Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Archives: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4

---

Seasonal dates

I often come across articles listing albums / EPs as released in summer 1999 or fall 2001 etc etc. Aside from the fact that 'fall' is a US-specific word (as far as I know), it strikes me as an awfully ambiguous way to describe a date, given that the seasons are reversed depending on which hemisphere one happens to live in. I've been correcting dates written like this whenever I see them (either finding the precise date or, failing that, deleting it leaving just the year). I was wondering if this issue could be mentioned on the main project page, in the hope of steering people away from this practice? --Qirex 04:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Manual of Style, which I'd suggest is primary reading on the creation Wikipedia articles, certainly both above and before this project page. Jkelly 04:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't find a mention of it on Manual of style nor MOS (dates and numbers); are you talking about some other sub-page? I read through both of those entirely to make sure I didn't miss it (although I didn't look there before posting my question, which I should have done). --Qirex 06:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I just checked myself. I am either mis-remembering or it has been removed. Jkelly 01:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

How about this then? A brief paragraph under the 'Style' heading of this project page, or under the 'Albums, bands, and songs' heading at Project Music (or both?):

"Do not describe uncertain dates by using the season name, eg "released in winter, 1995". This can be ambiguous as northern- and southern-hemisphere seasons occur at opposite times of the year. Instead, use the most accurate date possible, such as "February 1995" or "early 1995", if a more accurate date cannot be verified."

I don't really know how these things should be worded; I think it looks okay, but I encourage anyone to suggest changes or to write the paragraph for me :) --Qirex 04:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that no one has raised any objections/other suggestions, I'm going to go ahead and add the paragraph in. --Qirex 15:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

length of album?

A lot of times I have trouble finding the length of the song. I usually find each track length and then I add them up. Are there sites that have the album length so I don't have to use my poor math skills? :) I've found emusic has them, but their music collection is not very big. I got two more questions... where do you guys find the producer of the album? i have trouble finding it. also, should demos have infoboxes? Gflores 06:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the album length, if you have spreadsheet software (eg Excel), I'm pretty sure you could just enter all the track times into a column (write =TIME(HH:MM:SS) eg =TIME(0:3:28) - syntax may vary) then make a fomula at the bottom, something like =sum(a1:a12), and format all cells to show as time. Note that the only spreadsheet software I have is a copy of MS Works which is approx 11 years old, but the same or similar thing should work in other speadsheet software. This method is a bit time consuming, but accurate. --Qirex 07:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

All Music sometimes lists the length. They also usually have the producers. Other than that, it's usually in the booklet. --Fritz Saalfeld 10:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.freedb.org/ is very useful. Flowerparty■ 14:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

infobox2?

I noticed on some album pages there are covers of the next/previous album in the chronology. example: Blackacidevil. Is it recommended to start doing this from now on? What is the code for it?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/archive_4#Album_infobox_2 Jkelly 18:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly not "recommended," as there's no consensus for its use and significant opposition, particularly on "fair use" grounds. Monicasdude 19:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting... so why do some users continue to use them if there's such a debate around them?

Because there was a vote for deletion on the template and it failed. Therefore it's still free to use. I don't know about recommended, but it's fair game. Where it says "infobox" when editing an album box, just add "2" to it. I'd simply follow any of the hundreds of album articles that uses it to create you own if you wish. BGC 21:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not. Changing from albumbox 1 to albumbox 2 is against the project recommendations, and doing it repeatedly borders vandalism. Also according to albumbox 2 deletion vote, 16 users wanted keep it and 20 delete it. I excluded IPs and newly created accounts from count, as it is usually done in Wikipedia votes. This means that you have no grounds pushing albumbox 2 to articles. Hapsiainen 10:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where you get the idea that it "borders [on] vandalism". It adds value to the articles that are converted from infobox1 to infobox2 (at least when more is done than simply replacing "1" with "2", e.g. - actually taking the time to include album covers). -Locke Cole 10:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally like infobox 2 (but I don't think its deletion is the topic of debate). I am confused though by the conflicting statements as to whether it's okay to use it. It seems common sense to me that if it is against project recommendations, it should be deleted, and that since it's not (and already survived nomination relatively recently), it's okay to use. But where does it say that infobox 2 is against recommendations? There is a distinction to be made between an idea being recommended against and an idea not recommended (ie, just the absense of recommendation). The debate for deletion is here, incase anyone wants to read over it (I wish I could add my vote). --Qirex 11:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If the template contravenes Fair Use copyright law, then votes on wikipedia have no jurisdiction or validity over it whatsoever. It shouldn't be used. Some wiki users unfounded opinions make no difference. There's no more to be said.--feline1 11:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK Wikipedia is ran by consensus (with exceptions such as where Jimbo weighs in). Right now the consensus seem to think infobox2 is fine. If there were fair-use concerns, surely they should have been brought up when it was proposed for deletion. If they weren't (or were refuted or not convincing enough), then that leaves me with the impression that the consensus supports the template and that it should be used wherever it is practicle. -Locke Cole 11:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia might be run by consensus, but lawsuits against wikipedia would be run according to US Law (if that's where wikipedia is hosted). Believe it or not, US Law was not formulated by a few fanboys and computer nerds having "votes" with about 30 participants. The defence that "but Jimmy, age 17 and a half, High School student from Ohio, said Infobox2 was cool!" is not gonna stand up in court /rollseyes/--feline1 12:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Just like the argument that "Bobby" who has no stated qualifications whatsoever shouldn't be able to come along and arbitrarily say something isn't fair-use. *rolleyes* In the absence of an absolute authority on the subject, consensus is what we've got. I'm sorry you don't quite understand that... -Locke Cole 12:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with my understanding. It is you who can't seem to appreciate the difference between purely internal wikipedia affairs, and those where it has to interface with the outside legal world. This is the latter case, and what we would require is a consensus of external legal opinion, not a consensus of wiki users.--feline1 13:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate it just fine, but I also appreciate that so far nobodies presented a legal argument other than their opinion on the laws right now. In the absense of a legal authority, consensus is all we have. Or are you suggesting we simply avoid fair-use images altogether since clearly we can't get a legal opinion on every case? Why is just this usage of fair-use drawing your ire while all the other images floating around in articles don't seem to bother you? -Locke Cole 15:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You have the logic of the situation bass ackwards! We KNOW the law exists, we KNOW that copyright subsists in the images we are using - it is therefore, in the eyes of the law, beholden upon WIKIPEDIA to actively seek legal advice as to whether its actions fall within Fair Use! You cannot instead say 'well none of us could make up our minds, and we're none of us legally competant to make a decision in the first place either anyways, so we just thought we'd plough on ahead regardless'. 'Get Real', in fact.--feline1 16:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, maybe you don't understand fair-use, but it's often very subjective and each instance of fair-use needs to be handled differently. You can't just say "no fair-use images in a template" because there's simply no legal basis for that assertion (or if there is, it hasn't been asserted to me, and I'd happily read up on something if I was simply given some proof that this isn't just someone spouting off legalese to get things done their way). IMO the onus is on the people trying to stop the usage of this template to prove that it's usage violates fair-use. Otherwise Wikipedia will never get anything done if everything has to be scrutinized legally before being tried.. -Locke Cole 16:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There's consensus that albumbox 1 is appropriate to use on Wikipedia. The best that can be said about infobox 2 is that there's no consensus that it's appropriate to use, that in discussion more editors have opposed than supported its use, and that its use contravenes several broader guidelines supported by consensus. And Jimbo Wales has weighed in on the more general issue recently, calling on editors to avoid the unnecessary insertion of images claimed as "fair use." Monicasdude 13:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

albumbox 1 is irrelevant. And I disagree about your view on albumbox 2-- the fact that it faced a deletion attempt and survived tells me that the consensus is that it's OK for use as a replacement to albumbox 1. If it were in violation of the guidelines and rules I don't see how it could have survived. Just about the only thing we seem to agree on is that if Jimbo were to weigh in, his word would decide it. But for the moment, I don't believe it's unnecessary, the images are functionally useful as a navigation aid. But that's just my opinion: equal in status to yours and feline1's. -Locke Cole 13:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"If it were in violation of the guidelines and rules I don't see how it could have survived." - your premise here is entirely false. You are assuming that wikiusers never make mistakes (why would we ever need to edit anything then?!) and that all competant people always vote on every issue put forward (which, if could count the numbers of votes versus the numbers of wikiusers, is clearly nonsense).--feline1 13:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm assuming that the consensus system in place is working, and that a majority of wiki users believe album infobox2 is within Wikipedia's guidelines or else they wouldn't have accepted it. It is you who seem to be trying to buck the system here and impose your own opinion over the opinions of those who reached said consensus. -Locke Cole 15:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You have to get more than a majority of votes to be allowed to delete a template. For deleting an article the proportion is two-thirds, for becoming an admin the threshold is 75-80 %. I'm not sure what the threshold is for templates, but it can't be anything less. Like I already said, the majority wanted to delete the template, but there wasn't enough of them to have it deleted. The non-fair use rationale is now in the discussion archive 4, I think that the discussion was moved there too early. But here is a link to it. "Never copy more of a copyrighted work than is necessary to make your point understood. The more you borrow, the less likely it will be considered fair use." "Do not quote from a copyrighted work simply to "enliven" your text. Make certain you comment upon the material you borrow or can otherwise justify its use." "Being a non-profit educational institution does not let you off the hook. Even non-commercial users can be sued if the use exceeds the bounds of fair use."-Hapsiainen 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The majority? It was 19 votes to 19. Dead even. BGC 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Only if you count sockpuppets and votes which didn't comply with the voting guidelines on the TfD page. Monicasdude 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup. And they're valid. BGC 03:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have posted a lengthy summary of the situation and thoughts on how to move forward at Template talk:Album infobox 2. Jkelly 21:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

question

I just noticed this... The example infobox on this wikiproject page is different than the templated infobox shown. As you can see... it doesn't make a difference in terms of content, but the layout is different. Does it not matter? I think the layout should be consistent all throughout. What do you guys think? Gflores 21:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

{{Album infobox | <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
| Name = 
| Type = 
| Artist = 

{{Album infobox |
  Name        = Dirt |
  Type        = [[Album (music)|Album]] |
  Artist      = [[Alice in Chains]] |

If you feel inspired to move the example's line-breaks over to the left, I can't see any reason why you shouldn't do so. Jkelly 22:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I coincidently just noticed the same thing, and I changed it thinking it was no big deal, esp since I think it is easier to understand for those less familiar. I missed the fact that there was a question here about it; my watchlist just said 'question'. If anyone feels that it is better the other way, with the "|" at the end of each line, feel free to change it back. --Qirex 22:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ziggy example needs to be replaced

That example was added all the way back in 2002, and while it may have been suitable then, standards of quality have changed. (1) It suffers from excessive wikilinking, (2) it mostly reads like a list, (3) the language is flamboyant. I think it should be replaced or simply removed. Smile is the only featured article that is about an album, so we may be able to draw from it. —jiy (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Switching it to something else would be fine with me. Tuf-Kat 04:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. --Qirex 04:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

MoS-conflicts in example infobox

In another of those, "why didn't I notice that before?" moments, I realised that in the example infobox, there are links to October, as well as 1990 etc when not part of an entire date thing (ie, not as part of October 15, 1992). In the Manual of Style it states that these kinds of date links should not be used. Anyone mind if I remove the linking? --Qirex 04:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Longform videos

Should longform music videos, such as The Band's The Last Waltz or the Talking Heads' Stop Making Sense, be considered within the scope of WP:ALBUM? I ask because I made some edits recently to Live in Chicago (Jeff Buckley) and thought it would be really useful to have an album-info type infobox, but found that one didn't seem to exist. So, I put it to you: should longform music videos be included in the definition of "albums" and given their own infobox and category, or should they continue to exist in the nebulous unstandardized space between music and film? --keepsleep 05:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

another question

What's the recommended way of adding the time? Should it be xx min xx s or mm:ss? From what I've seen, most are using the former. Does it even matter? Gflores 04:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This wound up being discussed pretty thoroughly a while ago at Template talk:Album infobox. The consensus was to use mm:ss. Many templates have yet to be updated. Jkelly 04:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I see... Maybe this should be emphasized more somehow, b/c just looking at a few of the infoboxes recently created or converted, most are xx min xx s. If we're going to be updating all to mm:ss, then we probably shouldn't be creating them incorrectly, don't you agree? Gflores 04:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent creations should be following the instructions at the project page (or the template page, for that matter). You might want to direct anybody you have noticed creating new ones with the deprecated system to the conversation at Template talk:Album infobox Jkelly 04:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed change to Chronology section

Parts proposed to be removed are striked out, and the sentence proposed to be added is in green:

---

The chronology section should link to the previous album on the left and the next album on the right. (Only studio albums, usually excluding lives, compilations, singles and EPs.)

• For first albums the left box (the "Last album=" field) should be left blank, or with a " n/a " or with a " [ ".
• For latest albums, the right box (the "Next album=" field) should be left blank, or with a " . . . ".
• For final albums, the right box (the "Next album=" field) should be left blank, or with a " ] ".

As per Wikipedia's date style guidelines, do not link to years within the chronology section.

---

Rationale:

• It is not intuitively obvious that "[" and "]" indicate the final or first album. In fact, it might look as if the editor accidentally messed up their wikicode (as in forgetting the second bracket in a wikilink). Additionally, this convention doesn't have widespread usage, with a blank being preferred.
• "N/A" stands for either "not applicable" or "not available", neither of which I think is appropriate to indicate to "the band didn't have an album before this one". I think using a blank is a better convention.
• From the MoS, "simple years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there's a strong reason for doing so." There is no strong reason to link to years within the chronology section.

—jiy (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

All of this is what I've been doing anyway, for the same reasons, so I support this proposal. Oh, but one thing, why do you suggest the use of "..." for latest albums? --Qirex 01:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Qirex. It's a good change. Jkelly 02:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. However, I'm not sure that we should be excluding EPs and Live albums. What do others think? --Gflores 02:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, the ". . ." and "Only studio albums..." parts are on the page as it stands now. I only propose the specific changes which I have now marked in strikeout and green. I chose not to remove ". . ." because it didn't seem to harm anything, but personally I prefer a blank. —jiy (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Cheers for the clarification. I would also prefer a blank to "..." and if no-one objects, I suggest we remove it since we're making changes. --Qirex 04:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

To respond to Gflores' question, I think we should definately include EPs, and lives (although I feel less strongly about lives), probably not compilations. However, probably, the more simple the rule, the better. --Qirex 04:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with simplifying the chronology by including EPs, lives, etc, like Gflores suggested. I'd also like to see one or two examples of chronology templates that use blanks rather than any type of specific notation for first/last. I'm not particularly familiar with mere blanks being used that way, though frankly I'm more familiar with things like political officeholder timelines. Liontamer 18:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the wording of the sentence; the "do not" wording seems too strong for a set of guidelines. Remember the Wikiproject is a suggested guide, and the MOS itself states that "Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules." I've changed the wording a bit and substituted the term, "recommends" instead. --Madchester 04:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Mixtapes

For purposes of this encyclopedia, do mixtapes count as albums? For the uninitiated, mixtapes are unofficial underground releases, usually featuring hip hop music, R&B, reggae, etc, which are hand-made and distributed through the underground scene without the use of a major label (see http://www.hiphopspot.com/index.php for a mixtape retail site). Most mixtapes are used to promote material that is either available on actual studio releases or will be at some future date. I nominated Fuck Death Row, a Snoop Dogg mixtape and/or bootleg, on AfD becasue I only get two or three relevant Google hits. --FuriousFreddy 05:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• They might have a place on the article about the band/group but I don't think, as a general rule, they deserve a separate article. RedWolf 06:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• I don't think there is any black and white answer; as far as I know it comes down to notablility. For example, there is an article about The Beatles bootlegs, because the topic is notable, but the only bootlegs that have articles are those which were later officially released, and these pages are shared with the respective official release. Presumably, those that weren't officially released aren't considered notable enough. --Qirex 07:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Non-standard infoboxes

I noticed User:Noboyo has been changing some articles' album infoboxes to a non-standard type that has additional fields (executive producers, album certification, chart position) and also changed the infobox color to a color that matches the album cover. The articles in question are the following:

• PCD (album)
• Roc-A-Fella Presents: Teairra Mari
• Chapter 3 : The Flesh
• The First Lady
• Complicated (album)*
• Goodies (album)
• Moodring
• Raydiation
• Libra (2005 album)
• I Care 4 U
• It's About Time (album)
• Confessions (2004 album)
• Damita Jo
• Simply Deep
• Dangerously in Love
• Full Moon (album)
• Afrodisiac
• After The Storm

I think something similar was done to the Madonna albums a while back. Teklund 09:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• A lot of those albums hadn't had infoboxes to begin with, so I gave them all templated ones and left a message about WP:ALBUM on the user's talk page. --User:Keepsleeping 16:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Current collaborations

Is this WikiProject ever going to complete its collaboration on The Beatles Revolver? --Hollow Wilerding 14:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Dubious Professional Reviews

The regard the guidelines tell us we should all have for professional reviews does not take into account:

1. The appalling standard of album reviews often found in all leading organs of the music and national press. This has frequently happened because:

a) These organs allow hugely unqualified individuals to write them with little or no expertise, musical, literary or otherwise.

b) Many reviewers didn't like the artist they reviewed nor their work.

c) Some reviewers produced their views under the influence of hallucenagenic drugs.

2. As a consequence of "1." above, thousands of professional reviews since the origin of rock/pop music are of no use whatsoever to readers of Wikipedia and further, will actually be harmful; yet we as writers are supposed to use them.

I feel strongly that many Wik writers/editors will be better placed to write informed opinions and analyses of rock and pop artists and their albums than many of these "so-called" professionals and should be encouraged to avoid leaning heavily upon their work.

(though as a writer not currently working for the national press, 'I would say that, wouldn't I?' - however, this does not invalidate the points made above.

Thoss 00:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

While I may not disagree with the sentiment, please see Wikipedia:No original research, which is pretty much non-negotiable. Jkelly 01:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the O.R rule excludes this anyway, but one other issue to bear in mind is that when fans etc write reviews, it is invariably baised, and the album seems to always recieves either the lowest score available or the highest. Just look at the misleading and often ridiculous reviews at sites such as rateyourmusic.com --Qirex 02:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This is why we should try to link to many reviews from each album's article. People can read the reviews for themselves and decide what they accept and what they ignore. Rhobite 02:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Album stub template

The image in this template used to be a black vinyl looking thing, and a little while ago it was changed to a CD with a little musical note, and now it has been reverted back. There has been next-to-no discussion on this. If anyone is interested, please go to Template talk:Album-stub and add your thoughts. --Qirex 02:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

A perennial debate is afoot at the Village Pump (Policy and Technical versions) about whether or not to eliminate images from stub templates. From the perspective of this particular template, do you believe that the image associated with it is dispensible; in other words, do you believe that eliminating the image would negatively impact the message of or delivery of that message by the stub template? Thanks for your opionions. Courtland 13:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Tribute album background color?

I've noticed a few cases where the background color of a tribute album has been changed in various articles, presumably due to someone uniformed of the Albums project not liking the color. Personally, I don't like the admittedly effeminate purple color, which I believe is the reason I've seen people change it. If consensus is there, could we change it from plum to something a bit more decent (List of colors), for example lemon (#FDE910), saffron (#F4C430) or vermillion (#FF4D00)? Those seem to be different enough from the other album-type colors. Liontamer 18:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've looked again at the colors I suggested/tested, but they seem a bit too bright. Tan (#D2B48C) seems to work very well as a subdued color, doesn't closely look like any of the other color categories, and can be simply inputed as "tan" in the color area of the template (rather than hex code). Liontamer 19:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

EPs	salmon
Original studio albums	orange
Live albums and live EPs	darkturquoise
Greatest hits, box sets and other compilations	darkseagreen
Cover and tribute albums	tan
Soundtracks	gainsboro
Television theme songs	chocolate

Opinions? Liontamer 16:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind purple. I'm not sure about tan, as I think I'd prefer to use a more "colourful" colour. How about pear or lime or corn? What are other people's thoughts? --Qirex 03:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think corn might be nice, but I don't have any strong feelings about any of them, including the current purple. Perhaps the purple is problematic; it seems to be rendering as lavender for Liontamer... Jkelly 04:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of "fair use" image

I just removed the album cover in our example template set-up. I would really, really like it if someone knew of an album cover that is licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain, because I think that the "Nocover.gif" doesn't do justice to the template. Unfortunately, though, Wikipedia:Fair use policy disallows it. Any ideas? Jkelly 03:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have two possible ideas, but I don't know if either is any good. Someone could make a mock-up album cover with the name of a non-existant band. It wouldn't be hard, and I could do it if you want, but not for a few weeks until my good computer with photoshop etc returns from being borrowed. The other possibility is just using some image from wikimedia commons, but it probably won't look much like an album cover. Still, would be probably be better than nocover.gif. --Qirex 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I have a couple of friends who are in the business of making album covers, but none of the bands involved would pass WP:MUSIC. If someone would like to be bold and put in a Commons image temporarily, I'd encourage them in it. 04:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's an appropriately licensed mockup; even though it uses a real artist's name, I think it's so self-evidently a spoof that there'd be no problem (except with my sense of humor) [[1]] Of course, if you like it and want to use it, you'll have to change the text in the sample infobox . . . Monicasdude 04:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can recruit User:Fastfission to draw a mockup similiar to his fabulous Image:Fair use icon - Movie poster.png, Image:Fair use icon - Book.png, etc. —jiy (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

New template for soundtrack albums

I created a new template, Template:Album infobox soundtrack, and have outlined the whys and hows on the talk page, along with a question about how it should be. Please comment if you have a problem with it / don't like it / do like it / think it should be deleted / have suggestions / etc. --Qirex 12:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Chronology issues and others

What's the protocol for dealing with legitimately issued albums that don't sequence naturally, often because they show up from artists' original labels after their contracts have expired and they've signed elsewhere. Right now, for example, the Van Morrison chronology and discography omit the 1974 LP "TB Sheets," which included a significant amount of new material. The Grateful Dead discography and chronology miss "Vintage Dead," which was released in 1970 but predates the band's first studio album. There are lots of other examples out there. The chronology section doesn't address whether albums should be listed in release order or recording order; the practice seems to be release order. For artists in the pop/rock mainstream, there usually isn't much difference, but if/when the project turns some serious attention to major jazz musicians, there'll be a lot more variance.
And while I'm here, I'm noticing that there's not a lot of consistency in albumboxes as to whether albums initially issued on LP (but not CD) should be termed "albums" or "LPs". I would think the more format-specific tag would be a better choice; it's a bit more informational, and, as more historical articles are written about earlier musical releases, more specific format information will quite often be appropriate. Monicasdude 03:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree about the LP/Album issue. I think the generic "Album" term should be used instead of the specific format of the release. New albums are often released in different formats simulaneously — should we then clutter the infobox with something like "LP/CD/DVD-A"? Old Beatles albums may have been released as LPs originally, but does that mean we simply ignore their subsequent reissues on CD? The generic "Album" avoids any of these slight POV issues of favoring one format over another in the infobox. It is informative to note that an album was originally released on LP, but that can be done in the article body. —jiy (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm just way uneducated about that era of music, but I never really equated 'LP' with 'vinyl'; I just thought of 'LP' as 'long play', synoymous with 'album'. So, I guess it makes little difference to me which term is used, except for issues of consistency etc. With regards to the first point, I think that whatever system is logical for each artist should be used. Mostly, the release date should be used. But where it's appropriate, such as in the above examples presented, the recording date should be used. I don't see a great need for rigid, unworkable rules. --Qirex 10:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

List of notable albums

Think that all of the really important albums have already been covered? You might be surprised what is missing. I compiled a List of notable albums (critically acclaimed or top selling) as part of the Missing encyclopedic articles wikiproject. The goal is to create blue links for the each of the albums and the artists. Thanks!--Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Neat WikiProject there! Was hoping if the article can be alphabetically split for easier editing. --Andylkl ^(talk) 18:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice work. After a quick scan, a lot of the redlinks can be turned into redirects, as they are just alternate capitalization of articles that we do have. A number of others are Greatest Hits albums, about which there is often little to say, although those can also become redirects if it seems at all likely that someone will search on them. There may be "false positives" as well, since the article that an alum title on the list is linking to is not necessarily going to be an article about that album. Jkelly 18:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I will try to implement your suggestions to make it a little easier to work with, though any help you can provide pruning the list of valid blues (there is coverage of the album in wikipedia) would be great! You are right about the false positives too, 1999 goes to the year not the album. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I broke the list into 6 separate pages with about 500 per page. I hope that makes it easier. I would break it down further, but I prefer larger lists on a fewer amount of pages, though I will change if other people who decide to work on the list prefer it the other way. About greatest hits...I disagree about not having enough to say, much of the same information is still useful. Who compiled it, what years of compilation, new songs if any and reviews exist for most if not all compilations. There are many critically acclaimed and best selling compilations like Greatest Hits (Billy Joel albums), The Great Twenty-Eight and Legend (album) --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we be removing all the albums that are complete (after checking that the link actually points to the album and not something else)? I also fixed a few available albums which were red links b/c of some alternate spelling (the -> The). Gflores

Yes please remove them from the list. If you are interested you can also create a redirect for the redlink. While there are some bad reformats on my part, "Dave (Band) Matthews" that no one would type, someone out there thinks that the albums is named/spelled a particular way. But you don't have to do so if you aren't interested. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You may want to check the progress that this project has made. Most of the lists have been pruned and false positives identified. A great deal of the work has been done by Gflores, so props to him. While there is still work to be done much of the work has been categorized: article creation, need infoboxes or and be disambiguated. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Several inappropriate Coldplay article reverts

This is a copy of the message left on Madchester's Talk page by me, on account of (IMHO) improper reverts of my edits that only preserve outdated Album/Song project style guidelines and superfluous internal linking. While my language was strong, this is not meant as any type of smear or harrassment, but rather to bring to attention to instances where reverts to proper edits are being done to the detriment of the project. The opinions of anyone very familiar with the MoS guidelines on internal linking as well as the subtlely changing style guidelines of WP:Albums would be appreciated. - Liontamer 20:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I just saw you (Madchester) rollback all of the Manual of Style and WP:Album style fixes I did for Coldplay's singles, EPs and albums, thanks to the Song infobox template not being updated both properly and in conjuction with the edits to the Album infobox. It seems obvious to me that you selectively endorse the revisions to the Manual of Style or the WP:Albums style guide (e.g. bolding article titles in artists' chronologies), as your reverts (intentionally misrepresented in your edit summaries as "copyedits") to various article edits go against the current WikiProject Albums style and the MoS guidelines in terms of undoing En dashes, mm:ss album lengths, and proper track listing style, as well as propogating piping years to "XXXX in music", low added-value links to years and dates as well as duplicate Wikilinks in articles and templates for years, dates, bandnames, release titles, etc.. I'm being BOLD and editing the Song infobox template soon to be more like the Album infobox, as it should be. You should be reasonable enough to understand that the WP:Album standard is meant to be consistantly applied to WP:Songs, regardless of whether anyone has actually updated the Songs infobox template in due course. It's improper that you feel it necessary to revert completely legitimate edits (generally without properly stating the reasons for revert no less) because you feel territorial about various Coldplay articles, which is against guidelines when people are making edits that are both in good faith, and legitimate alongside the style guides. While I don't take it personally, don't intend on getting into an edit war and I'm sure you can rebutt for yourself, I will be stating these issues in the Songs & Albums projects Talk pages in order to clarify that your reverts are misguided and impeding these projects. Please adapt to currently-in-use style guidelines for WP:Albums like most other users have in order for these projects to continue moving forward. - Liontamer 19:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, please note that WP:ALBUMS, "is only a guide and you should feel free to personalize an article as you see fit." Likewise, the Manual of Style indicates that ""Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity."

The great thing about Wikipedia is that its guidelines give users the range and flexibility to improve articles as they see fit. If you look around at song articles like "Lyla" or "Paranoid Android" or album articles like Don't Believe the Truth, Think Tank, they're great examples of articles that use the existing guidelines as the base template, but expanding on it in ways that editors see to be useful.

Remember according to the MoS, "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." --Madchester 21:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that another great thing about Wikipedia is editing in collaboration. WikiProjects exist in part as guidelines for what consensus is without every editor having to weigh in on every individual article. WP:ALBUM represents what consensus is about some elements of articles about albums. The same applies to the WP:MOS. If a number of editors hold that some WP guideline is restricting the improvement of an article, that is a reasonable time to invoke "It's only a guideline". If, as it appears here, two editors are disagreeing over style, the person who is editing against the MoS and the relevant WikiProject is not boldly applying WP:IAR so much as they are individually editing against consensus. If you disagree with a guideline, argue for changing it and gain consensus, as people do all the time. Don't simply ignore it, as this predictably leads to disputes. Jkelly 21:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if WP:IAR should be referenced in this situation. The articles I pointed out ("Lyla", "Paranoid Android" , etc.) have never been edited on my part. That format style is being used by numerous editors other than myself. The editors of those articles used the existing project guidelines as the cake batter, but they then added their own "fillings, ingredients, and personal touches" to suit that individual article. And they baked some good cakes, I may add. I still curious to know why I've been singled out when I'm just following stylistic formats used in consensus by many editors. :-) --Madchester 16:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No one else is discussing or implying the editing of an article's context, merely formatting/presentation to suit current WP:Album/MoS style. These are not "fillings, ingredients, and personal touches" I have been editing. I haven't been changing any text or information on these albums. I don't see why anyone would revert (hypothetical) changes like not internal linking Chris Martin three different times in one article, or the year 2005 five different times. That's like if you reverted edits I made for Infobox conversions, with you stating that I shouldn't touch them because those were made under old guidelines and the articles themselves are well-written.

I can't specifically speak for Jkelly, but I believe he's correct when he assesses that you're simply editing/reverting to individual preference rather than any consensus-based reasoning, which is basically trolling the articles you created IMHO. I think most people looking into my recent Coldplay contributions and seeing the nature of my edits would support them as not overstepping any bounds. I just think you're too cavalier in dismissing the adoption of current style guidelines, which you are not using. Editing for project style/Wiki guidelines shouldn't be taboo to you. - Liontamer 18:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with "consensus" is that it tends to reflect the attitudes of the editors working on the project that particular day or week. For example, when ths star images for reviews were introduced around May? or June?, editors working back then agreed on its inclusion. I was among one of them. Now a few months later, a different group of editors is discussing that it's unsuitable and should be removed ASAP. Yet, if they invited the original proponents of the plan back into the talk, I'm sure most of them would be against that decision.

Unless you can survey the opinions of all regular contributors to the project, "consensus" won't necessarily reflect common opinion, just the editors who happened to be browsing the Talk page that particular day. --Madchester 04:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Following the conventions of the Manual of Style, which is a much broader and more regulated/discussed area of Wikipedia, is more than adequate consensus. I disagree with your citation of the removal of star images as if it's a "short-term" consensus, as no consensus on removing them was ever reached or even implied by others in the debate. The point being addressed the most readily after the initial voices for removal is actually how to make the star ratings even more visible. - Liontamer 14:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Liontamer. The Album WikiProject specifically states not to link years in the chronology section in accordance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Linking the years is simply superfluous. As you said, these are only 'guides'. However, regardless of the fact that other editors choose to follow a different course, the instructions on the project page should be followed unless there is a strong reason not to. --Gflores ^Talk 00:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Liontamer, Gflores, et al. My experience, though, has been that Madchester is prepared to argue his case until he's losing the argument, when he stops taking part and carries on reverting, often with no edit summaries or other explanation (see, for example, User talk:Madchester#Shiver (Coldplay single and [2]).

His argument here seems to be that, when editors get together to discuss an issue and reach consensus, so long as enough individual editors act against that consensus they've de facto created their own consensus, which overrules the first. That's not only poor reasoning, it's against what Wikipedia means by "consensus". He would, of course, be among the first to squeal if he found the same reasoning applied against his personal preferences. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Extended Copy Protection Info

I have added a section on Extended Copy Protection to albums identified by the EFF as containing the controversial feature. Given that this has been a hotly debated subject in the news and has spawned class action lawsuits against the record companies, it seemed eminently relevant to the albums singled out in particular. Here is the text I've pasted:

In November 2005, it was revealed that Sony was distributing albums with Extended Copy Protection, a controversial feature that automatically installed rootkit software on any Microsoft Windows machine upon insertion of the disc. In addition to preventing the CDs contents from being copied, it was also revealed that the software reported the users' listening habits back to Sony and also exposed the computer to malicious attacks that exploited insecure features of the rootkit software. Though Sony refused to release a list of the affected CDs, the Electronic Frontier Foundation identified ALBUM NAME as one of the discs with the invasive software.

I added this along with a link to the eff article.

Are You Affected By Sony-BMG's Rootkit? (November 9, 2005) from Electronic Frontier Foundation

Does this seem excessively long, pov, or irrelevant in someway to the album articles? My edit to Shine (Trey Anastasio album) was reverted as "completely unnecessary info", but my request for clarification on the album's talk page has gone unanswered as of yet. I thought it might be a good topic to put up to the WikiProject, to see if this information was relevant, or if there was a more appropriate way to note this info. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Busy here today. I'd suggest that it is neither POV nor irrelevant, but that, yes, it is a little long. Since there exists an article on this, um, "feature", I'd further suggest that a single-line summary, such as "ALBUM NAME was identified as being distributed with Sony's invasive Extended Copy Protection software{{ref|EFF}}, which installs itself on computers playing the compact disc." in the article's "Production history" section. The specific article in question is not very long, and I can imagine that User:Adam22z objected to half the article being taken up with this discussion. I write the above assuming that there is no substantial question about the EFF report. Jkelly 22:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I also think this is notable and not POV. However it is a little long and the sentence JKelly suggested propably is better (one might even consider using a template for this, similar to Template:copycontrol).

Also, November 2005 should not be linked according to Wiki's date formatting guidelines. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 22:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on category conventions

If Category:Fooband albums and Category:Fooband singles exist (as per current guidelines), should they be parented by Category: Fooband or not? Please add to discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Any_consensus_on_categories?. --pfctdayelise 02:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Bootleg Albums?

What is wikipedia's policy on bootlegs having articles? Several already due such as A Skateboard Party. Bootlegs have existed for a while but soon after cd burners and printers were common many cd-r bootlegs came out which are certainly not noteworthy at all. However many original and unique pressed bootlegs have been released years ago. Most bootlegs usually have clones aswell. Blue Moon Records and a few other companies were big producers of such bootlegs until they got raided. Added them all would be horrid for band articles and the more articles needed for the bootlegs? Perhaps 1 page per band with all the more common bootlegs? Or just only allow their mention if necessary.

As a general rule of thumb, only mention a bootleg if the group itself put it out. And even then, don't give it an article unless it's a very very important recording of theirs. --FuriousFreddy 02:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

A bootleg released by a group sounds like an oxymoron... I'd choose notable performances for inclusion. I'd vote for Keep, if it was ever VFDed. --Madchester 06:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Some acts release unofficial albums that they don't want to release through the record company (I think Prince has done this, for example). --FuriousFreddy 01:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Graduation from stub-status

A constant debate within the stub sorting community focuses on the criteria for deciding when an article is not a stub any longer and the stub template can be removed. At present there are a couple of guidelines for this among them being article length and degree to which the article covers the topic area; however, the guidelines are sufficiently fuzzy (which is ok) that a wide range of interpretations emerges, sometimes resulting in elevated blood pressures.

I believe that topical WikiProjects have a role in the decision making process as to when an article in their topic area should be considered a stub article or not.

I suggest that this WikiProject address the stub criteria matter in the context of {{album-stub}} and any childdren of this stub type that might emerge (see WP:WSS/ST#Music for a listing of stub types in the music topic area). I would suggest the following checklist as a guide to stub sorters and editors in general; if all items are able to be checked off as "present", the article should no longer be considered a stub article. The main purpose of this guideline would be to help regain the purpose of the stub template as a call for editorial action, allowing editors to re-focus on those articles that do not meet the minimum guideline-suggest content for this article type; the Category:Album stubs contains about 3000 articles (15 pages) at present.

(Draft) Checklist of album-article contents for guidance as to whether an article should be labeled a stub or not

• {{album infobox}} present (need not be filled completely)
• album cover image present
• record label present
• album title present
• article has been placed into the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Albums by artist, Category:Albums by year and Category:Albums by genre

  this implies the presence of information on the artist, release date and genre in the infobox and/or article body

Thank you for considering this. I do not anticipate that implementation of these guidelines would lead to a dramatic reduction in the number of stubbed articles overnight, but I think there are definite advantages in coupling the aims of a topical WikiProject and the efforts of the stub sorting community.

Regards, Courtland 14:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Application of the guideline

Taking a look at Power in Numbers, the version shown looks like it would no longer be a stub; however, it has not been categorized according to genre, though the genre is present in the infobox. I have added the category (see version) but left the stub template present pending outcome of this discussion. Courtland 14:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• ... and here's where the guideline stumbles: the artist is already categorized by genre; therefore, genre-based categorization of the album is superfluous until such time as the artist turns to another genre. The superfluous category has been removed. Courtland 14:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Fourty Twenty almost-random stubs

Taking a look at fourty stubbed articles, here is the breakdown based on the proposed recommendation mentioned above, it looks like that a) the % of mis-classified articles is low and b) about 50% of the stubbed articles can graduate with only a little bit of work. Courtland 18:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC) updated Courtland 01:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

pass stub-graduation test (4 → 10%)

• A Lethal Dose of American Hatred (needs a bit of formatting cleanup), Face Value, G N' R Lies, God Loves Ugly

pass test except for ... (13 → 32.5%)

needs additional categorization

• A Man Called E, First Light (album), From the Ashes, Growing Out of It, Honest (soundtrack), Kite (2001 album), Pagan (album), Pixel Revolt

needs genre

• A Kiss in the Dreamhouse, Fabrique, Flag (Yello album)

needs genre and additional categorization

• From the Land of Volcanos, Once Bitten

fail stub-graduation test (remainder → 57.5%): A Hard Road, A Life Less Plagued, A Little More Personal (Raw), A Little Soul in Your Heart, A Lot About Livin' (And a Little 'Bout Love), A Lot of Little Lies For the Sake of One Big Truth, A Lump of Coal, Fables & Dreams, First (album) (needs translation), From Wishes to Eternity, Girls' Night Out, Heart Food, I Phantom, Infame, Jester Race, Legs XI, Live Heroes, Lost & Found, Maldita Vecindad y los Hijos del Quinto Patio, Metallic K.O., Mothball Mint, Neat, Neat, Neat, No World Order

The number of wrongly stubbed album articles is pretty low because I went through all albums stubs (in April, I think) ago and removed the stub notices along some personal guidelines that pretty much match the ones you propose above. Noone seems to have objected then, even though one user did ask about it later. You can see this exchange (with more of my reasoning) on my talk page and in Grenavitar's archive. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought that maybe one or more people had done this, not only for this WikiProject but also for most of the other relatively active ones. Thanks for confirming my suspicion. My question then moves to one of whether there should be a communication between the general stub sorting community and this (as an example) WikiProject that refers non-WikiProject members to the specific "guidelines for graduation"? I've already received some mild push-back over this as being potentially unworkable due to the large number of stub types, but I think it is likely workable for some of the larger stub categories which have quite active associated WikiProjects. Thoughts? I could set down a few words that might appear on the WikiProject page and some more that might appear somewhere in the Stub Sorting realm if you think this would be a useful notion to pursue further. Courtland 01:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Images of stars in albumboxes

I think that we shouldn't use them. You have screw up your eyes to see whether the star is half yellow or completely white. (I have 1600x1200 screen.) The situation would improve, if there would be more contrast between white and another colour, but that isn't my only worry. The blind users and Lynx users can't see the stars, instead the get some mysterious text like Image:4hv out of 5.png. People practically never bother to write the alternative text to star images. And you understand more quickly how many stars an album got, when you see it as a number than when you start to count stars and half stars from an image. So let's remove the star images from the example albumboxes. -Hapsiainen 14:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The stars are also problematic since not all reviews have a 5-point rating system. Teklund 18:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one that likes the stars? Personally, I've had little trouble distinguishing b/w a 4 and 4hv rating. I think main reason it's used is because All Music Guide employs a five star rating system (with a similar image). I think ultimately it will have to be removed though just for consistency. Gflores ^Talk 19:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been adding the alternate text to all the images as I edit the articles containing them (I concentrate on the artists I listen to though). I do agree that it can be hard to distinguish the ½ star. Perhaps a blue star would make it more legible? RedWolf 22:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the inclusion of ratings on albums really something encyclopedic? It is something quite subjective that might best be left to other sites to deal with perhaps. I would not want to see emerging discussions centering around whether an album should have one star or five battled out between fans of rival bands, nor would I want to see battles over whether one authority or another's star rating of an album should be considered authoritative and encyclopedic. Those matters just do not seem to be something that would contribute anything but frustration to readers and editors alike. Courtland 00:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It's for precisely the above reason that WP:ALBUM has clear guidelines that only professional reviews are to be used. As for the image issue, is there a way to encode the alt-text into the image itself? Jkelly 00:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you. For reference by casual passersby (I'll self-class myself as one), the section on this appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Professional reviews. Courtland 01:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

We should really change that color to something stronger. --FuriousFreddy 01:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps we should contact the creator of the current star images? Gflores ^Talk 06:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I enjoy the stars! I always thought they were a great addition to the infobox when they were implemented in the spring or summer. Please don't remove them. --Madchester 04:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Now Slicing added the alt text to the recommended albumbox. The text "X out of 5 stars" is understandable. I forgot than I can hover the cursor over the stars, if I am uncertain of their number. I think I can tolerate the situation. But we still need star images with more contrast.

I forgot one point when I wrote about the stars: the screen space. The stars image takes more space than the (X/5) text. Is it too much inside an albumbox? You have the magazine name and possibly the date and the page in the same entry, so the star image more likely divides the entry in two lines. –Hapsiainen 18:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Member Template

I created a template for wikiproject members to add to their user page. Template is here. Simply insert {{AlbumWikiProject-Member}}. Gflores ^Talk 08:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. For example the article Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band looks close to A-class to me. Are there any featured articles on albums? Can you suggest some A or decent B-class articles we might use? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 05:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Links in infobox chronology sections

As I've been cleaning up articles and conforming infobox to guidelines, I've been removing wikilinks from years in the chronology sections of infoboxes, in accordance with MOS guidelines. When they turn up in the same sections, I've also been removing wikilinks from the "US" and "UK" notations, when release histories vary across markets, assuming that the same principle would apply. I've noticed other editors doing the same thing, sometimes in other sections of infoboxes as well. But I can't turn up a precise style guideline on this point. Any comments (particularly on whether such links should be removed from other sections of the infobox, as when US and UK editions have different release dates)? Monicasdude 17:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to linking years, the links should be removed (as you do) in according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_formatting. As for US and UK, these usually should not appear in the infobox anyway (linked or unlinked), as infoboxes generally should only include the original release date in the infobox (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Details). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, of course, about the original release point, but sometimes you get different editions released in different markets at the same time, or releases on different labels, as here [3]. And variations across markets in release history, as here [4]. I think the same principle about not wikilinking years in the chronology calls for not wikilinking the occasional US/UK notation, but would it apply in the main section of the box as well? Monicasdude 17:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)