Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Foreign language in track listings

I have changed the documentation for Template:Track listing to suggest that:

1. foreign scripts should go in the Extra field rather than Notes, because Notes are displayed in small print and Chinese characters/kanji looked too small to be legible there (this (A) looks better than this (B));
2. unofficial English translations should be in the Notes field, where the small print may indicate that they are subordinate to the official titles in the original language.

I trust that these changes are OK, but thought I should draw them to the attention of this WikiProject.

As for whether to include English translations at all: WP:NOR#Translations and transcriptions says that faithful translation is not WP:OR. There was a discussion on this last year at WT:NOR; only one editor (Bread Ninja, now called Lucia Black) was opposed to including translations, and she did not cite any policy grounds to back her objections. – Fayenatic (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

i reverted because 1) these things need to be proposed first and be cleared up through consensus. You cant change these rules. 2) changes what the note and extra parameter were intended for. 3) contradicts the already given examples showing how kanji is being used in the note parameter. (I hope you follow BRD and not cause an edit war over the revert) The biggest reason fueling this unnecesary change is because you dont agree the foreign characters should be in small font. Which the biggest issue of adding translation to every track title not used in the prose is WP:TRIVIA. This is too close to WP:OWN.Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well folks, there you have a flavour of our previous inability to reach consensus. I do not consider that the provision of English translations within English wikipedia is WP:TRIVIA; it would look very odd to translate only the tracks that were referred to in the article text. I do not recognise any grounds for the new accusation of WP:OWN. Incidentally, I brought this discussion here because Lucia said she would do so but didn't. Please don't leave us to squabble now – somebody else please contribute! – Fayenatic (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

editing the faye wong album article and changing document of the template for the sake of your favor of the faye wong articles (well to be most precise in favor of your format) without proposing it yourself. You instead changed it and notified the wikiroject. You provided no issue in general except that i myself as the cause. I wouldnt bring it here in this wikiproject because i didnt intend to change the uses of the parameter but bring it to the template talkpage. Regardless i didnt have had time. Also keep the tone proffesional. It makes discussion move alot more easier. Anyways, i dont even think translation sections are needed for tracklist. Its additional aspects of what doesnt completely relate to what the article is mainly about. The tracklist itself isnt always the most important aspect of the article. In fact its not what makes it notable.

Your suggestion is mere stylistic reasons and also would mean changing alot more articles that followed the previous format would have to follow yours. For the most part it can follow how Music of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex article has said up when there is japanese title. Only difference would be the english romanization of the foreign title will still be the main title parameter, both kanji and translation would be in the same note parameter. This would resemble the nihongo template where it would go "common english title (kanji, transliteration/translation)" and putting in translation if the transliteration is the common english title.Lucia Black (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's translations that we are talking about here, then I have nothing against putting them on the articles. As long as the translations are verifiable and legitimate, there shouldn't be much of a problem. However, are we talking about translations from English to another language or from the original language to English? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 06:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if translation become supported (which is original language to english). The main issue is the setup change for the sake of having translation.Lucia Black (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about translation from foreign-language originals to English. Lucia has previously referred some difficulties with such translations on pages about Japanese media, and wants to outlaw unofficial translations except where strictly necessary; but she has no policy grounds to do so. She has lost that argument elsewhere, but keeps bringing it up anyway.

The main thing we are talking about here is which fields to use in {{Track listing}} for (i) unofficial English translations and (ii) original titles in foreign scripts.

Lucia has given the example of Music of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (but please add links on talk pages when referring to other pages). I accept that the small Japanese characters in the Notes fields on that page are still legible, so I apologise for changing the template doc in a way that would have required such pages to be changed.

However, Lucia has agreed that Chinese characters placed in the Notes field do look too small. Therefore I now propose that the template documentation should allow authors flexibility to place original foreign language script track names either in Title, Notes or Extra. This (C) seems a better alternative to both A and B above.

As for unofficial English translations, is there a reason to prefer the Notes or Extra field? – Fayenatic (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see potential confusion though. I understand it maybe too small but im beginning to question if thats relevant. Although it may not be eligable it is still distinguishable. And really this english wiki. It will most likely not be eligible for most english readers.Lucia Black (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean legible. I think you are saying that Chinese readers can still distinguish the characters even if they are shown in small font in the Notes field, and that they mean nothing to most English readers in any size.

Do you now think the English track names should come first even if they are unofficial translations (E)? Or put the original script with the translation in the notes (D)?

C: "將愛" "Jiāng'ài" (To Love)

D: "Jiāng'ài" (將愛, To Love)

E: "To Love" (將愛, Jiāng'ài)

– Fayenatic (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Im going with D. Because although official, hard to put it as the most common english name. Unless there is an official english translation, then we just put a transliteration in the notes alongside the original spelling.Lucia Black (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point I'm still trying to work out what you mean, Lucia: if there is an official English translation then you prefer E, but if there is no official English translation then D? – Fayenatic (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jiang'ai is transliteration of the kanji, to love is the translation. I go with D for this situation because there is no official translation but if there was we would switch to love with jiang'ai. Do you know what transliteration is.Lucia Black (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do. For convenience and completeness, here are the other alternatives mentioned so far:

A: "Jiāng'ài" ("To Love")     將愛

B: "Jiāng'ài" (將愛)     "To Love"

These used the Extra column with a heading, appearing like this:
A:

No.	Title	Chinese	Length
1.	"Jiāng'ài" ("To Love")	將愛	4:09

B:

No.	Title	Translation	Length
1.	"Jiāng'ài" (將愛)	"To Love"	4:09

Although my opening arguments above were in favour of (A), I am now swayed by Lucia's arguments for putting the Chinese characters in the small-font Notes field. I've also tried putting all three versions of the title in one column of the track listing using formats (C) (here) and (D) (here) and I now think neither of them look good. They look cluttered; and as the article text discusses some of the tracks using the unofficial English translations, it would be better for the English translation to be in large font after all. I'm therefore inclined to go back to B (here), using the Extra field & column for the unofficial translations.

This is not explicitly sanctioned by the current documentation at Template:Track listing. I am therefore asking this WikiProject's permission to allow editors to use the Extra column for unofficial translations where there are no official English titles. The column heading could be expanded to "Unofficial translation" if that helps. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What merits a tracklist "complete"? Whatever given and relevant info on the tracklist on the cover gives. I think putting translation next to transliteration while separating kanji makes the translation more legitimate than the kanji. I dont agree with translations needing to be in large font.

So you still don't like (A) or (B).

Ij also find it hard to believe it clutters considering the translations, transliteration and the kanji are short.Lucia Black (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Some are short e.g. To Love (Faye Wong album) but for a more typical listing see Faye Wong (2001 album), which does look cluttered.

When I said "for convenience and completeness", I was just talking about presenting the alternatives in a visible form here on this discussion page, so that other editors could easily see them and comment. So far there has not been much point bringing this here, as no regulars from the WikiProject are commenting – it's just us two with our Chicken and Duck Talk. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever type of translation format there is, if there are two or more representations of a phrase, sentence, or word in the same language, then I think that they should be grouped together while the English translation is possibly elsewhere. In essence, it would be like demonstration B. I don't think A would be sufficient, because of how it distinguishes the Chinese characters away from the Chinese pronunciation key while on an English encyclopedia. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, good points. I propose to take the above comments by user:Backtable as permission from this Wikiproject to amend the track listing template documentation to permit the use of the Extra column for unofficial translations, as per example (B) above. Should the heading specify something like "Unofficial translation"/ "Suggested translation"? – Fayenatic (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done - thanks. I have not specified what they heading should say. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Need more of a consensus. Dont rush.Lucia Black (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Consequence of Sound

Can we add Consequence of Sound to the review sites?--83.143.32.2 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Nikthestoned 08:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Appears to have editorial oversight, and has significant coverage by reliable third party organizations, and is considered an authority on music by those organizations. Looks good to me.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The article for the website itself has mostly self refs. Does it have a large paid staff? Or just amateur contributors. Experienced staff on salary is a good enough crutch to lean on for notability. If it is like Sputnik it might have to have the added rule that only 'staff' reviews/articles would pass as valid citations... and 'user' submissions would be deleted. Just a thought. Otherwise, no issues. Mr Pyles (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Has a large staff, I assume that they are paid. Metacritic includes them as a professional review site, and it has received coverage by About.com and Technorati.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I Get a Kick out of You

I'm not certain enough of the guidelines, could someone comment on I Get a Kick out of You and WP:ALBUMCAPS? Should "out" really not be capitalized? --Muhandes (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the first part of a compound preposition, so according to the guideline it should be capitalized ("...Out of You"). (That's according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capitalization#Composition titles; this point isn't yet mentioned at ALBUMCAPS.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked since my understanding of English is far from perfect, and your answer proves I did right since I don't understand it :) I prefer that someone who can protect the decision moves the page, since I sure can't. --Muhandes (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've started a move request on the article talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Tiny Mix Tapes?

Is there any particular reason that this site is not a part of the professional review sources list? It's listed on more than its fair share of album reviews on Wikipedia (over 500), but I'd like some clarity regarding whether or not it is necessarily a viable review source for use in articles. -Rmzy717 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

For the lead, I have several issues on which I'd like clarification:

1. In the case of different album types such as studio album, live album, EP, etc., do they need to be linked? For many years I've been consistently linking them, but there's always been a niggling hint of overlink in my mind when doing so. A definitive answer on this would be great. I mean, everyone knows what a studio album is, but then again.. perhaps not an EP.

2. Is it really necessary to include the artist's nationality in the lead? Has to be said, I'm staunchly against this practice as I don't see what purpose it serves. To me, it only encourages potentially controversial statements (i.e. British vs English vs Scottish vs Irish vs Northern Irish) which should be confined to the artist's bio, rather than an article about their music. If the reader wants to find out about their nationality, they can readily click on the bio article for more information.

3. For the type of musician(s), such as a guitarist or band/group, must that also be linked?

4. Genre-wise, what if the artist has covered multiple styles throughout their career? Example: the guitarist in question is best known for playing jazz fusion on the majority of his discography, but his first album was actually hard rock. I think it would look mighty confusing if the lead were to state "__ is a studio album by jazz fusion guitarist __", whilst the infobox states something else. Hell, that's downright silly. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

These are some good points, and I think I will answer them individually.

1. My opinion is no. The link of the album type does not need to be put in the introduction, especially if it's already linked in the infobox. Overlink would be a factor here.

2. I see what you're saying about nationality. And with the logic that you're presenting, it does seem rather unnecessary to explain the band's nationality on their albums' articles. It is a detail of the band, of course, and I know that I have regularly posted the nationality on the album pages, but the description is not ultimately required, come to think of it. While the band may be from a certain nation, is that aspect relevant to the album? I think I'll stop there before I go into overanalysis.

3. In the area of the album article where the album's line-up is described, I think it would be acceptable to link the musicians' positions the first time such positions are brought up, especially if the instrument positions are of untraditional persuasion. However, linking the instruments a second time wouldn't be needed. To demonstrate, I would approve of the following:

• Person A – vocals
• Person B – guitar, vocals
• Person C – guitar
• Person D – bass, vocals
• Person E – drums, percussion
• Person F – drums, percussion, vocals

But not:

• Person A – vocals
• Person B – guitar, vocals
• Person C – guitar
• Person D – bass, vocals
• Person E – drums, percussion
• Person F – drums, percussion, vocals

As for in the main article body, I would be fine with linking to the musician articles (preferrably if they have or can have articles), but linking their position wouldn't be as necessary, since the line-up area can take care of that. I hope I answered this question reasonably.

4. Now that sentiment I can totally agree with. I don't think the genre needs to be mentioned at all in the introduction, because the infobox (and the music style section, if there is one) can take care of that. Also, if the introduction mentions the genre, then that is simply another piece of ground for genre warriors to whine about, and I make it known that I consider genre warring despicable and shameful.

But to address your statement more directly, if a black/doom metal musician makes an ambient/post-rock album, then such a genre description of his/her/their general career would certainly be unneeded and even irrelevant.

Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 08:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, pretty much all of those answers were just what I was looking for. The only one with a bit of confusion was #3, in that I wasn't referring to linking instruments within the Personnel section. Just to clarify: in the lead section, for an opening sentence like "__ is a studio album by guitarist __" or "__ is a studio album by the band __", should the type of musician or the word "band" itself be linked? So far, in the case of a musician who plays a particular instrument (i.e. singer, keyboardist, drummer), I've always linked it. For a band, sometimes not (and I hate inconsistency). However, again I'm getting that overlinky feeling, since surely everyone knows what a guitarist or band is. To go back to the latter part of your answer, are you saying that the Personnel section takes care of the linked instrumentation, hence they don't need to be linked within the lead? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, those would definitely be WP:OVERLINK. If someone wants to know what instrument Chet Atkins played, they can click on his name and find out. And the average reader should have no problems understanding what a band is. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are we talking about? Yes these could be overlinking and too much detail depending on the article. Are we talking about an article of a Band or album or both? Because just naming the bandmembers is enough in the lead and expand further in the article, if its about an album then there is no need to mention any bandmember unless they contributed to the album in a specific area.Lucia Black (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

About the comment on the "Sêca" track

There is no jungle in the norteast part of Brasil, an area in fact afflicted periodically by droughts. Just the reverse, is a very dry area, almost desert. The "jungle" or rain forest, covers just one third of Brasil´s mainland, and is extremely humid. It´s like saying that a song is about "the snowy mountains in Florida Everglades". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.146.84.252 (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're in the right place. This is the talk page for WikiProject Albums. Are you referring to an album article? If so it would be helpful to say which article, or better yet, link to it. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Frank Zappa

This template needs some feedback over here.--WTF (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Liner notes as a reference

Is this acceptable on Wikipedia? If so, should they be formatted like a standard cite, or by using WP:HIDDEN on particularly relevant sections (such as Track listing and Personnel)? The only issue I would imagine with the latter is that one would need to physically own the album to, uh.. verify the verification, heh. The reason I bring this up is because I realise there's a need for everything to be verifiable, but a lot of these so-called gospel sources like Allmusic and whatnot are often incorrect in terms of basic information like personnel and track times. I believe that liner notes are the absolute definitive source for certain things and should be adhered to rigidly, above that of secondary sources; unless the latter is stating something new, such as additional recording locations or performers who weren't credited for whatever reason. The way I've done it for this album seems good to me (see Track listing and Personnel), as per a suggestion on Template:Infobox album: "It may be helpful to include a source in a comment, such as <!--CD liner notes-->" Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Citing the liner notes of an album is perfectly acceptable, and is probably the best source for things like credits or track listings/lengths. {{Cite album-notes}} is a handy way of formatting the necessary information. GRAPPLE X 17:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear. Would that then count towards the required amount of references needed for the article to be reliably sourced? Sometimes what happens is that I see some of them tagged with Template:One source when it's just an Allmusic review and nothing else. Granted, that's understandable, but if both Allmusic and liner notes are used as sources, does that succeed in invalidating the tag? Or does the article necessarily need two or more secondary sources to make it "passable"? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that another secondary source beyond Allmusic would be required, as often it's very spartan in its coverage of lesser-known albums. Liner notes, Allmusic and another review or article would be a good start. The notes are going to be a primary source and do nothing towards notability, so backing them up with more information is still essential. GRAPPLE X 17:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood. In which case, a lot of albums I deal with are rock/guitar-orientated; therefore can a site like guitar9.com (which is not currently on the WP:ALBUM/REVSIT list) be used for notability? I'm not sure if they do professional reviews, but they do seem to have vast coverage of these kinds of albums, often with CD Baby-esque mini reviews. Would I be allowed to use that site to supplement Allmusic purely as a notability source? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We can certainly talk about guitar9.com and whether it should be added to our REVSITE list. I've never heard of it myself, but generally speaking a couple of reviews from reliable sources are enough to demonstrate that the subject passes WP:N (the bar for notability is deliberately not set very high). On the topic if citing album notes, I do it all the time to cite personnel and writing credits (using {{Cite album-notes}}): the liner notes are almost always the best source for that sort of info. While it's true that "one would need to physically own the album to verify the verification", that's true of any primary source. If you came across a citation to a book, you'd have to track down the book to verify the info. That's perfectly acceptable. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

COI notice

I posted a COI notice today when I noticed that 2 newly-registered users were adding reviews from a website called http://propertyofzack.com/ to album articles. The editors are obviously members of the site's staff, and the site hasn't been discussed by the community for inclusion at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE. The COI notice can be found here; Any input or assistance would be appreciated. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Instances Concerned users should see this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Add PropertyOfZack.com as a legitimate album review and music news site

PropertyOfZack is well respected in the indie-punk music world and is always up to date with current music news and album reviews. I do not work for PropertyOfZack, but am an avid reader and believe that the website is a great source that readers of other "professional" sites like altpress would read. The site is smaller, and more DIY, but is needed on Wikipedia to widen the span of music knowledge on the page. They have writers, editors, and reviewers, same as any other music site. They are not a blog, but a full website with photographers, news articles and galleries, tour sponsorship, etc. Adding a link to punk album reviews on punk band album sites would give another perspective and help the reader utilize more sources in their research on albums and music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeLikesPunk (talk • contribs) 06:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, the general (and best) way to show notability of a site is to demonstrate that the site itself has received coverage in other reliable sources: news outlets, music press, etc. There are dozens and dozens of music sites out there, and most of them aren't notable and haven't established a reputation in the field of music journalism/criticism. There's certainly no "need" for us to add this site, but we can certainly evaluate it on its merits. Property of Zack is just under 3 years old; It's unlikely that it's established a sufficient reputation for itself to where the site and its coverage have been noted by other, more reliable sources. But that's just my intuition. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A Google News Archive search for both propertyofzack and "property of zack" results in a very very small handful of sources that cite this website as a source. Of which, most are of questionable reliability/notability, such as AltSounds, KillYourStereo and ThePunkSite. Nothing about the website's "About Us" or "Staff" pages really stands out. For example, clicking on the byline for Amy Sciarretto on Noisecreep reveals that in the last 15 years, she's worked for at least 11 publications—many of which are very notable and credible. I don't see anything similar to this on Property of Zack, therefore I'd say it doesn't qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia's standards. Fezmar9 (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Fezmar's findings. Also, having thought about it some more, I have to disagree with a few things you said, MikeLikesPunk. First, I think you're really overinflating the website's significance by comparing it to Alternative Press: You really can't compare a 3 year-old website with a handful of volunteer staff to the online presence of a 27 year-old, nationally-distributed, 200-page magazine (that sponsors its own tours and is a major sponsor of Warped Tour and Taste of Chaos). Though Property of Zack seems off to a good start, I don't see it having the level of reputation yet that, say, punknews.org does (13 years old). Second, I disagree with your statement that "the site is needed on Wikipedia to widen the span of music knowledge on the page"... Just look at the albums these links are being added to: albums by Blink-182, Alkaline Trio, Saves the Day, and All Time Low. These are not low-profile artists; They're well-known bands with decade-plus careers and multiple high-profile albums that have charted in the top 30 or so of the Billboard 200, and receive regular coverage in much more notable sources. I really don't think we're hurting for reviews of Blink-182's latest album. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see above post under COI by Justin. Property of zack is actively being used already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeLikesPunk (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It already being linked from some articles doesn't mean de facto approval. There are many websites linked from Wikipedia articles that, as the articles develop and more experienced editors take notice, catch our attention and come up for discussion. Property of Zack is one such site: It's in some articles, I took notice, and now it's up here for discussion. We may form a consensus as to whether it meets our reliability thresholds or not, and either approve or remove these links accordingly. That's how Wikipedia works. If you really think the website is reliable, I suggest you take the advice that I'm now giving you a third time and prove it by showing what coverage Property of Zack has received from other, more well-known sources (newspapers, established music news sites, etc.). If you take a glance through the last 6 months or so of this talk page's archives, you'll see several examples of how this has played out before with other sites that have come up for discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Various artist compilation albums

Many compilation album series (e.g. Now! That's What I Call Music and Radio 1's Live Lounge etc) have had articles created for each individual volume in the series. I believe it is much more worthwhile to have an article about the compilation series as a whole because it is the series which is well-known and notable, rather than each volume. These articles about individual albums are mostly stubs and do not give much information apart from the track listing, release date and other trivia.

I have re-directed several stubs to the parent article for some compilation series such as Clubland, Bonkers and The Annual and have also added chart positions and certifications (which shows the article's notability), however I was told to open a discussion about the matter. I think this way, it makes it much more easier to see how the series has progressed, readers can compare albums against each other and mainly it will condense several stubs about the subject into a single manageable article.

I realise for some large compilation series such as Now! it would be almost impossible to condense into a single article, but for most other smaller series this seems like the best thing to do. On an additional note, some people may consider this to make the articles too long by including all the track listings for each volume in one article, so may I suggest that the tracklistings be made expandable for each separate volume, which will shorten the length of the article but will still include all the neccessary information. Please feel free to discuss the idea and contribute with any suggestions - 0800abc123 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)