorization. This proposal does not threaten anything at all, it just is an easier way of categorizing certain musicians who perform predominantly in certain genres. The way this would work is that when someone strays from the genre, then that album be categorized as you demonstrated with Category:Paul McCartney classical albums. The "genre+albums+by artist" would serve as an artists predominant field. And no, I am not proposing a rename. All I am proposing is that if we are going to include say Category:Miles Davis albums at Category:Jazz albums, why not create a subcategory at Jazz albums for Category:Jazz albums by artist? Incidentally, users can now view jazz albums by artist in one click, and not have to go to the second page to see the rest. It seems we do that sort of organization with everything else on here, ie. Category:Jazz albums by record label and Category:Jazz albums by nationality; the latter being more redundant that by artist could ever be. (Mind meal 19:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

You are suggesting that Silver (Starflyer 59 album) would be in Cat:Starflyer 59 albums, a subcat of Shoegazing albums by artists, a subcat of Shoegazing albums, a subcat of Alternative rock albums, a subcat of Rock albums? But what would be the purpose of putting an additional layer of category between Category:Starflyer 59 albums and Category:Shoegazing albums? What else besides musician/group subcats would go in Category:Shoegazing albums? -Acjelen 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Because by definition they are shoegazing albums by artist. Please see Category:Rock albums. For a user to access all rock albums by artist, they must click next 200 three times. We place Category:Hip hop record labels in their own category, and do not dump them at Category:Hip hop albums. The same can be said for Category:Classical music record labels, and on and on. I don't understand the resistance, as it just does what other such subcategories do also....they organize things. This is not an additional layer, but merely a correct form of categorization. Why not just toss jazz record labels at Jazz albums, or jazz albums by nationality at jazz albums, and do away with "by record label" and "by nationality"? We don't because we keep things organized.(Mind meal 20:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

But the number of artist subcats won't decrease in number by putting them in their own category, there will still be hundreds. Making sure that albums aren't just in a genre category will reduce the number, but we already have instructions for that. And I'm not sure what you are talk about when you reference "by record label" or "by nationality"? Is there a Category:Jazz albums by nationality? -Acjelen 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• But it WILL condense the actual Category:Rock albums. Right now it serves two purposes, it houses albums and then albums by artist. I am only saying they belong in a by artist category.(Mind meal 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
  • But nearly all albums are by some artist. If you read the directions on this project, it should be very very few albums that are listed in, for example, Category:Rock albums by themselves and not in the subcat the for the musician. As an example, Addictive Poetry needs to be in the subcat Category:Badapple albums, Afili Yalnızlık in Category:Emre Aydın albums, and After Dark (album) in Category:The Make-Up albums. -Acjelen 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Perhaps if you had suggested to this project the creation of the "by record label" and the "by nationality" you might have avoided all this trouble. Shoegazing albums by record label might be considered overcategorization. -Acjelen

• I wasn't suggesting that for shoegazing albums, for that is overcategorization. Apparently I am being unclear here. Shoegazing albums ultimately trace their roots to rock albums, right? Record labels and nationality are typically for the "mother genres". I wasn't suggesting any such thing concerning shoegazing albums. However, many of the head genres by album do house genre albums by record label and nationality. It is certainly not without precedent. Many record labels produce only one form of music. I don't know of any that produce only shoegazing albums. Could be wrong. All i am fighting for is by artist, for albums BY artist. I feel like I'm running around in circles here. Does anyone comprehend what I am proposing? I give up, everything that could be said has been said.(Mind meal 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

I find this quite difficult to follow, mainly because I'm not that familiar with the category structure. Would it be possible to summarize your proposal using a schematic chart? For example:

Albums by artist:

ARTIST albums:

ALBUM

Albums by genre:

GENRE albums:

ARTIST albums:

ALBUM

Perhaps such an overview could be useful at WP:ALBUM#Categories as well. --PEJL 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is how it currently works to my understanding:

Category:Albums by artist - This is where all albums "by artist" go, ie. Category:Wayne Shorter albums, Category:Master P albums, et cetera. Irregardless of genre.

Category:Jazz albums - This category is merely an example. It could be any genre followed by "albums". These categories currently house albums that have been categorized as "jazz albums". These categories also currently house Category:John Coltrane albums, as an example. It also can house other categories like Category:Jazz albums by record label for labels that specialize in that genre only, and also Category:Jazz albums by nationality (which I find redundant, actually).

Proposal Categories such as Category:Jazz albums by artist would also appear on the corresponding head category, in this case Category:Jazz albums and always Category:Albums by artist as well. My argument is that Category:John Coltrane albums does not belong in Category:Jazz albums as it is currently structured. This can be said for any category. By definition such albums are by artist, and either belong in Category:Albums by artist or (example) a more specific category like Category:Jazz albums by artist. This effectively separates "jazz albums" from "jazz albums by artist" in the mother category Category:Jazz albums, and creates easier navigation. See Category:Rock albums to see the disorder. There are albums by artist randomly tossed there. There are mere album titles tossed in the mix, also. There are rock albums by record label there in some instances. There are rock albums by nationality interspersed throughout. All I am proposing is that we organize them as has been done at Category:Jazz albums, ie. the subcats containing "genre+albums+by artist", "genre+albums+by genre" (for subgenres), "genre+albums+by record label", and "genre+albums+by nationality". This condenses all of the random subcategories displayed in categories like Category:Rock albums and is less intimidating for the reader. It is simply good housekeeping. (Mind meal 01:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Yes, a chart of some kind would help.

Also, in any case, this looks to be a massive, and quite elaborate, undertaking. If only partially implemented, it would leave a mess (or at least I see that as an undesirable situation). Do you have ideas as to how it would be implemented across the entire range of artists and albums? –Unint 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• It really would not be that difficult, provided a few people start using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser to do such work. I was able to effectively organize all albums like Category:Miles Davis albums under Category:Jazz albums by artist in about 30 minutes. I also provided a {{catmore2|}} template in each listing with a DEFAULTSORT, providing readers a link to the artist's article as well as alphabetically organizing them. It isn't very tough, because these albums by artist already are housed under categories like Category:Hip hop albums or Category:Pop albums; all this entails is a simple matter of recategorizing these artist albums in the "genre+albums+by artist" scheme I am proposing. It will make for less clutter. Ask yourself this simple question: Is Category:Jazz albums currently more user friendly than a category like Category:Rock albums, or not? When you navigate to them both, which has taken the time to properly organize albums in specific ways?(Mind meal 01:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Well I would agree that Category:Jazz albums is currently more user friendly than Category:Rock albums, but that has mostly to do with the fact that there are simply more rock albums that there are jazz albums (on WP anyway). Actually, if my understanding of the current categorization system is correct and if it were done correctly, I don't believe we would have the problem that you are trying to resolve. As I see it, Category:Jazz albums is similar to the proposed change whereas Category:Rock albums is the current way. If thats true then Category:Jazz albums should only have four items in it:

• Jazz albums by artist
• Jazz albums by genre
• Jazz albums by record label
• Jazz albums by nationality
• (and possibly) List of Jazz albums
  

The logic is that there are no Jazz albums that don't fit into one or more of those subcats or subcat belonging in one of those such as Charlie Parker albums or Axiom Records albums. Making Rock albums, for example, subdivide would straighten things up slightly. Mostly due to the fact that genre subcats and artist subcats would no longer reside together. This would decrease the log by 21 items. In either case none of the pages you see listed in this cat belong here. Most are housed here b/c no proper subcat exists, such as Category:Babacar albums. This, in my understanding is miscategorization. Soooo, correctly categorizing Rock albums would decrease the long by 111 items without the proposed change.
Thus, I am of the opinion that both correctly categorizing and the proposal would help (this would make Category:Rock albums have only four/five items and the each subcategory would have only part of what is in this category now) and if, as you say, "It really would not be that difficult" then I don't see why not - as long as both things are done. I also may be misunderstanding one or both ways so correct me if I am. (Sampm 02:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

• "In either case none of the pages you see listed in this cat belong here. Most are housed here b/c no proper subcat exists, such as Category:Babacar albums."

That there is one of the obstacles I am facing. The only logical place to put jazz albums by record label, by nationality, by genre, and by artist is on the jazz albums page. My vision is seeing something like I did with Category:Bebop musicians. Every single musician can be snugged into a subgenre, often multiple ones. Every album belong in specific subgenres. As we both know, the term "rock" is rather generic. It only serves to loosely define a starting point "medium" in which an artist or group performs in. Nobody actually plays simple "rock". What I have been doing is using All Music Guide as a reference on categorizing musicians, albums, et cetera. This has proven much more accurate than any other method I've tried. When a subgenre does not exist as a category here, I'll begin it when I encounter an artist that falls into it. You said that "Well I would agree that Category:Jazz albums is currently more user friendly than Category:Rock albums, but that has mostly to do with the fact that there are simply more rock albums that there are jazz albums (on WP anyway)." I think that in addition to that point, one can see that the entire top half of subcategories would be condensed into 4 simple subcategories. (Mind meal 04:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Past discussions have suggested duplicating All Music Guide genres and subgenres here, but it was suggested that we should not adhere so strictly to such a resource. Some of their categorization is also hotly contested. –Unint 13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• I emptied Category:Jazz albums by artist just now, as it was clear people at categories for discussion "weren't having that". Apparently it was useful but...did not fit into the mind of obsessive compulsives. Something like that. (Mind meal 10:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Unofficial cover art

An editor recently added unofficial fan-made cover art to Destroyer (Ryan Adams album). Before I remove it, could someone please confirm that this isn't something that should be kept? Adam McMaster 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It should definitely not be kept in a way that implies it is not unofficial, such as it currently does. It should probably not be included otherwise either, unless it is notable by itself. (Note to self: Handle cover at From the Sounds Inside per outcome of this topic.) --PEJL 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course the entire matter could be handled by removing the article itself. -Acjelen 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright for photograph used in the cover? That seems like one question that could be used to resolve this. (Meanwhile, The Black Room is another article that would be affected.) –Unint 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there may be copyright issues with such images, and it may be that such articles aren't notable enough to exist in some cases. But that doesn't answer the general question of whether unofficial covers should ever be included. Unless anyone can come up with an example of when such an image would be notable enough to be included, let's just decide to only use official cover art. I propose we add the following sentence at the beginning of the section WP:ALBUM#Album cover:

An image of the official front cover of the original version of the album should be included at Cover.

Besides saying that only official artwork should be used, this also says that the image should be of the front cover (obviously), and that it should be of the original version of the album. Some album articles don't currently adhere to the last point, and instead have the cover of a (possibly more extensive) re-release at the top of the infobox, with the original cover in an "Alternate cover" section. I feel that having the original cover at the top of the infobox is more appropriate, for consistency with the guidelines for "Released" and "Label", which say that these should refer to the information about the original version of the album. Any objections to adding this? --PEJL 16:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

When the original cover can be located, certainly. Sometimes the only image out there is of a reissue though. I agree fan art should never be included. (Mind meal 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Sure, it may be that finding the original cover art is difficult in some cases. We should still encourage editors to attempt to do so, shouldn't we? I intentionally left undefined what would happen if the original cover art could not be found (both for albums with reissue cover art and for albums without it), to keep the text simple. Are you saying the proposed wording needs altering? --PEJL 18:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think something should be said along the lines of "When the original album cover is unable to be located, then the cover of a recent reissue of the said album may be acceptable as an alternative. This is especially true for reissues that share a strong resemblence to the original. When using a reissue cover, please note that in the article body." (Mind meal 18:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

I guess we could say something along those lines. I see no reason to limit this to recent reissues (as opposed to all reissues) or only covers with a strong resemblance. Mentioning which cover the image refers to is probably more appropriate in the image caption than the the article body, for consistency with "Alternate cover" sections, and would be just as useful for all covers from albums which have multiple covers (regardless of whether the topmost cover is the original cover or a reissue cover, and regardless of whether only one cover is shown in the infobox or not). So how about:

An image of the official front cover of the original version of the album (or a reissue, if no original cover can be found) should be included at Cover.

and a new sentence about image captions:

If the album has been issued with different front covers, which version the image refers to should be noted at Caption.

In my experience the latter is rarely done, but I guess we could start recommending it. Any objections to this? --PEJL 22:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's rare (never done it myself to be honest) but I think it's a reasonable recommendation - no objections from me. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So, Adam, did you get an answer to your question? The infobox is only for official covers. If there is unofficial artwork that widespread enough to be included in the article, it should noted as such, but still not be in the infobox. -Freekee 03:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that clears it up. Thanks. Adam McMaster 16:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Albums by artist

Proposal - Break down this category by genres, ie. Category:Rock albums by artist.

Vote options:

Support indicates you support this proposal.

Oppose indicates you do not support this proposal.

It is my belief that this category is absurdly large. I wonder why other categories this large become broken down, but this one remains so humongous? I would like to begin taking votes on whether we should begin breaking down albums by artist into specific genres (not subgenres). This currently is not permitted for some reason. Artists could still be placed in Category:Albums by artist, depending on consensus. I will go first with my own vote:

• Support so that artist albums do not hog entire categories devoted to say, Category:Rock albums. Instead, condense them into a dropdown category that is visible at Category:Rock albums. If an artist strays from a genre, please see Category:Paul McCartney classical albums on how to circumvent this conflict. (Mind meal 09:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
• Oppose. This is one obsessive-compulsive against such a change. I don't want a judgment call mandated on albums by artist, which is a great umbrella category. If an album category fits into jazz, the category can go into Category:Jazz albums.--Mike Selinker 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment But Mike, isn't that making the exact same judgment call you oppose? (Mind meal 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC))
    • There's a difference between "can" and "must" here. If Albums by artist is subdivided, everyone must have a genre. But if an artist clearly belongs in one genre category, they can go in that category.--Mike Selinker 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose A directory category is useful, since some artists routinely cross genres, and some genre's aren't obvious ... i.e. death metal vs. doom metal vs black metal. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that saying "some genre's aren't obvious ... i.e. death metal vs. doom metal vs black metal" is in itself a judgment call. The fact is those subgenres exist, and for a reason. For an encyclopedia, we sure seem to keep aiming for mediocrity when it comes to albums. And Mike, most artists perform in various subgenres, and sometimes various genres. I think subgenres should be included in our categorization hierarchy...absolutely. Have some faith in editors, everyone seems to assume that categorizing musicians correctly is not something Wikipedia can accomplish. I guess we'll never know if we are never to try. (Mind meal 16:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Quick question about recent edit summary

Wondering if anyone can field this... Is this edit summary valid. "Live albums are listed by the year they were recorded, only studio albums are listed by the year they were released"??? Seems odd... I would have expected that by clicking "next album" I would get the next album recorded by the artist... Not a live performance recorded in one decade and released 4 decades later? Just hoping someone here could direct me to where that guideline is... thanks. 156.34.142.110 16:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Albums should be listed by the year of release, per WP:ALBUM#Chronology. --PEJL 21:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought as much. The user who made the edit, Rock Soldier, also edits as an IP and under another "Alterego" username. He is a very hard working editor who has contributed a lot. But tends to make up his own rules as he goes along and doesn't seem to have a hard grasp on many of Wiki's music related project guidelines. Perhaps someone could have a chat with him and give him some links back here to show exactly what rules should be adhered to. Have a nice day. 156.34.142.110 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

Proposal to include artist names in all album titles

*I continously am trying to find a way for album categories to more easily be navigated, and think I've found a simple solution. I propose we MOVE any album that is title only, and make them look like this:Second Genesis (Wayne Shorter album). This way when people browse albums by genre, they will know who made the album prior to clicking on it. Incidentally, Second genesis is named that way because it shares the name of a book also. I believe if this becomes common practice, albums by genre will be user friendly. (Mind meal 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
WP:ALBUMS#Categories poses this editor with an impossible quandary. Take the example given of Category:Slayer albums being categorized under Category:Thrash metal albums. This guideline assumes by implication that all Slayer albums are considered thrash metal, which in the case of this band is accurate. However, what if Slayer were to perform a hip hop album? Would we then place Category:Slayer albums under Category:Hip hop albums, also? And if so, isn't that misleading users into believing that all Slayer albums are hip hop albums? Can we still categorize all of their albums under thrash metal anymore, either? My answer is no, but perhaps others feel miscategorization and ambiguitiy is what one should expect from an encyclopedia.

I have been told that the solution to this is creating Category:Slayer hip hop albums in such an instance. In the case of an artist that does not yet have an albums category, this suggestion is too complex for the average user. It isn't even easy for an artist who does have an albums category. Just to correctly categorize one album with this method requires four to five steps of categorization, and this is assuming a Category:Slayer albums exists to begin with. Most users do not know this, for it defies common sense, but WP:ALBUMS#Categories does not allow an individual album to be categorized by genre. It permits only artist album categories. Again, this implies that all albums by an artist fall into just one genre. It also makes it next to impossible for editors to create subgenre categories.

If we moved all album titles to include artist names, ie. Second Genesis (Wayne Shorter album), this would allow editors to circumvent the endless steps of categorization currently forced upon us in order to even TRY to accurately categorize albums by genre. To see the problem this style of categorization presents an editor with, please see New Thing at Newport. This album falls into 3 subgenres and is led by two artists, so it required 6 new categories to be made. This seems crazy to me, and was crazy to implement. This must be done over and over for every new artist, if subgenres are to be included. Furthermore, Category:Slayer albums is a poor example. It selectively uses the example of an artist that performs in just one genre. I believe the introduction did not use an artist who performs in multiple genres precisely because they knew such a categorization scheme could not work. I propose the project go back to the drawing board and find a reasonable solution to this problem. (Mind meal 02:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

You do realize that everything you are proposing will require either recatigorizing or MOVING thousands of articles, right? -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 15:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• • The current categorization scheme may not be perfect but I think that massive pre-emptive disambiguation is a bad idea. Jogers (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Mind meal, the current scheme for categorization as spelled out on this project page is for album articles to be categorized by musician/musical group and by year, but not by genre. Category:Hard bop albums should have few or no album articles. That way a browser will know who recorded an album as the album will be in that musician's or musical group's category. For example, Brazilia (album) should be in Category:John Coltrane albums (or Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums), not by itself in Category:Hard bop albums. This system works for the majority of albums. I admit that it has draw backs for musicians who record albums in a variety of genres and for over-analyzed genres, like jazz. -Acjelen 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • • No one might play jazz, but plenty of people hear it, know what it is without having to ask, and categorize it as "jazz", just as people do for "country" or "classical". If an album contains songs of more than two subgenres of jazz, then the album is jazz broadly. -Acjelen 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a point of whether you as a jazz fan knows the difference between bebop and hardbop, etc. A normal person who hears a "jazz" song is going to look for "jazz". Country is the same way. Classical is the same way. Why dont' you want to make it romance era, classical, baroque, etc? Because there's no need. Looking at the encyclopedia articles, i cannot tell the difference between hard bop and bebop. ANd I can tel lyou the difference between screamo, hardcore, post hardcore, and death metal even though most peopel cant' tell the difference either. If it's easier to fingure out the difference between those 4 then jazz, why bother? Most people won't, and don't. I see no problem. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm worry, I don't really know what to say to it then. Are you proposing this for all albums or just jazz? Idoupt anybody will agree to pre-emptively disambiguating thousand of articles for no reason. If you're only trying to do this for Jazz, I guess I don't see why not. I still don't see a problem, but if you insist there is, then go for it. I won't lie, I have 1 Kenny G album on iTunes, I know nothing about Jazz. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of musical subgenres (which are not the original topic of this section IMHO), I would also consider it very useful if album articles would use a naming scheme of "Album Title (Artist album)". That way you have the artist information easily at first sight when finding an album article in a category. BNutzer 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And moving articles could indeed happen over time in my view - by editors who consider it useful ... BNutzer 21:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I know I'd start the second there is a green light. (Mind meal 21:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Article naming and categorization are separate issues and should stay that way. If there is no naming conflict the article should have the most straightforward title as per WP:Disambiguation. I'm afraid that I'm unable to provide any alternative to resolve the problem, though. Jogers (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(Hopefully I won't get the edit conflict this time) For example it would make album articles harder to search for unless a redirect was created for each page and harder to link from other articles. It would be better to find a solution independent of article naming. Jogers (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do this. The move being proposed is contrary to much Wikipedia precedent regarding disambiguation — the article title is simply not a good place for categorical information.

It is exceptionalism to presume jazz albums present a unique problem which can only be fixed by presumptive disambiguation — this is certainly not the case. Many different (and conflicting) naming schemes can be proposed to satisfy various specialized "database query" interests. Problems this poses:

• Only one scheme can be applied per any set of articles, so only one interest can be addressed.
• It complicates article naming.

It is also contrary to official policy:

• Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles.
• Naming conventions: Album titles and band names

Please turn back. A less disruptive solution is needed to address the abovementioned categorization concerns.

Good places to inquire about categorization display functionality would include Wikipedia talk:Categorization and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. / edgarde 00:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Using categories such as Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums (Artist+Style+"albums") is a more sensible (and much less disruptive) approach to the problem you want to fix. Eventually, some artist categories would contain only subcategories. / edgarde 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Nobody said you are crazy. Please stay cool and assume good faith. Jogers (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • I think your last point hit on the crux of the whole problem. It is as I have said before - the problem is not (necessarily) that the categorization is messed up, but that the current categorization is misused. If we create new cats then logically (and unfortunately) they will be misued as well. If the time we are spending discussing here we instead spent re-cat-ing those miscat-ed albums much of the prob would be solved. (Sampm 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

• WP:ALBUMS opener:

"WikiProject Albums is an organization of Wikipedians dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of all kinds of musical albums. We seek ways of simplifying album pages so users can get the basic information fast, creating high-quality new pages, ensuring a standardized format and make articles as informative as possible." That is rich. (Mind meal 16:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

• I have made a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz to broaden the scope of this discussion. (Mind meal 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

At the moment I'm thinking a discographical list (whether part of an article, or a stand-alone list) is a better and easier way to both maintain and find this kind of information. Additionally, a list can include albums that don't have articles, something a category can't do. As far as jazz goes, there are many, many, many more jazz records than there are Wikipedia articles about jazz records. I suspect this holds true on other musical genres. My $0.02. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with this proposal. We're not supposed to pre-emptively disambiguate albums unless there's duplication in the album title (Supernatural for instance). Another reason is that we're supposed to make things easier on non-wikpedians to navigate and this would mean that many pages would be harder to find meaning it's a less useful resource. Less useful = less used. --linca^linca 02:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful for posters to offer up solutions to this problem when they state this is not adequete, otherwise the problem only goes unaddressed. Also, the idea that people will not find albums anymore if implemented is a false one. Please search "The Avant-garde". The first search item to come up is The Avant-Garde (album), which is a disambiguation. The only alternative to this that I see is finding a way to make an artist name appear along with the album title in categories through coding. (Mind meal 02:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Note that removing your own comments after others have responded to them and repeatedly editing your own comments is considered inappropriate. See WP:TALK#Own comments. One of the reasons I haven't gotten involved in this discussion is because I find it difficult to respond to a moving target. --PEJL 14:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'm finished with this issue. It has been brought to the project's attention. If they choose to take no action, so be it. Everything is inappropriate on here. (Mind meal 17:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Heads up - Crowded House

Hey guys, just set up a new WikiProject. Check it out if you're interested.

Hi! I've seen you editing Crowded House related articles, and would like to invite you to join WikiProject Crowded House, an effort by Wikipedians to improve the band's coverage on the encyclopedia. Please consider signing up here.

--linca^linca 07:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't use the non-free logo outside the article namespace as per criterion 9 of non-free content policy. Jogers (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Although that's true, they're just guidelines and it does fall under fair use, legally speaking, as centrally, there's no free analogue present that would adequetly substitute the image. I'm working on one, but it's not ready yet. --linca^linca 10:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know in case you didn't know. There are certain editors who adhere to the policy very strictly and they have merciless bots :-) Jogers (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of "leaked dates"

I was wondering about the actual relevance of leaked dates, that is the information about an album (or any other media) being leaked onto the internet. I have removed information like this because I personally don't think it has anything useful in it, other than informating people that they can download the copy illegaly instead of buying it. But, it has happened that people keep adding the information back in (both IP's and by regular users), so what is right and what is wrong? Need an answer I can refer to in future edits. As an example, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Apostasy&oldid=144506363 (Third piece: "The entire album was leaked on May 31, 2007."). Grinder0-0 09:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus, it's just maths. Album release date = x. x - 9 days = leak date. Basic stuff. (yes, I'm being cynical, but realistic). --linca^linca 10:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? The unmixed version of The Apostasy was leaked a month ago, and it often occurs albums being leaked 3-4 weeks or more before the scheduled release date, so what you want with your "rule" (which is a bit of totally changing the subject here), I don't know. Please leave this and continue with an answer to my original reply, thank you. Grinder0-0 11:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We've actually had this discussion before. Three times. Here, here, and here. I think general consensus was not to include them. Maybe it's time to add something to that effect to the guidelines. --Fritz S. (Talk) 10:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and I agree, there should be guidelines about this. Grinder0-0 11:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe to alleviate this, it should simply be addressed in Music download indicating that early leaks are a very common occurence, rather than have it indicated on every page that it has happened with. If it's a truly divisible issue where some albums have it and some don't, we could categorise? ...On second thought, no. No categorising for that.

Disputed album covers

Would anybody be interested in helping to clear the list of disputed album covers? (created from intersection of Category:All disputed non-free images and Category:Album covers) Most of these images just need the fair use rationale. It's may be a bit late but we could still save some of these images from inevitable deletion. I suggest we make this task our current collaboration because anything else can be done later but this list will start to turn red soon... Jogers (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of these images are quite large. Does anybody familiar with discussions related to fair-use know what is the consensus on the term "low resolution"? Jogers (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Since in general the only allowed use for a fair-use album cover image would be in the infobox in the album article, the safe move would be to make it exactly the 200px the infobox uses and no more. --J Clear 17:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just spotted an archived discussion here about 300x300.... --J Clear 18:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

200px is a clear-cut. According to this note everything up to 300px should generally be acceptable too. Jogers (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggested explanations might be advisable for anything over 300x300 back here -- and promptly got dragged over the coals for it. So today at WT:FAIR#Low resolution I emphasised the possibilities for flexibility -- only to get it in the neck again, for not being prescriptive (or should that be proscriptive?!) enough. I think I should keep quiet now!  :-) Jheald 18:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I have been working on the J's, using Template:album cover fur -- mostly for images used in Infoboxes. (The template produces a more specific rationale for that case). Images just used in discographies I have (sadly) been leaving to meet their fate. I have got about 45 more J's to look at, then I might do some book covers for a bit. Jheald 13:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The {{Album cover fur}} template looks great. I'm going to use it from now on. Jogers (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you also produce a union list for images in subcats of Category:Images with no fair use rationale? Sadly, it seems we're too late to save anything tagged before 27 June. Jheald 14:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Just give me few minutes. I didn't notice this category. Jogers (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC

I wish I have thought of these lists before. Jogers (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Here it is. I created the separate page because the List6 was already quite large. Jogers (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

real album cover

the one that is currently on the lead sails paper anchor page is incorrect. the real cover has a picture of a boat sinking in a black sea with part of a skeleton in the water with a red sky. i dont know how to upload it to this page but if any1 does the picture is at www.atreyurock.com

Star rating template broken

We need to do something about {{Rating}}, which seems to render bogus results. See first, fourth and fifth example, which are all have half a star too high. --PEJL 01:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Crazy. I know esoteric and complex functions, but don't know how to debug these kinds of things, because the scripts appear to be written correctly. --linca^linca 05:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This just started happening a few days ago. I noticed it too, and wasn't sure if I was entering information wrong at first. I never noticed this before just recently. Do we know who created this template? (Mind meal 16:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Y Fixed it. --PEJL 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Track listing numbering

I recently created Timeless: Live in Concert on which the tracks are further subdivided on each disc. I can't figure a way for the numbering to carry over through the subdivisions so that they are correct. Could someone help me on this. Thanks in advance. (Sampm 10:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

You can use #<li value=X>

3. like this

but I should point out that using sub-headings for such purposes is quite non-standard. See also WP:ALBUM#Track listing. --PEJL 10:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I agree that this action is non-standard, but it is also non-standard for the record company (I have seen no others that are that way, though I'm sure they exist) so that I am of the opinion the article would benefit from showing this published division. It seems to me that the other option would be to describe it in the text, which would be less clear than the current way - don't you think? I am in hopes that this article is close to B and could soon be pushed even higher so any further edits or suggestions for edits would also be appreciated. (Sampm 11:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Yes, it might be acceptable in this case. I made some formatting adjustments per WP:MOSHEAD, WP:MOSDATE, WP:ALBUM#Details, WP:ALBUM#Track listing and WP:ALBUM#Personnel --PEJL 12:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Artist+genre+album

After all the discussions above on how one can accomplish categorizing albums correctly by subgenre, now User:Mike Selinker has taken it upon himself to make this route impossible, ie. Category:John Coltrane free jazz albums; see his proposal for merger into Category:Jazz albums at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_17#Jazz_albums. Now even THAT cannot be ageed upon. What gives? (Mind meal 16:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

The root problem here appears to be that Mind meal insists that Each album page is then placed into two categories, "Category:<Artist name> albums" and "Category:<year> albums", which are then placed as sub-categories into the respective top-level category.

means both

1. Every album should appear in an artist category and a year category
2. and that no album should appear directly in any other category of that level.

I see no sign in the previous discussion that any one else believes that the present text means #2; and if we do want to so rule, we should do not as explicitly as possible, since this is not the way categories usually work.

The other road to go is to permit albums to go in genre cats, subcats of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Albums by genre exactly as they go into year and artist cats.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I insisted it? WHAT? That is the guideline! My goodness. Screw this project! Everyone above understands that albums are categorized by artist and year, and that placing them directly into a genre is not allowed. I didn't make this crap up. And even if we did categorize albums directly by genre, that istelf poses a problem. then they are just random albums without any context. Just the album title, no artist info or anything. (Mind meal 19:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
  • If it is consensus, the project page should say it, beyond any reasonable doubt. It doesn't.
  • The nature of categories is to classify things without context. Classification with context requires a list.
  • Guidelines can be changed. If it's crap, stop fighting for it, and make the argument to change it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My proposed text follows. I intended to cover the difficulties involved in:

• Not all albums have a consensus genre (in which case, no genre cat should be added.
• Many artists write only in one genre (the artist cat can then be a subcat of the genre cat)
• Some albums fall into several genres (include in all the genre cats)

Category:Slayer albums is a sub-category of Category:Thrash metal albums because all their albums belong to that genre. If an artist's work is divided between different genres, each album should be in the appropriate subcategories of Category:Albums by genre. Like all categories, genre categories must be supported in the article; and since genre is a matter of opinion, there should be consensus among the sources before placing the album in a genre category. (If an album contains songs belonging to different genres, it should be categorised in all of the genres. This is what categories are for.)

Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do you even understand music? ALL albums fall into genres, ALL. Please, leave jazz up to people who know jazz. All Music Guide has long been established as an acceptable source, and that has been my reference. If users think All Music Guide is unreliable and not a reliable reference, they should say so. Every single albums known to man fits into a genre. Every one of them. But I'm again talking to people who don't get it. YOU just do not get this problem, as many others do not. Don't take that as an insult, you just don't understand all of this. So why pretend? (Mind meal 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
  • WP:CIVIL, please. If it turns out that no album has a disputable genre, so much the better. But the arguments on the subject, here and elsewhere, do not leave me as optimistic as Mind meal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, maybe you could try that out also per our side conversations. I don't care what you feel about me, isn't that obvious to you? I have been working on a fix for this problem for weeks now, with no result. Why don't YOU try to understand why someone like me would be angry with someone like you? (Mind meal 19:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
  • Perhaps if you were more civil, you would have gotten further. Is it time for a wikibreak? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And, for a substantive question, can a source which only began in 1991 be regarded as long-established as anything? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• 16 years isn't long-established to you? It is for me. Yahoo, MSN, ArtistDirect all use their information. It is an industry standard. Do you know of a better source? Time for a wikibreak? You will enjoy no such luck in that department my friend. For weeks now I've been trying to find a way to do all of this. I created 42 jazz subgenres for albums, all about to be destroyed. Not because albums don't fall into those genres, but because everyone says they "might not fall into those subgenres"; or that somehow categorizing albums correctly is overcategorization (lmao). If you can find such a miscategorized album, then you are on to something. Have you found such a miscategorization, or are you another who assumes users are stupid and can't categorize things right? (Mind meal 19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
  • 16 years, long-established, for jazz? Certainly not. It's been four times that long since the Golden Age. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• You don't even know jack about jazz, so why are you lecturing me about the accuracy? Amazon.com, Yahoo, AOL, Itunes...they all use All Music Guide for their information. Like I said, it is a STANDARD. We seem to be entering into an "oppositional disorder" stage, where anything I say you must disagree with. (Mind meal 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

I, for one, have found AMG's categorization to be less-than-useful, at times (e.g. not placing Mingus in hard bop - are other sources wrong because they do?). In this editor's opinion, it would lead to innacuracy and over-categorization, were we to rely on (or model ourselves after) AMG. If Amazon, Yahoo, etc. choose to rely on AMG then that's disappointing. Coming back to the topic at hand, having seen no policy nor guideline (at least not a clear one), I believe we should place album articles in "Albums by genre" categories. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)