Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Order of sections

I see no logical reason why "Musical style, writing, composition" should be placed after "Release, promotion, marketing". It makes more chronological sense after "Recording, production". Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this not too long ago, but I forget where. Can anyone provide a link? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@FunkMonk and Mudwater: I was just about to inquire about this. It actually makes more sense to place a Composition section before Recording, and logically, before Release. I'd really like to see this discussion.--Lapadite (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that if no one comes with any arguments for the current order within reasonable time, that we should just change it. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's that previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 47#Album article style guide: "Musical style, writing, composition" section. But, yes, I still think it makes more sense for the guideline to suggest a section order of "Musical style, writing, composition" before "Recording, production" -- keeping in mind that a different order can be used if editors agree that that's better for a particular article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't see any mention of the placement of "release" though. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the table of contents of the Album Article Style Guide, it's easy to see the recommended order of sections, under "Article body". What I'm suggesting, and what I think others are saying also, is to move "Musical style, writing, composition" so that it's after "Background" and before "Recording, production". Although, while we're on the subject, it would probably also make more sense for "Artwork, packaging" to come after "Recording, production" and before "Release, promotion, marketing". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

To make this a lot easier to visualize, here's what I'm proposing, and what others have also at least partially suggested:

Current:

• Background
• Recording, production
• Release, promotion, marketing
• Musical style, writing, composition
• Artwork, packaging
• Touring
• Critical reception
• Track listing
• Personnel
• Charts
• Certifications
• Release history

Proposed:

• Background
• Musical style, writing, composition
• Recording, production
• Artwork, packaging
• Release, promotion, marketing
• Touring
• Critical reception
• Track listing
• Personnel
• Charts
• Certifications
• Release history

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Precisely, the proposed column. It's a logical order. Everyone pretty much agreed on that discussion, we've got three editors' agreeing here, so I don't don't see why the style guide shouldn't be changed now (or why it wasn't when that discussion took place). --Lapadite (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I don't see how "musical style" can come before "Recording" if the piece of recorded music being discussed doesn't exist before it is recorded but after. Also, this is just a guide, and as this guide says itself, editors are welcome to ignore all "rules" if appropriate--I often do to some degree, as far as the layout for these articles. Dan56 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I usually lump "writing and composition" in with "recording," and make "style and lyrics" or just "style" a separate section after recording.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Dan56 and 3family6 – When I write album articles, I try to keep them in a roughly chronological order: First any background context if necessary, then a section on writing and recording the album, then how the album was promoted, then what the album actually sounds like now that it's released and we get to hear it, then how it was received. I've always felt this was a natural way to structure album articles, and plus it's a very neutral and encyclopedic way. But on the other hand, nowhere on this documentation does it say "FOLLOW THIS FORMAT OR ELSE!" so debating the structure of something that's amorphous and not strictly enforced seems kind of trivial to me. The structure of an album article (or any article for that matter) should follow what information you have, not the other way around. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply to above - The point of debating it is that, regardless of the fact that it's not meant to be strictly followed (which experienced editors don't), it is a faulty arrangement in a guide. What is the point of providing a style guide if it's admittedly illogically ordered? Dan56 - Composition should come before Recording because songs are written before they are recorded. Musical style doesn't need to be lumped in with Composition; it would make sense to include it in the recording/production section (or, as it's been pointed out and for any other section, wherever it makes most sense for a particular article. I think a faulty guide should be fixed, even if it says it can be disregarded at one's discretion. Disagreement appears to be grounded in 'it doesn't really matter'. I still sense everyone agrees that the present order is not entirely sound.--Lapadite (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Often, the "composition" sections in articles is made mostly of different critics' or sources' interpretations of the music and lyrics in the songs they reviewed, after they were recorded. Dan56 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For editors who prefer to include that in the section. Composition is the writing of a record, ergo the creation of the music and lyrics. Yes, outside opinion on the style is sometimes included near the end of the section (and the section accordingly titled "Composition and Style"), again, as pointed out, at editors' discretion; heck Musical style and/or Lyrics can be its own section if there's a significant amount of info on it; It can also be rather redundant as outside opinion, if used, is essentially critical reception (and one may end up restating much of it or reusing the cited sources in the reception section). In any case, given the meaning of composition in musical context, it makes sense to have it before Recording, as something is composed or written before recorded. Readers don't expect "Composition" to be a critical reception section, there's already one; per conventional wisdom, they expect it to be about the composition of the record, the artist's process in that regard; just like they'd expect Recording/production to be concerned with that particular process, and Critical reception to be about that.--Lapadite (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that more editors support than oppose the reordering of the sections as outlined above, so I'm going to go ahead and update the style guide now. And as everyone keeps saying, what the style guide says about what sections to create in an article, and in what order, should be viewed as a helpful suggestion rather than a standard. Each article should have the sections, and order of sections, best suited to the particular album. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Style for non-star reviewer ratings in album's ratings box

There's a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#New ratings stylisation for PopMatters, NOW, Fact, Kerrang, etc. All interested editors are encouraged to participate. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive proposal

In my opinion this talk page could use some cleaning up and I'm willing to do it, it would be too bold to do this at a WikiProject, so I'll leave this message. Just ping me if archiving is desired. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Mlpearc - there doesn't seem to be any objection, so go ahead and archive.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Personnel sections

Could I get a little more clarification on what's to be included in the personnel sections other than musicians, if anything? I'm seeing a lot of stuff like this: To Anyone#Personnel. Surely that's not useful. There's not a single musician listed, and "hair and makeup" don't make music. Also in songs by vocal groups, I'm seeing all the members of the vocal group listed in personnel...I know this is the albums WP but maybe you have suggestions on that too. It's also meant for musicians, yes? Thanks for any help! Shinyang-i (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sub-sections for the musicians and the production personnel are generally appropriate. Here's an example of what's often done. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What I meant was, is the personnel section being used correctly in the example I gave? Many Korean pop albums have sections like that, and they don't seem to conform to the section's intended usage. Should it be removed? Shinyang-i (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The section you used as an example is atrocious. It shouldn't be removed entirely, but someone should comb through and only keep the personnel that were directly responsible for creating the record -- which would be a very small portion of what's there. Anything related to "business" or "management" or "hair" should be scrapped. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh heh, that's pretty much what I was thinking but I needed another opinion before I started chopping. Korean pop music editors tend to be ultra-inclusionists, and getting rid of anything can be a fight. So I had to make sure I was on solid ground! Thanks so much, @Fezmar9: and also @Mudwater:. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Photography and artwork (except in the case of notable artists with their own WP article) are two more which I occasionally see being added to Personnel. The inclusion of either one has always irked me, since in most cases neither have contributed to the making of the music—that being performers and audio production. Any opinion on this? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If you consider an album to be more than just the audio portion, but rather a full recording package that includes the layout and design of the cover and liner notes, then they're absolutely relevant. It's especially important in indie releases where often times who does the album art is a member of a different band from the same scene. Either way, I still think it's something readers might still be interested in knowing about — definitely more so than who the band's media contact was at the time of recording. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Albums and singles are as much product and commodity as they are creative works, so non-musical credits are relevant IMO. The enlistment of high-profile featured artists on tracks can be seen as much a promotional tool as the stylist who does the recording artist's hair for the album cover in order to make it more appealing to the audience they're targeting, so I think a stylist and hair/make-up person should be given just as much weight and included in the credits as any one else. Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra comments. I've already trimmed down a number of pages based on earlier advice, but that can always be undone. The thing is it takes up so much room, and in many cases, that content far exceeds any other content on the article. I guess that isn't a problem, per se. However, most Korean pop album articles have a lot of tables, lists, etc, and a lot of dates, but very little content in actual (appropriate) prose; so I get a little leery of anything that can become "just another giant non-prose list" in those articles. Self restraint and case-by-case assessment don't fly with kpop editors; if something is allowed in one article it will wind up in every article, regardless of circumstances. So that's why I was hoping for a consensus on what "should" be listed. I think photography and album artwork are pretty relevant, but I don't know if I can go for the extensive PR and style-related listings. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I would rather photography and album artwork credits info go in the article prose than in the Personnel section, since they did not contribute to the audio component of music (which when it comes down to it, is really what the articles are about). However, I can understand their inclusion and wouldn't fight anyone on it. However, I completely disagree with Dan56. Hair stylists had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of an album - not the music, not the artwork - nothing about the product. If we include them, should we also include the caterers, the janitorial staff at the recording studios? Where does it end? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"What the articles are really about?" They're about what coverage the topic received, and an album is as much a product as it is a creative work, so for every article on a low-key, artsy record whose music and lyrics the critics waxed poetic on, there's a mainstream pop album where the only things sources on it documented were its sales and marketing strategy. It ends at what or who the damn thing credits--easy place to draw the line. If you happen to find one that credits hair stylists, be sure to check the rest of the booklet or packaging for photos of people--they most likely contributed by styling them for shooting photos for the packaging or artwork, meaning it does have something to do with the product. And if you find a CD booklet actually crediting a studio's janitorial staff, please let me know. I'll be sure to lmao. Dan56 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

With Dan on this one. Albums are more than just the music they contain, and credits reflect that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to have enormous, unfiltered lists of names, can we at least require collapsible tables? I'm tired of seeing articles with huge credits sections and little other content. If the credits were somehow related back to the content of the article, it would be one thing, but most of the articles I work with are horrible - lists of release dates, track listings, and chart placements. The only things that ever get added to them are lists and tables, never any meaningful prose content that requires actual research, just stuff that can be copied verbatim with no thought behind it. In an article like that, who cares who tied the producer's shoes? I think my view is colored because 99% of the album articles I work with (in Korean pop) are not made by editors who care in the least about quality; they are concerned only with making as many articles as humanly possible for their favorite artists. If huge credit lists would actually improve a crap barebones article, I'd be behind it, but I see it only as being used as another tool for lazy editors to use to avoid adding actual prose content to such articles. Many Korean pop albums don't even have musician credits, only non-musical stuff like "fanclub manager." Shinyang-i (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like some input on this article's personnel section. This is including credits like Package Production, Product Manager, Marketing Consultant, Management, Digital Editing, and A&R. Neweditorintown has reverted cleaning up the section. Are these non-artistic credits not unnecessary for an article's personnel section? WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lapadite (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree the credits you identify above are surplus to requirements. BlackCab (TALK) 02:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A&R I'd say is worthy of inclusion, since they often make creative decisions, such as song selection, in the production of a recording. I'm not sure what "digital editing" means - if it means digital editing of album artwork/design, then yes, that should be included, as it's part of the artistic product. I agree that purely management positions, such as "management" in the example above, definitely should not be included.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look at their other albums, many of those "unneeded management names" are also listed as instrumentalists and producers. I find it rather difficult to believe that someone can go from being an 'additional guitarist' to band's management, don't you? So, it should be safe to assume that they are artistically relevant to the final product even when listed solely as management. I think the question shouldn't be "are they notable", it should be why is allmusic and discog using different formats between albums - listing some as management decisions and others as producers and performers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If the personnel contributed to the creative output on one album and then worked as management for the next album, then it means that they should be credited on the first and not an the next. The "additional personnel" listing is for that particular album, not the discography as a whole.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but how does one distinguish between "I played that guitar part as a guitarist" vs. "I played that guitar part as a managerial decision?"

Think of a manager at a restaurant. He sometimes has to run the register, but he isn't the register guy. It is just part of the job to do things when others can't or won't. Sometimes they get credited for doing multiple things, and other times they are just considered a manager no matter how much they did. All I am saying above is, when a manager has a history of creative ideas and performance, and was credited as doing such; even though he isn't credited with doing that creative thing but is still listed as "additional personnel", can't we assume he was involved with creative ideas and possibly performance as well? History does repeat itself in businesses, day after day, until the day they fire someone. As you said about A&R guys, they get included because they often make creative decisions. I feel managers should be included for that very reason. Particularly when there is a history that one can see them being creative in. It may be different if it was a big mega-corporation like "Sports One" being listed as management. But when it is an individual person who has been credited with composing, producing, performing, and singing in the past ---- they probably did it here too, but didn't get the specific credit for it.

Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

When history repeats itself, the individual will get the appropriate artistic credit (as they did before). You said it: "...but didn't get the specific credit for it". If they didn't receive the specific credit then they can't be credited on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. I believe there's consensus here that all extraneous credits (but A&R) should be removed. As no one has yet described what "digital editing" refers to I'll remove that one as well. Lapadite (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way - if you don't know what "digital editing" is, are you really in a position to make decisions on who is relevant and who is not? And as far as consensus goes, so far there's been 3 opinions. Is that really all it takes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean audio editing? The consensus from those that have commented (as well as common practice around here) is so. If consensus changes in your favor, knock yourself out with a laundry list of non-essential credits. PS I hope you read what I linked, WP:OR. Lapadite (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: User:Noneof yourbusiness48 and User:Neweditorintown were blocked for sock puppetry. Lapadite (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If a guitar tech is being credited on an album, he is not just the guy that changes strings and tunes a guitar back stage at a concert. He also twists knobs on amps and builds fx-scenes, basically giving you the tone that you hear on the album. Guitars are becoming just as electronic/digital/processed as everything else. You are going to see a programmer/tech being listed more and more. Sometimes as a guitar tech, sometimes as a programmer. But it is already happening and you don't even know about it.

Digital editing could be something as little as the guy that makes ringtones, but they rarely get album credit unless it is an interactive cd-rom which is an entirely different monster in and of itself. Digital editing, when credited, is like a mixer or producer, but a separate job. In the case of Halestorm, the transition between the songs "Mz. Hyde" and "I Miss the Misery" (when listened to on a physical album and not just two individual downloaded files) is an obvious example of what a digital editor does.

Drum techs, in my opinion, do not need to be listed unless someone is using digital drums. In which case, they are just as important as a programmer (who is usually responsible for making sure keyboards sound pretty). In a small "family based" band like Halestorm, a drum tech could have been listed simply because they didn't want him to feel left out, especially since a guitar tech is listed, or because they wanted to give their friend some credits he can use to get a job.

As previously mentioned, management does the same as A&R when it comes to making decisions that often fall under every category. Management famously changed the lyric in Aerosmith's Janie's Got a Gun from "rape" to "jacked" and should have been given a writing credit but it fell under the heading of "management duties." Yes, management is often integral to what you hear, particularly in younger bands that can't be trusted to "play the game" and "treat it like a job" and who always need mommy(management) standing over their shoulder to make sure they don't step out of line and to correct their mistakes when they do.

Some of the art stuff matters less and less every day, because albums no longer matter. Sales of physical albums, which included covers and booklets, are being outnumbered by digital downloads and web-streams. The art work doesn't matter because people no longer see it. Although, just to play devil's advocate, because the internet is becoming more important, the art work (including hair and makeup) is more important because of so many videos(including cellphones and backstage web cams) being produced. Some of that are song related, or band related, instead of album related. But I thought I would bring it up.

Thank you for mentioning me, which put a little notification in my box to come here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neweditorintown (talk • contribs) 12:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Chart procession and succession

I don't see a guideline for the placing of Chart procession and succession details (data which is placed near the bottom on articles about number 1 albums which shows which albums were number 1 before and after the album in question). I'm looking at Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy, and the data is placed in the main body of the article, as a subsection of the Charts section.

When I've normally seen these succession details they have been placed below the references or external links, as in Venus and Mars (Wings album).

There are arguments for doing it either way. While such data is not directly about the topic, it is moderately related so people may be curious to know which album it replaced, or which album replaced it as number 1.

Sometimes it may be an important part of the story about the album to mention which album it replaced or was replaced by, though I would expect that if that were the case it would be mentioned in the Release or Reception section with some sourced comment to put that information in context.

My feeling is that putting the succession data in the main body by default seems to add an extra burden on album articles which are already somewhat statistic heavy, and can give such data an undue weight. Unless it's important to the history of the Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy album to say that it replaced an album by Skyhooks as number 1 in Australia, my feeling is that the default position should be to do as in Venus and Mars (Wings album) and place that data in a collapsed box after the References or External links.

Thoughts? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Track listing standard

Editors may be interested in joining a talk being held at Template talk:Track listing having to do with the track listing standard on Wikipedia. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 17:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Formalising Manual of Style for albums

I have been creating and editing articles on albums for some years and have always endeavoured to follow MOSALBUM. I had a discussion with an editor recently who reverted the changes I made at some album articles, commenting at one revert: "MOSALBUM does not restrict the referencing of songwriting or the inclusion of personnel." [1] (My feeling is that there should be sensible limits on the scope of credits; that credits for such things as management, mixing, remixing, art direction may be going just too far. I also saw no need to add the clutter of citations for songwriter credits.)

It then struck me that MOSALBUM presents itself as a tentative document. It contains the cautionary line at the top that reads: "It is intended only as a guide, to assist in writing well-developed articles"; that language reduces any likelihood of complete adherence to the style. MOSALBUM also seems to differ from, say, WP:MOSFILM in apparently being less formal. MOSFILM is contained in an article named Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. It states that "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style," and it emphasises the possibility of "occasional exceptions". In this it follows the naming convention of MOS:CHEM, MOS:NOVELS etc. Yet MOSALBUM, in contrast, is in an article named Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide.

I'd like to see a more formalised presentation of MOSALBUM. It should be renamed "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Albums" and it should plainly state an expectation that editors adhere to it. Wikipedia should be aiming for consistency and this should help achieve that. BlackCab (TALK) 12:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Support this. Lapadite (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Overlinks

I addressed WP:OVERLINK issues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice one. That's been overlooked (and overlinked) for some time. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It has taken years to have overlinking of countries or nations removed from the majority of association football and music articles I've seen. It will take a while for album and singles to catch-up. What constitutes a common instrument to one editor may not be reflected in other editors' understandings, so we may see some conflict. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Producer or production

The term is record producer or simply producer. In Amercian English, record production encompasses much more than just deciding which instruments should be in a recording, etc. It includes pre-production, engineering, tracking and post-production including matering. This may be a WP:LANGVAR issue, but "producer" is the role and "production" is not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This is either wrong or a sudden change of direction. We now have a direct contradiction (see the extract below) after my last edit was reverted. Yes, "producer" is the role: that's why I changed things back to "production"! Looking at some album FAs, there's considerable variation. Before the last edit, the style guide was clear but apparently not followed; what's the best way forward? (Maybe, as User:BlackCab points out above, if the guide is presented as merely some suggestions, it doesn't matter, as people will do what they wish anyway.)

• Johnny Bee – guitar
• Sally Morris – glockenspiel, guitar, organ, kazoo
• Mike Yaris – producer

Note that the format used here is "[Name] – [instrument]". Do not use the format "[Name] – [role]" (such as "Johnny Bee – guitarist".) This means that you should employ "guitar" rather than "guitarist" and "production" rather than "producer". EddieHugh (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it's role and record producer is a role, as opposed to production, which is a term that applies to more than simply the role of being a record producer. It's also more than a role, it's a job. Production is not a job. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

More than a week has passed and the direct contradiction remains. It's disappointing, but I'm just passing through here, so will leave it to those more actively involved to address. The message that I (and probably others) will take away is that the style guide is just opinion and almost anything goes. EddieHugh (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

More than a week remains and you still don't understand that "production" is a term that means more than the role of a producer. I'll wait for you to correct the music industry. We are simply required to use the language as it is used in liner notes, not correct that. See [2], [3], [4] for instance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand that perfectly well, as I did from the beginning. This is the style guide talk page. The style guide currently tells people to use "producer" and then, on the next line, tells people not to use "producer". This, I suggest(ed), is a problem. EddieHugh (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed that sentence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

And it is being asked again

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Love_You_to_Death_(album)&diff=prev&oldid=837403225 and yet AllMusic and every other source is clear that the role is producer. Production is the act of audio engineering anything involved in getting the sound recorded. Producer is a specific role involved in production. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: Who raised the initial concern. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

and @TenPoundHammer: who apparently made the change to production on the article above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Walter, you don't appear to have gotten consensus in 2016 when you originally changed this. You should have been reverted then, because it made more sense then. Your own idea of what the term "producer" means appears to be just that: your own idea. TenPoundHammer simply restored it last year. Producer is still a role, and the wording still states we should not be crediting roles. Ss112 16:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe we're meaning two different instances of "production". My presumption here is it's taken to mean "[record] production", as in only what the producer did, not the entirety of a production. Ss112 16:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

But that's made-up. The record producer does not do production, the record producer produces. The audio engineer does production. The role is "producer" the activity of all that happens in the recording studio is production, but the producer is not the only one who does it, but does oversee it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Personnel

What do we do in the case of artists who are credited in the album under one name, but now go by (or have wikipedia articles under) a different name? For example, Buzz Osborne is usually credited as King Buzzo, and articles reflect that. Specifically, I'm asking because Kevin Saunders apparently had a sex change and is changing his name in the credits on Angry Samoans articles to reflect that (or at least one that I've seen so far). Life of Agony articles credit Keith Caputo despite his sex change, but [5] seems persistent. Jasper the Friendly Punk 23:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I usually use the new name for recordings after the change, and the old name for prior recordings. (For instance, PRo on pre-late 2012 recordings and Derek Minor after-late 2012).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Would Cat Stevens discography give any inspiration? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. I just figure we might as well be consistent, and using whats actually written in the album seems best.Jasper the Friendly Punk

So what about Against Me?Jasper the Friendly Punk 16:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead section / numbering albums

Under lead, the style guide says "it is generally accepted to chronologically number albums in discographies where this would be applicable (Nirvana's debut album, Bob Dylan's fourth album, etc.)." While it might be worthwhile to mention for a debut or second album, or the last album by a defunct group or deceased artist, I don't see the importance or relevance for other albums, particularly those in the middle of a long career. Does it really matter if an album is the ninth or tenth or eleventh out of twenty? Add in the fact that some artists release albums under slightly different monikers and the result is some pretty awkward, even ridiculous, lead sentences such as

Some Time in New York City...is Lennon's only non-compilation double solo album, and his third post-Beatles solo release, the fifth with Ono, and the third produced with Phil Spector.

or

Chaos and Creation in the Backyard is the thirteenth solo studio album by Paul McCartney (discounting his Wings-era discography, his classical works and his output as the Fireman), released in 2005.

Should this guideline be changed so that albums are only chronologically numbered in the lead section if it has some significance or relevance to one's understanding of the subject? Piriczki (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the guideline needs to make some provision for including such information as long as it's deemed useful and doesn't clutter up a Lead's opening sentence. The only details that belong in the Lead of Some Time in NYC, imo, are the fact that it's "his third post-Beatles solo release, [and] the fifth with Ono". So that one's easy to solve/edit, without making any changes to the guideline. But I agree in the case of McCartney: you have to wonder how helpful the info is when the artist has had such a diverse career and it raises more issues attempting to identify the album numerically in a pretty vast discography. I've noticed those "(discounting his Wings-era discography, his classical works and his output as the Fireman)" additions at a number of McCartney articles today. I'd say let's add something to the guideline anyway, because all article Leads should give the reader a straightforward description of what exactly the subject of an article is – without any er, what? moments (which those mentions of Wings etc. introduce).

But in the case of the McCartney albums, it is confusing. Wings and Fireman releases are not McCartney solo albums per se, although Beatles and McCartney biographers, and music journalists, do see Wings as part of McCartney's solo career (simply because those projects were post-Beatles). It's difficult to know what to do numerically with his classical works – should they not be counted as McCartney solo albums also? JG66 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive credits in Track listing and Personnel sections

I've noticed this happens in articles on contemporary albums (especially in the pop, R&B, and rap genres). In the case of articles like Views (album) --> see #Track listing and #Personnel, is a personnel section even necessary when its composed entirely of credits present in the track listing section's template and notes section? Or should the track listing template/section list less? I ask because MOS:ALBUM#Personnel already states "composer" credits should be excluded from a personnel section since writing credits are already expected in the track listing section. Dan56 (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that some of these articles are entirely too long. Almost as if every hype man in the business wants to make sure that their artist gets mentioned for their collaboration. However, as to the 'personnel' section - people need listed there for sure. Not everything needs listed in the track listing or within the article body. But the personnel section is definitely where things get mentioned.

Maybe think of it like a movie or TV show. Some people get mentioned at the start of the movie. Some people do the interview circuit. Some people are listed on poster. But everyone gets listed in the credits.

I would like to point out, however, that we should have different standards for songs, albums, and compilations. Meaning, a greatest hits album doesn't need to have the personnel from 10 albums listed. A song doesn't need personnel at all. 73.79.234.214 (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Song review

I would appreciate input on a discussion at Talk:Blink of an Eye (Tori Kelly song).

One editor says PopCrush is not reliable. The other says it's the author, not the website, to whom reliability applies.

Thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 Talk 18:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

My proposal for the first sentence in the lead

I've been editing music pages a lot recently and changing the way the first sentence of the lead is written, so I figured I could share what I could envision here.

(album) is the (debut or number) studio album by the (notice I've put "the" in there) (nationality) (genre) (artist), released on (release date) by (record label).

Also, if an artist's album was first released outside their country, I think that release date should be in the lead, along with its US release date if it has one.

Tjdrum2000 (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tjdrum2000: I don't know that we should be excessively strict about lead sentences but this is definitely a good rule of thumb that will work in a lot of cases. (E.g. soundtrack albums or various artist compilations or many recordings of classical music would not really fit this template.) I'm not sure why we would prioritize American release dates. It is definitely the largest music market but mentioning a few--North America, Europe, Japan--may be useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should prioritize US release dates, but I think we should prioritize the first release dates the album has, and if it has another release date in an artist's home country we can put that after the first date. I hope that sentence makes sense. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Categories of contributors under Personnel being rendered as B text/second-level headings

We currently have a situation whereby there's conflicting statements between the main MoS at WP:BADHEAD and the guidance given here under Personnel. In the latter section, we advocate using bold headings for groups or categories of contributors, but such treatment is deemed to be a "pseudo heading" under WP:BADHEAD … Albeit, there at the MoS, it does allow for: "In cases where TOC limit cannot be used because of lower-level headings elsewhere in the article, then using bold for the headings causes the least annoyance for screen reader users." My view is that second-level headings appearing above what might be only one or two bullet-list names/items is over the top – both locally in the article's Personnel section (e.g. this), and through the addition(s) to the Table of Contents – and I'd say it's a good reason to default to the concession at WP:BADHEAD. But in many album articles I'm seeing these previously bold/pseudo heads being converted to the larger subsection headings – which, of course, is in keeping to a great extent with MOS/BADHEAD. What do others think: should we address the issue, perhaps trying to differentiate when the pseud is atop a list rather than above a paragraph of prose?

I'm sure one or two of these editors will see this post anyway, but I'd like to notify Jennica (because we talked about this on my talk page), SilkTork (because he expressed a view on this in the past) and Walter Görlitz (simply because I've seen him edit the Personnel section of the Album style guide, though not anything related to this particular point). JG66 (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Then it's easy enough to fix our guidance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: @JG66: I think bold headers are fine - I don't agree with the BADHEAD on this at all. Is this a vote on if we should have them bolded? I can go back and fix my edits if so. --Jennica✿ ^Talk 21:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Headings I wrote the relevant section and unfortunately, if it's clear that this is causing a real-world problem, then we need to amend our practice. If someone is using a screen reader, it's entirely possible that it's for a medical issue and so we need to keep our content as accessible as possible. I'm not in favor of using proper wiki mark up headers, though--maybe just some formatting with bold and indenting. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Koavf: - Alright where do we go from here then? The next step? I certainly do not want to be formatting Personnel the incorrect way. I've said it before, I'd rather them just be clumped together without the categorization. --Jennica✿ ^Talk 01:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: I think that some demarcation is very helpful because it shows who was actually in a band versus who was a guest performer, plus this is consistent with the way that a lot of liner notes are written. For what it's worth, I've edited some R.E.M. albums like this, e.g. R.E.M._Live#Personnel —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Koavf: Fair enough, I have no qualms about that then. --Jennica✿ ^Talk 01:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• O gosh I've been meaning to bring this up at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility for a while now, thanks for the nudge. When the screen reader info was added it must have been true that they could not deal with bold, but that is not the case any more. I downloaded one a while ago, and it worked fine, and I tried another one again today (http://www.nvaccess.org/download/) and that is also fine. It looks to me that the Accessibility page needs updating rather than other guidelines bending to meet it, so I think we need to be having this conversation over there. Perhaps we can all try out various screen readers to see what issues they do create. I'll start a thrfead over there. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks ST – no, I didn't mean you should have done something a while back, btw, I'd just remembered that your perspective was beyond that of (my) "looks awful". I agree with what Koavf says here: it is useful, and often correct per the sources, to differentiate between the artist and additional musicians, also for special guests perhaps. And to repeat – taking Pet Sounds again as an example – surely there's no way that these different categories of contributors should be listed in the ToC as if they're a genuine subsection such as "Psychedelia", "Engineering", "Unreleased material", "Tributes" – all of which are subjects that a reader may very well want to investigate in their own right when coming to the article. Similarly, giving the LP sides under Track listing (in the ToC) would be unnecessary, yet it is an important demarcation within that actual section, of course. JG66 (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Question about crediting the songwriter in the Personnel area

I have a question. Is it okay to cite the songwriter in "Personnel" area (the exact same way, 'Solange Knowles – songwriting (track 2)'), even though the songwriter is also credited in the track listing format? My example is this page B'Day (Beyoncé album)#Personnel. Horizonlove (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Songwriting credits do not usually include a the songwriter as personnel. The section is usually for the performers and technicians on the album. We don't even include managers, agents or publicists, even though I have seen them included in some liner notes and subsequently the personnel listings. The {{track listing}} template has provision for songwriters so it makes sense to include them there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I would recommend that there should be exceptions for songwriters who are credited as members of a band, e.g. Robert Hunter in the Grateful Dead or Vince Clarke in Depeche Mode. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So is it be okay to include in the Personnel? Horizonlove (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: the way Horizonlove wants to do this is considered redundant. They have reverted me twice on Joi Cardwell (album) and The World Is Full of Trouble. It is listed in the track listing already, it does not need to be in the Personnel section, unless as Koavf states "the songwriters were not apart of the group". If Joi Cardwell covered a song, perhaps the original writer of that song could be listed in personnel but in this case I think the answer is no. It's clearly laid out in the track listing. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 01:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: The same principles apply here. Also, while you are free and open to comment in many discussion threads, please do not make it a habit of following me. You are in violation of WP:WIKIHOUND as this is your third offense. I've kept this discussion neutral without mentioning any previous pages that I edited. Horizonlove (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Horizonlove - there are no "violations". There is no "tally" system or "infractions" that accrue. Looks like you've looked into my history more than I cared to look into yours. I've made amends with the editor and we are on friendly terms. He also took me to the admins board and nothing happened, so I guess keep trying it? I'm doing nothing wrong. I follow this talk page. I wasn't aware that checking only 2 past articles is considered 'following' someone. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: I'm guessing you are not aware of WP:WIKIHOUND as you followed my edits here: [6], [7], this specific discussion that had nothing to do with you, and now on another page [8]. In any case, I would prefer if this part of the discussion be moved to your talk page as it is off-topic from the original discussion that I am trying to have here. Horizonlove (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Horizonlove: - i do not wish to discuss it. editing on 2 or 3 pages one user edited on is not stalking or following. Get over yourself please . I do know I am in the right when it comes to this songwriting issue though. They simply do not belong in Personnel. I've worked on thousands of album pages. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Note - The off-topic discussion has been moved to User:Jennica's talk page. I would ask that the original discussion be continued starting with my question towards users Koavf and Walter Görlitz. The question was, "So is it be okay to include in the Personnel?" Horizonlove (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If songwriters who were listed in the track listing were also listed in the personnel, then imagine how a covers album would look--maybe Scott Francis Key would be listed as personnel on an album. Or a Christmas album that has traditional songs. It's probably wise to just leave them at the track listing since they rarely have to do with the making of the actual album. Again, an exception would be a member of a band writing songs for an album or a songwriting partnership like Bernie Taupin with Elton John. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this suggestion, and again, only if this is the way it appears in the album's liner notes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Article title: per cover text, or label

When it comes to naming an article, is there a rule of thumb about whether we should follow wording on the front of an album/single/EP cover, or that of the label? I recently moved Beatles for Sale (No. 2) to Beatles for Sale No. 2, consistent with both the cover image and how the title's rendered in several books on the Beatles. At the band's discography talk page, though, it's been pointed out that the labels on the disc do in fact give the parenthesised version. Do we advise on this issue, or is it case-by-case – and/or is it relevant how biographers and discographers have chosen to title the release? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? ... JG66 (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@JG66: My take is that if there are different stylings for the same release (which should be very rare), then we just defer to WP:COMMONNAME. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I just wondered whether there might have been some precedent here regarding the cover vs label issue, as a sort of stepping stone before following WP:COMMONNAME. JG66 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"the American band"; "the British band"

Awhile back I would look at the good article nominees and would see the commentary by the person reviewing the article. I could have sworn they would tell the editor to remove instances of "____ is the second studio album by the American band Van Halen" and change it to "_____ is the second studio album by American band Van Halen".

With no "the". I can't find anything about it in the MOS and was wondering if this was actually a guideline and where I could find it. I do think "by American band" is better. Especially in an instance like "Revolver is an album by the English band the Beatles" (too many the's in one sentence) Thanks --Jennica✿ / ^talk 22:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not. It's a preference. I have no problems with a definite article before the nationality of a band. I am even more OK with leaving the band's nationality completely out of an album article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I've found that some editors, those who approve of including "the" each time, view it as an Engvar issue relating to False titles. One editor informed me (rather pompously) at a Peer Review that to omit it instantly reduces a BritEng article to the level of tabloid journalism. In that instance, it was taking the inclusion of the definite article to a far more extreme degree – I'm talking about, say, "the producer Phil Spector", "the music critic Charles Shaar Murray", "the sound engineer Ken Scott", "the guitarist Eric Clapton". I can see the merit in writing "by the English rock band ..." because we wouldn't say "by rock band Cream" or "by band the Beatles"; and in most articles, this would only come up in the opening sentence of the lead. But to include it each and every time a musician, studio staff member, designer, biographer, musicologist, critic, etc is first introduced can make the text a jarring read, in my opinion. (The article can end up adopting the tone of some royal court scene in a period drama, where each guest's arrival is formally announced by the court usher – well, that's how it comes across to me!) I opt for avoiding "the" apart from in situations like that opening-sentence introduction. Further to the false title/"tabloid" question, it's worth pointing out that one hears BBC news reporters omitting the definite article when introducing politicians or senior officials, so, as a Brit myself, I don't buy it for a minute. JG66 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Production credits

The Personnel section of the album article style guide recommends using a bulleted list in the form of name, spaced en dash, and role. This is for band members and other musicians, as well as for production credits. I propose that this be updated so that for the production personnel, it's also explicitly acceptable to use a bulleted list of role, colon, and name. This is the way the production credits are usually listed in album liner notes, and in my view it's often easier to understand and less cumbersome. Again, my suggestion is that the style guide be updated to say that either way is acceptable.

First way -- bulleted list of names:

• Adam Aronson – producer
• Betty Brant – recording engineer
• Charlie Carson – recording engineer
• Deborah Davis – recording engineer, photography
• Edward Evans – artwork

Second way -- bulleted list of roles:

• Producer: Adam Aronson
• Recording engineers: Betty Brant, Charlie Carson, Deborah Davis
• Artwork: Edward Evans
• Photography: Deborah Davis

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Opppose Name & role makes more sense. In some instances, a performer has multiple roles such as the lead vocalist, guitar player and one of the producers. In your example, it's not clear that Deborah Davis was both a recording engineer and photographer. I have seen several producers who are also auto engineers (which you list as recording engineers). Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• First option and stick with "Name – production rather than producer". We use "Name – guitar not guitarist". Why be inconsistent? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Production is not correct and has been rejected several times. We are inconsistent because other sources are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Walter Görlitz: How is production "not correct"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
      • First, as an adjective, it would usually refer to all of the work done in the studio, which includes the work of the audio engineer, mixing, mastering and the role of the producer. I selected the second album I saw at AllMusic.com, and then switched to credits: http://www.allmusic.com/album/turn-up-the-quiet-mw0003020197/credits . Krall is listed as a producer, not as doing production. She is the enseble arranger, "piano", primary artist (which we don't list) and vocals. Tommy LiPuma is listed as producer. While Shari Sutcliffe: conductor, contractor, production coordination. She coordinated all of the production staff. The producer is a specific role, while production is more than simply being the album's producer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
        • @Walter Görlitz: I'm not buying that. I don't think that the distinction you are making exists or makes sense. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry you don't think that something I showed you in AllMusic doesn't exist. I can't help you with that. Next. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
            • @Walter Görlitz: Okay, you can act more considerate to me--you don't have to be so rude. My claim is not that AllMusic doesn't exist or that this text doesn't exist: it's that your understanding of the distinction between "producing" an album and "doing production" on an album is irrelevant or nonsensical. An audio engineer can properly be said to be doing engineering, an audio mixer does mixing, and mastering is never "masterer", so it's not somehow ungrammatical or inappropriate to say "Name – production" alongside "Name – mastering". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
              • Was I rude? I'm not the one who doesn't understand the usage and wants some arbitrary rule of grammar to be applied when no other style guide uses it. You have yet to offer a source to support your strict use of grammar. Show me where in a music magazine that the production staff refers only to the producer. You're now envoking the fallacy of equivocation. You have used "doing production" to equate to "production" and somehow they all equate to the producer. Do you think a producer does "post-production" on a film? Who does the production of a film? Not just the producer. It's the same with sound recording and reproduction. There are many people who are tasked with sound production, not only the producer. The producer is the role, not production. That's why that term is wrong. You can argue all you want from a grammatical standpoint, but I'm arguing for common practice. Look at how it was used here: "jazz credits are bandleader, then horns, then rhythm section, then production; rock and pop are band/artist by instrument with rhythm section last, then production." You didn't complain then that "production only means producer" so why are you doing so now? Checking the archives of the parent page, you're the only person who equates the word "production" with the producer. Has anyone ever agreed with you? I think it's time to read WP:STICK and you should drop yours. Your use of the wording is peculiar and not used elsewhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
                • @Walter Görlitz: Yes, you were. Writing "I'm sorry you don't think that something I showed you in AllMusic doesn't exist." is bad faith and deliberately obnoxious, which you know. I don't understand the relevance to the linked archival discussion. I'm not saying that a record producer is the only one who could constitute a "production team": how are you getting that from what I wrote? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
                  • You've clearly missed my request to provide evidence that anyone uses "production" to equate with the album's producer. The rest of my argument is that your request is to conflate the term "production" with the role of the producer. I will strike my comment as I clearly misread it, but it doesn't change the fact: you're the only one who wants to use the term "production" when everyone else uses "producer". Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The first option is best. It should all match the musicians section. Name – role --Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"Release history" tables

I believe there should be a discussion over the setup of the "Release history" section tables. The MOS fails to mention the latest setup, which includes a more functional table, and a table header caption.

Format featured at WikiProject

Region	Date	Label	Format	Catalog
United Kingdom	November 22, 1968	Apple Records	mono double LP	PMC 7067-8
			stereo double LP	PCS 7067-8
United States	November 25, 1968	Apple, Capitol Records	double LP	SWBO 101
Worldwide reissue	July 20, 1987	Apple, Parlophone, EMI	double CD	CDP 7 46443-4 2
Japan	March 11, 1998	Toshiba-EMI	double CD	TOCP 51119-20
	January 21, 2004	Toshiba-EMI	remastered LP	TOJP 60139-40

The style is above is what the MOS has brought forth as a sample of the WikiTable for the Release history sections.

Proposed new standard

List of release dates, showing region, format(s), edition(s), label, and references

Region	Date	Format(s)	Edition(s)	Label(s)	Ref.
Various	August 26, 2016	CD digital download LP	Standard deluxe	RCA Sony Music
Korea	August 30, 2016	CD	Exclusive	Sony Music
Japan	September 14, 2016			Sony Music Japan
	May 31, 2017	Double album	Japan Tour edition
China	June 18, 2017		China Tour edition	Sony Music

References

Above is what has been implemented in yet-to-be released and recently released album articles, and provides—what I believe—is a much nicer presentation to the articles, especially if one is hoping to achieve GA status. Anyone care to share their two-cents as to if a new standard of table should be implemented through the MOS itself? livelikemusic talk! 15:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Problems with the proposal: short lists which are displayed as bullets instead of commas, and catalogue number missing in the new format. I don't think the release country needs to have a shaded background. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is the Region column shaded? I am 100% opposed to having references in their own column, too--just put them next to the relevant text like anywhere else in the encyclopedia. There's no need to make a larger table that is more difficult to read and render. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

See also this discussion about release history table headers. カビル (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf, Livelikemusic, Walter Görlitz, and カビル: But there's one little problem, "Label" is quite vague for me as Andrew318 said those are distributors but not all the record labels. For example, the sample from Ugly Beauty#Release history:

Region	Date	Format(s)	Edition(s)	Distributor
Various	December 26, 2018	Streaming digital download	Standard	Eternal
Taiwan		CD	Standard pre-order limited	Sony
Malaysia	January 9, 2019		Standard

183.171.122.123 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

How are they not record labels? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Because record label is a brand or trademark of music recordings, and helps artists who release their albums or singles, or artists would release with their own. Others can distributes, marketing, and promotes through domestic and internationally in this case. 2402:1980:2D2:A622:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

And @Koavf, you may read Glossary of Music Terms: Distribution - Spotify for Artists for details. 113.210.105.98 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

But no one cares about distributors—they care about labels. How many people care that a Sub Pop record was distributed by Warner or an ECM record was distributed by Deutsche Grammophon? TlonicChronic (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@TlonicChronic, true but how about "Licensees" — a third party that purchases the ability (license) to manufacture, market and distribute all or part of a rights holder's repertoire. For instance, a third-party licensees may purchase the rights to the UK version of an album owned by US artist or label. @ 183.171.121.68 (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems even more trivial than distributors to me TlonicChronic (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What is a "live" album?

This has probably been asked before, but I can't find it. The infobox forces a studio/live choice. According to Album#Live, "Recordings that are done in one take without overdubbing are termed 'live', even when done in a studio." I don't think this is the intended meaning for the infobox. I've always preferred "in concert" over "live", but don't expect such a proposal would get much support. My question is: if an album is recorded at venue (not studio) X but there's no audience, should the infobox details be type: studio, venue: X; or type: studio, studio: X; or type: live, venue: X; or type: live, studio: X; or something else? All of the first four look wrong, so I hope there's a 'something else' solution. EddieHugh (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Essentially a moot point with modern recordings. Live albums usually have major post-performance work done on them. If an album was recorded in 1956 in one take in a studio, it will likely be called a studio album. If an album is recorded before a live audience and has overdubs done on it in a studio later, it is safe to call it a live album. I don't like the term "in concert", and would argue that WP:COMMONNAME probably comes into play here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The question is answered by "other" in the end. EddieHugh (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Personnel lists goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE

Hi all. I've been helping craft and maintain Black Panther (soundtrack) which includes Kendrick Lamar's curated album. Through its development, users have been adding a "Personnel list" below the track listing, sourced by the album's liner notes. I see that this formatting and inclusion is supported by this style guideline. However, myself and TriiipleThreat have taken issue to this, as we both feel these types of lists are directly in the face of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as this material, as a straight list, presents no encyclopedic value to the reader. For comparison, the film and TV projects are against having articles feature a straight crew list, listing every single member of the production team in articles. If anyone working on an album or song has any notability, they most likely will be talked about in third party sources with commentary that can be added to the article in prose form. Can someone explain or guide me to previous discussion on why editors feel these types of lists are okay? Otherwise, I highly recommend this part of the guideline be removed and updated to discourage the inclusion of straight lists per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that you didn't break backlinks and went against WP:REPEATLINK as well.

First, it's not an indiscriminate list. It's usually a short list of performers and technical crew who have worked on an album. War (U2 album)#Personnel would be a good example of that. That particular album, as with many modern pop and hip hop albums, consists of crew who worked in multiple studios. AllMusic generally lists this information well. I would argue that performers and producers, mixing and mastering are the only ones required. Audio engineers, technical crew, etc., are not needed and so common sense should be applied. Most of the roles discussed in the release are not needed to be explained.

It's not really a stand-alone list either, it belongs in the article. The other items that INDISCRIMINATE discuss don't really apply. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem. Yes, this list is a bit long, it's just because there were a ton of collaborations and different parties involved in this particular soundtrack. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind the list at War (U2 album) but this list repeated information already included in the table and not only had audio engineers and technical crew but sales, marketing, publicist, management, business, and A&R personnel.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I also don't mind a list like one at War. But when you have info as large as one for an album like Black Panther, I don't see the need for including it all. Performers and producers are already in the track list table, so that's duplicate. And why would anyone need to know who the publicists or A&R personal were? As for people who mixed or mastered, as I said in my original post, if there is anyone who is inherently notable/"famous", they can probably be covered in prose in another section of the article. So this still doesn't really address my main issue. At the very least, maybe additional wording needs to be added to the section to discourage the extremely large lists as was done at Black Panther, but still favor smaller lists such as those at War. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with Walter Görlitz. Personally, I would have kept the list down to the individuals who participated in ‘Performance’ and ‘Production’ (in that order) and removed the rest. Sometimes, I add details on who carried out the mastering and mixing (if available) as part of the production team, but that’s all (see example in A Toda Cuba le Gusta). Hope this helped some; best wishes. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 21:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm putting this in the right place on this discussion, but I was working on A Night at Studio 54. This is a double album, various artist compilation. I think the article would qualify as a C-Class (or fairly close) with the exception of a personnel list. I think a personnel list for every song on the album (19 in total) would make the article extremely unwieldy. The album itself doesn't even list all these people. For two of the songs, no producers are listed, either.Squad51 (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. This style guide is currently discriminate: "The credits to an album can be extensive or sparse. Some albums have credits for members of management teams, web designers, and artists and repertoire representatives who have little if anything to do with the creation of an album. Additionally, sometimes liner notes can have long lists of thank yous to individuals who were completely unrelated. These unrelated individuals should not be listed—only report musical and technical personnel who had some direct involvement in the creation of the recording or artwork itself." Fezmar9 (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That's true. The issues were just with the lists as a whole. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The best boy and key grip on a film are not as notable as James Jamerson playing bass on an album. Virtually by definition, film/TV projects involve dozens of persons in extremely varied roles. Albums on the other hand, are frequently recorded by a small handful of musicians with about half a dozen technical staff and maybe a couple of visual artists--this describes a solid 90% of studio albums. Some will be more unwieldy of course, particularly in the case of various artist compilations like this one. If anything, I would argue that the track listing should be simpler--it's goal is to list tracks, not the minutiae of every song's performers. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll just say again, as I did a few years ago (maybe at a different MOS), that I really dislike seeing credits for photography, lighting, equipment setup or who-made-the-tea on an article about musicians who played on, or had a hand in creating, the music of an album. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Some album covers are famous. Not crediting who made the art is silly--it's called an album for a reason. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That's what the infobox caption is for. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: Why are you making up obvious lies? Template:Infobox_album#caption: "If the album has been issued with different front covers, which version the image refers to should be noted here." Please advise. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep your baseless accusations in check. I've seen the caption being used for links to cover art designers with articles, such as H. R. Giger. "Please advise" on why you've accused me of lying, when I did nothing of the sort. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: Because you're just making up stuff. Maybe you're BSing but either way, what you are saying is incorrect and I think you just made it up out of nowhere to suit your preference. What would you prefer I call that? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

So I wasn't quite on the mark—my tone (for the caption comment) was neutral, and I went by what I'd seen in other articles thinking that was purpose of the caption. You calling me a liar was incivil and you could've simply worded it in a different way to make your point. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: Excuse me then: you are mistaken and I would encourage you to look at the template prior to saying why it exists. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I'll rephrase what I should've originally said: "That's what I've seen the caption being used for." Looking at the above MOS guideline for it, the usage described is sparse and sort of open to interpretation; e.g., Look What the Cat Dragged In and Atomic Playboys. And just as a btw, I prefer "production". ;-) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Track listing template

I propose that the {{Track listing}} template become standard formatting for album track listing. The vast majority of album pages being created use this template, however a select few (for example, Carrie & Lowell) still continue to use numbered lists due to the personal preferences of specific editors. For the sake of consistency and readability of album pages, as well as keeping up to date, the "Track listing" section here should be updated to list the template as the preferred way of connoting track lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmio78 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The template is needlessly complicated for what is actually a perfect example of a list. Why make it a table? This is a perfect example of the semantics of HTML and is much easier to type. Additionally, the text can flow in the browser as it is resized whereas the template has a long-standing issue of not expanding further to the right than the infobox. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm dead against it. I agree with Justin's reasoning ( "Why make it a table? ... perfect example of the semantics of HTML"). From what I've seen over the years, if the majority of album articles use the template, the trend's been helped along massively by people dedicating their time to nothing but converting articles to this type of track listing – which is also just "the personal preferences of specific editors". That's not to say that many article writers don't choose to add the template, too, but I can't help thinking it's the dedicated efforts of a few editors that have boosted the numbers. Whereas, I'd say, if you write an article and think of it in terms of a piece that works from top to bottom, with each element (including images, samples, quote boxes, lists, tables) complementing the others, you know what's superfluous and what isn't; and, if it's an article about an album with regular songs and by an artist with only one lead singer, you know the track listing template is redundant. If the template didn't render the list like an accountant's ledger, perhaps I wouldn't be so averse to the idea, but imo it looks vile. JG66 (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I too am opposed to making the track listing template the standard. For most articles a numbered list is easier to read, and looks better. It's easier to edit too. For some articles with complicated track listings, the template is better, or a simple table, but those articles are in the minority. So the guideline should continue to suggest a numbered list for most articles, but leave it up to the editors' discretion which to use. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I'd forgotten that: easier to edit. Last year, Van Morrison was one of the artists I noticed whose album articles were all being converted to carry the track listing template. I'm not saying that the editor(s) didn't also help expand the articles along the way, I don't know, but most of Morrison's album articles are a good example of where the track listing is utterly straightforward (same lead singer throughout, almost all songs self-composed, no variants in producer or sample credits to contend with), and so they're in no way the "more complicated" scenario that, per MOS:ALBUM#Track listing, might necessitate a template or table option. If you compare the version of Van's Saint Dominic's Preview from a couple of years ago (selecting the Edit tab and then scrolling down to Track listing) with the current one, it's way easier to edit in the first example, without having to negotiate the HTML parameters that accompany each song.

If it's a concern that track listings look different from article to article, my suggestion is that the focus should be on redesigning the template so that it renders the information in the same (natural) style that a numbered list does. Without the indentation, mounting, greying-out, etc. JG66 (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"Production" should be restored

The personnel section of this page previously read: Note that the format used here is "[Name] – [instrument]". Do not use the format "[Name] – [role]" (such as "Johnny Bee – guitarist".) This means that you should employ "guitar" rather than "guitarist" and "production" rather than "producer". This should be restored, as Walter Görlitz appears to have changed this in 2016 without agreement from anybody else (@EddieHugh: actually directly disagreed with them above) because they feel strongly that "production" appears to be inaccurate or reduces what producers have done on records. The wording still states we should not use a role, and "producer" is a role. This is not reducing the work of producers or whatever the concern was—for the same reason we don't state "guitarist" or "mixer", we should not be saying "producer" but that they contributed "production" to the recording. Otherwise this is inconsistent. @Koavf: What do you think about this? @Jennica: has also changed a few of these around. Ss112 16:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

See the discussion above. No one in the industry calls the role "production" and so per COMMONNAME, neither should we. And you're mistaken when you say it was without agreement from anybody else. See the discussion above and AllMusic and every music publication on the planet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Uh, it was without agreement. Mudwater proposed two styles but didn't comment back, and even earlier than that, EddieHugh disagreed with you but didn't care enough to fight over it, so your change stayed in 2016. Publications doing what they like is mostly irrelevant on Wikipedia; I'm sure you're aware we have our own processes here and do not have to replicate what AllMusic or any other website does. Ss112 18:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Walter and I have discussed this before and are at different perspectives still. It's entirely appropriate for us to call anything whatever we want to have an internal style guide. COMMONNAME is (mostly) applicable for the title of an article, not any reference to something in the running text. I think it's worthwhile to keep a common format of "Name/instrument" rather than "Name/role". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Koavf. I agree; COMMONNAME doesn't appear to apply to producer/production here. The sentence on the page is inconsistent with the use of "producer" (but I don't think the sentence should be removed). It's saying don't state role but despite all claims to the contrary, "producer" is still a role and we're using it only because of what appears to be Walter Görlitz's opinion. Ss112 18:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm with "production" over "producer". It reads more consistently when used alongside "engineering", "mixing", etc., and in general the previous version quoted by User:Ss112. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the record producer (the COMMONNAME]] produces. The producer's role is not "production" but "to produce" I do think that if the "role" sentence is tripping people, it should be removed. We should be using the terms that WP:RSes use, not make up our own. Wikipedia already is the butt of jokes, and if we insist on using a term that is simply incorrect, we'll be further marginalized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

COMMONNAME does not apply here, as Koavf pointed out. It's for the title of an article. If you just mean the common term other sites use, then just say that. Regardless, as we're all aware, Wikipedia has its own internal styles and guidelines, influenced by others but also its own. It's not much of a stretch or particularly making up our own term to use "production" (as if that's an unheard of term when we mean who was the producer of a song or album) over "producer" to be consistent with our not using other roles. "Producer" is still used plenty on articles, it's just for personnel sections that production should be used for consistency. That's all that's being proposed, not let's change every instance or rephrase every sentence. I don't agree with that sentence being removed because it's from the time before you changed the wording without consensus. AllMusic also uses "mixer" and "engineer", but we don't, so we're really only sticking to using "producer" on this guideline because of your idea that it's incorrect. Other users don't believe it is incorrect, so I believe what we should be doing here is following consensus here or what most users deem should be used. Ss112 06:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm clearly not explaining myself well. What is the common name of the article? It's record producer.

I did say it's the common term above.

Wikipedia does have its own internal styles and guidelines, and we rely on what reliable sources to inform them.

"Production" is not our own term, it's a term used for something other that what the producer uses. It is for this reason that we should not use it as the role of the producer on a work.

I don't usually see "mixer" at AllMusic, but https://www.allmusic.com/album/44-876-mw0003158231/credits is a good example. We see "producer" and "additional production", applied to the same person (Martin Kierszenbaum). Please show me where AllMusic uses "mixer". Also please explain why both terms are used.

I'm not proposing replacing all instances, only the correct use of the commonnname of the role.

I have yet to see a professional source call the role of the producer "production" so we look like asses by using that term. If other editors have no clue about its correct use, that doesn't make our consensus correct. Well, I don't since I don't use that term. We must use the correct term, the term that reliable sources use, not come up with our own. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you agree with consensus or think it's correct or not; the opinion of one editor does not outweigh multiple who believe the page should say otherwise. Also, you state "'production' is not our own term" then you state "we should not be coming up with our own term" to refer to said word...I'm confused as to what you mean, because this seems contradictory. Regardless, it is not "coming up with our own term"—you're acting as if "production" is not a word or ever used to refer to what a producer does, but that it's always used in the context of "the entirety of work on a song". This sounds like a big call to make and an assumption on your part about what everybody means when they say it.

I was mistaken about the use of "mixer"; it does use "engineer", however, which is the same type of thing we should not be crediting: [9], [10]. AllMusic is itself inconsistent with how it credits people and its use of wording. I don't know why we'd be relying on their database on how to write everything here. I'm going to wait for other editors to comment here. I have asked a few who I know add personnel sections to offer their own opinion(s)—I have had my differences with these editors, so they're not going to just repeat my POV. If that doesn't suffice, I'll ask for an RfC and so on. As I have stated, the page should not have been altered by you in 2016. We should not be changing style guides, which users frequently refer to, without consensus. Ss112 08:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If we were to start using "mixer" and "engineer" to go with "producer", then we'd have to use "guitarist" and "drummer"—or else really look like asses. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for "mixer", but [[audio engineer|engineer]] is the correct usage. And We should get rid of the idea of "role" entirely and go with what other sources more knowledgeable use.

Since "production" means something other than just what the "record producer" does, it's wrong to use it. No one has offered a single source to support it, and by definition, it's the wrong term. We should not be using an incorrect term that sound similar to the actual role. I don't care what the consensus is because no one who is arguing for this new consensus can support it with any facts that it is the correct term for the role. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It has now been several weeks. Producer is the role, not production. No sources have been provided and the ambiguous term suggested for a role (production) is not sustainable. Clearly the user or the word "role" is confusing matters. We should change our phrase so that we can continue to use the common terms used in the music industry and in liner notes in general. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The section should probably be reworked as it states we should be using sub-headings, which goes against the idea of not having short section as set out in MOS:LAYOUT. We should recommend bold WP:PSEUDOHEADINGs as well. If no one objects, I could work-up a new section and seek comments and improvements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I object to any changes to further the idea that roles should be credited. I still do not agree with "producer", and it appears nobody else here does agree with that either. I'm not going to continue to argue about that, but I will seek further comment from others when I can get around to it. I don't care about the bit regarding subheadings being changed, but I believe the sentence regarding roles not being credited but rather what the person did staying, because otherwise then we'll have all this ugly mismatching like "engineer" with "mixing", and we don't need that. It's still fine as is. Regardless, consensus is required for further changes, so if you do intend to change it, you should propose it here on the talk page first (if that's what you meant, instead of adding it to the page to begin with) and then see if other editors agree with your changes. Ss112 06:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Object all you want. No one writes "production". It's not an ugly mismatch, it's correct usage. You have still failed to show any other source that uses your ugly misunderstanding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to show sources to object to you changing a page without consensus years ago, getting away with it, then edit warring to retain it. If consensus is determined here, you will have to respect it. You can't disregard it just because you don't like it. An admin will enforce it if it becomes consensus, and I'd really like to see you try to edit war with an admin because you think consensus doesn't apply to you. You won't be changing anything more on this page without consensus, that's for sure, and I will report you if you do, so propose whatever you like. It'll probably be another ugly mismatch of terms. Ss112 14:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Oh, yes..."correct usage"...to you and a user-contributed database with terrible inconsistencies like AllMusic. Ss112 15:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not limiting you to the universally accepted source of AllMusic. Liner notes would be acceptable. Sources of your choosing. No limitations. Just remember, every source you offer, I will provide at least two similar that say "producer" is the common term.

And if you don't like AllMusic, you are welcome to take it to WP:RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not say I didn't like AllMusic, it just has terrible inconsistencies with the terms it uses, and as all we know, part of it is user-submitted. Ss112 15:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not say you are limited to AllMusic, but you have not provided any source that calls the producer function as "production". And so speaking of user-submitted, that defines your argument. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the only user who has stated they support the use of "production", so if you're trying to dismiss my argument as "user-submitted", I'm clearly not alone in that, but you yourself are relying on a user-submitted database to back up your argument. I'm not going to restate the other things I've already said. I will see if other users comment here, and if not, I will request for further comment at a later time. This back-and-forth is going nowhere. Ss112 16:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't do this lightly, but you're intentionally lying or are deeply confused. I used AllMusic once. I have referenced many other locations. You have not provided one source to support your argument except your preference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not deeply confused or "intentionally lying". You're primarily relying on AllMusic. As I said, Walter, it is not just my preference. It also appears to be the "preference" of three other people who've commented here now. It's also what this page originally said before you changed it to your preference. Doesn't matter if your preference is what a user-submitted database also says, it's still a preference. These are all preferences. Also, you provided a few examples. You also said just above you could provide "at least two similar". Two is not many examples. You keep making this about what sources say. You keep demanding I provide a source that states "production", but this section is titled "production should be restored" for a reason. As in, restore what was written on the article in the first place. That doesn't require me, or really any of the four users here saying they would like production to be there, to provide a source. It's the way the article was. Regardless, I believe Koavf has pointed out that we have our own internal style on Wikipedia, and it's quite common around Wikipedia to state "production on the song was handled by [name of record producer]", so production is used in this way and is not something anybody here has "invented". That would also indicate other users appear to think it's fine to use too, so stop demanding I or anybody provide one because it's not about sources, and honestly, AllMusic is not the best thing you could be relying on to primarily back up your argument anyway. Unless you have anything new to say instead of "you have not provided any sources", "this is your preference", "your argument is [insert adjective here]", I'm done going around in circles with you. I will ask others for input. Ss112 01:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No I'm not primarily relying on AllMusic you liar. YOu clearly have not been reading what I have written. I have provided examples from AllMusic, which is a reliable source, but I have allowed you to provide any other source, such as liner notes, which I rely on, or music reviews from Rolling Stone and other publications, which I have relied on. So your preference is not grounded in anything but preference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Now you're just hurling insults at me. Stop with the personal attacks, thanks. You obviously can't remember what you've said. Any other editor reading this can clearly see you've mentioned AllMusic more than any other source, so that doesn't make me a liar. Use the "find" function in your browser and type in AllMusic and see how many instances of that come up in your replies. More than any other source you've mentioned. You are primarily relying on AllMusic because you've mentioned it over and over, more than any other source that says "producer". It was literally the first thing you mentioned on this page about producer/production. For the last time, this is not about me or any other editor providing sources, it's about consistency and restoring what the page originally said. It's not about sources. It's about restoring the page. You clearly haven't been reading what I've been saying, or you just don't want to get it. Either way, your refusal to acknowledge what you've previously said is not my problem. Whatever; I will be seeking further input. Ss112 04:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No I'm making it clear that you're misrepresenting my words. That's a problem. A very large problem. I can show you the liner notes of 5,000 CDs in my collection, 500 vinyl recordings, the thousands of articles on Rolling Stone, Spin, and a dozen other informed sources. You're showing me your opinion and an opinion that term means what you want it to mean, when it doesn't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You repeatedly wrote and referenced AllMusic again and again. You wrote those words yourself, not me. I'm not misrepresenting you to point out facts—anybody can use ctrl+F, search "AllMusic", and a lot are in your replies. You relied on AllMusic that over and over. Actually who else cares about your opinion that I "misrepresented" you? Nobody. It would be a problem if you couldn't speak for yourself, but you can. You're doing that over and over.

Nobody in this discussion has denied that "producer" is a valid term. Nobody is trying to deny that "producer" is used in many contexts. I don't care how many CDs or recordings with liner notes you have. It doesn't matter, because it doesn't invalidate "production" as a term, because a producer contributes production to a recording. What else does a producer contribute aside from production in a single word? Actually simply describe (in a single word) what a record producer does to a track without using the word "production". Or don't—whatever. They don't contribute "producer", because that doesn't make sense. You're repeatedly trying to single me out as if this is solely my opinion, when you can clearly see for yourself three other users want "production" on the page, and that it was originally there. It's evidently not just my opinion if that's the way the page was in the first place, as I didn't write it. Funnily enough, you're the only person on this page so far who's said they want "producer", so that's actually the one, single opinion on this page. It is also your implication alone that the use of "producer" in sources invalidates "production" as a description of what a producer contributed to a track. Ss112 06:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

But this isn't the only place we've had this discussion. COMMON does matter. An ambiguous, misleading term does matter. Your opinion is what doesn't matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Three other users have said they prefer "production". It's not just my "opinion". You also act as if the sources you've named have never used the word "production" to refer to what a producer has done on a song, as Hayman30 said below. This is the only place I've had this discussion, so if you mean I was involved elsewhere, I don't think so (by all means, please inform me where else I was involved). And of course, you can't reduce what a producer did to one word or a simple description of a few words, so you just ignore what I asked. COMMON doesn't apply, as you've already been told above by Koavf. So in that case, it is also your opinion you're pushing here, and so don't try to act like your opinion is superior and others' are invalid, because in no way is that the case here on Wikipedia. We're not sourcing content on an article where I and several other users have a strong opinion and want to add it. We're talking about a style guide that originally used "production" before you changed it. Ss112 08:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Little late to the discussion, but I would prefer "production" for the sake of consistency, and I don't see the point in following "industry standards". Hayman30 (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

But it's not consistent. It's ambiguous. Everything done in the studio is production. That includes audio engineering, mixing, mastering and a dozen other things that are required in the production of an album. The producer does more than just production. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It is consistent. "Production" goes well with "mixing", "engineering", "mastering"...you should get what I mean. Personal or "industry" preferences does not override consensus. Hayman30 (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

And consensus should be informed by common usage and reliable sources. The term is misleading as it means more than what the producer does. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's also a matter of what makes sense. We describe what somebody contributed to a track in personnel sections. They didn't contribute "producer", because that doesn't make sense. We use the terms guitar, saxophone, trumpet, drums, mixing, engineering, then "producer"? That makes no sense. They contributed production. To be in line with "do not credit roles", I challenge you to describe what a producer did to a track without using the word "production" in a single word. Ss112 06:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What makes sens is using the correct term, not an incorrect one. The one you're suggesting means something more than just what the producer does. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no "common usage" here—and if there is, we're not bound to follow it—a lot of publications use the word "production" when referring to what the producer did, e.g. "Over the mellow production by [producer name]..." Hayman30 (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Then let's make up our own word, because production means more than what the producer does. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I have personally preferred production over producer. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Why not producizing (or the "international" producising)? At least my made-up term doesn't conflict with an actual term that is used to describe activity done in the studio by people other than the producer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Just for kicks, I tried a Google string of "album" "production duties" -wikipedia Whether it's a synonym for "producer" I can't say, but the results look numerous enough to at least support "production" as a valid term. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It is a valid term, but "production duties" are not done by the producer alone, they are shared with the audio engineers, and others in the studio. Did you even bother to check the links? Many on the first page are from Wikipedia. The first one I see states, "All 13 tracks were executive produced by Norwegian producer Lido. Additional production duties were handled by Knox Fortune, Carter Lang, and The Social Experiment members Peter Cottontale, Nico Segal, and Nate Fox." What you should be reading is http://www.rodelsound.com/studio-blog/the-role-of-a-music-producer-in-modern-music-production. I won't restate the blog's content but it makes it clear that the producer is not the sole individual doing "production", except when no other technical personnel are listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Good link. Something to think about, then. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to the "Album ratings template" section

I think we should add a line to the section saying that among the ten reviews included, all the reviews should reflect the critics' consensus. It makes zero sense to include a review with a low rating, if the critic consensus is the album was highly rated. Same goes for putting high rated reviews if the critic consensus is that the album was poorly rated. Ultimately the goal would be to have all ten reviews accurately reflect the aggregate scores. I think we prioritize certain sources (*ahem* AllMusic) a little too much, so if any of the reviewers make an anomaly review which isn't near the critic consensus, then it shouldn't have a place in the box. What does everyone think about this idea? --Bobtinin (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course it makes sense to include a review that doesn't reflect the consensus of critics, it's what we call WP:BALANCE. I also get the feeling this an end-run around the discussion above about AllMusic: WP:STICK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It isn't, this would apply to any source. If it doesn't reflect the consensus it doesn't belong in the box, simple as that. --Bobtinin (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That's already been addressed by BALANCE, which says it does belong in the review. In fact, we should instead be deferring to important or recognizable sources regardless what their opinion of the piece is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

We can do both, I'm not saying we shouldn't be using recognizable or important sources. I'm just saying out of those sources, we should make sure people are adding ones that properly represent the critic consensus. According to the very rule you cited, it says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". The prominent view will always be the critic consensus. --Bobtinin (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Walter Görlitz: "That's already been addressed by BALANCE": where? "The prominent view will always be the critic consensus": what is this even supposed to mean?

I'd rather see the ratings boxes dropped entirely. Wikipedia is not a ratings site, and the boxes mix contemporary scores with later scores without any sort of context whatsoever (an exception is Led Zeppelin (album), which gives three scores for Rolling Stone). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

At "describe both points of view and work for balance". Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Huh? We're not talking about conflicting points of view. We're talking about presenting one view as if it's the consensus, merely because it's the easiest to link to. That's not WP:BALANCE and violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. A Wikipedia article's job is to summarize the critical consensus, which is obviously not what's happening. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster definition of prominent is "widely and popularly known". The widely and popularly known view among critics will always be the critic consensus, that's not hard to understand. --Bobtinin (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

We get that by summarizing a survey of critical views (or quoting a third-party source that has done this for us). We don't get this by selecting (or highlighting) one "prominent", easy-to-link-to source and calling it the critical consensus. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Take a look at the distortion that comes from these boxes: in my FA of Love It to Death, we have three reviews: one 21st-century AllMusic review followed by two contemporary reviews—except there's no way to see the context of the dating. I'd love to drop this pointless box entirely—the prose handles the critical reception far, far better. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting point actually. Perhaps a solution could be to date the scores, like add "(2005)" beside the outlet's name, if it was written in 2005, after years of the album being out. --Bobtinin (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'd still prefer to just drop them. Wikpedia's not a ratings site. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm for dropping reviews altogether. It's usually just an excuse for drive-by IPs to plug their indie websites. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC re Here (Alicia Keys album)

There is an ongoing Requests for Comment (created 12 September 2018) about whether the critical reception section should be reduced. You may comment, if you wish, at:
Talk:Here_(Alicia_Keys_album)#RfC:_Should_the_critical_reception_section_be_trimmed?
( Correct me if I'm wrong: aren't RfCs supposed to be made known in their relevant wiki project — as in, what is decided for one article can affect other articles in the project? Anyway, this RfC on the article's talk page was not posted here. Ergo .... ) Pyxis Solitary yak 04:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Pro Kenshusei

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Hello Pro Kenshusei#1 Let’s Say "Hello!" as to whether the stylization of the album is important. Your input is greatly appreciated. lullabying (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Discogs

@Koavf: Thanks for this edit. I thought Discogs was unreliable having seen it at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. So I was puzzled by the comment at WP:RS/N suggesting it was, so I copied it. I was going to ask, but thought since it was unchallenged at WP:RS/N I misunderstood something. You might want to say something at WP:RS/N to clarify. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Consensus has been that it is unreliable for most things, but it's an accurate representation of track listings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Since it's just user-submitted with no editorial oversite, it would basically always be better to cite AllMusic. Good question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Or not at all?

Really? I'm not sure I disagree, I just don't want it to come as a surprise. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, It's a little strong. Feel free to revise. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure it's strong or weak, it's just a good, WP:BOLD edit at this point. Let's see how it lands with others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sales or Commercial performance?

On articles such as Late Registration and My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, Isento has been changing the section named Commercial performance to be titled Sales. There is nothing in the album article style advice about this, but the section is practically always titled Commercial performance and I'm not using a WP:Other stuff exists argument, more so claiming that there should be a written rule in article style advice about this; is Isento really going to retitle every single Commercial performance section as Sales... I don't think so! I believe that it should be titled Commercial performance even though I am aware that Sales are attributed to performance on record charts, since the sales numbers aren't always reported for chart positions of the albums. What do other editors think of my opinion, do you believe that the section should be titled as such or not? Once we've reached an agreement, maybe it should be added to the article style advice and should this be below or above Critical reception if so? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, I think "Commercial performance" makes more sense, as it can include things like how it was marketed and it's generally more common than "Sales" in use already. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: To my point, I think we just need to come to a consensus with other editors over this to see what the final verdict is, as I won't edit war with Isento. --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

They both mean the same thing lol - one is just more straightforward and understandable than the other. As for the promotional angle of "Marketing", "Sales" sections in those particular articles merely discuss sales, which is defined as the exchange of a commodity for money, in whatever form that may be - physical CD copies, streams of an album licensed (i.e. sold) to a service and the subsequent streams recorded. The content of the "Sales" section in Late Registration mentions "sales" or "sold" in almost all of its sentences. If marketing and promotional efforts are discussed in the same section, then it can be titled "Marketing and sales", as in Aftermath, When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?, if we are to focus narrowly on current examples. Actually, by its definition, "marketing" alone could suffice. The other point that should be considered is accessibility for the general reader - as one myself, I find "Commercial performance" too technical, jargon-y, and intimidating than something simple and straightforward like the other possible titles. Furthermore, this is a style guide, not a rulebook - the content of each article will also dictate how it is consolidated and organized. isento (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

To your points Isento, Late Registration is only one article of many and I agree what you said about the content of an article dictating things, but that is if there is not enough info on commercial performance to make multiple paras, then it will be part of marketing and sales section or reception. Also, too technical makes no sense as an argument against something since this is an encyclopedia but let's wait and see what more users say of this subject since neither of us solely dictate the titling. --Kyle Peake (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

A Google search for the phrase "Commercial performance" results in nothing but technical articles. This phrase is clearly not a commonly used expression. Here are relevant guidelines advising us to use simpler terminology. isento (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible … Avoid using jargon whenever possible. Consider the reader." (WP:AUDIENCE) isento (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• "Wikipedia articles should have a straightforward, just-the-facts style. Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible. If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more understandable explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it." (WP:TECHNICAL) isento (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• "Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used. In addition, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed) … If no precision is lost, use common terms instead of technical terms. Substitute technical terms with common terms where they are completely equivalent … Eliminate long strings of adjectives, particularly technical adjectives … Use language similar to what you would use in a conversation. Many people use more technical language when writing articles and speaking at conferences, but try to use more understandable prose in conversation." (Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Avoid_overly_technical_language)

<edit conflict>I think it's "Commercial performance", as a rule. Usually we're giving chart peaks, weeks at number 1 where applicable, for the album and any singles, along with mention of industry certification in the main markets. If the section genuinely deals more with sales, even though sales are implicit in the chart peak and certifications, then that's different. But in that scenario, you'd really expect to see a sales-focused description: a mass of totals, obviously, and sales strategies such as RRP or how wholesalers pushed an album through to retailers, mention of buying patterns, etc. That's the way I see it, and I think it's clear to readers. JG66 (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Charts are measurements of sales relative to competing releases. isento (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The average user will understand that commercial performance is in reference to how a song performed on charts, since commercial makes this fairly obvious when combined with performance. Also, streaming is often included for charts so articles such as Jesus Is King can't have the section retitled, making it confusing and somewhat tedious to have older articles with the sales title but not newer ones. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You are still missing the point: "commercial" means "related to commerce", and "commerce" means "the buying and selling of goods", which simply means "sales". "Commercial performance" is merely an inflation, a hyberbolic puffed up way of saying the same thing. I cannot make that any clearer to you. As for discussions of chart performance, there really shouldn't be a section substantially dealing with chart trajectory, as WP:RECORDCHARTS warns against. Also, there is no need to have a consistency of section titles across articles - WP:MOS makes that quite clear that an article needs only to have internal stylistic consistency. As for streaming, like I said before, the label participates in a sale with the streaming service when it allows its music to be distributed by the service - see this article by Marketplace for an explanation of the process. I do not know how many times I can say the same thing. If you believe a stream is part of the commerce of music releases, then you have to accept that it is part of sales. I really am not seeing an argument here - maybe just an honest misapprehension of what these phrases actually mean and a comfort with some hackneyed expression that's been thoughtlessly trotted around these articles for a long enough time to convince everyone it's right. isento (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Depending on what's discussed in the section. If it is only the units sold, "sales" is preferred. If the section talks about accolades based on the sales, the "commercial performance" would make more sense, but since we have a separate "certifications" section for that, I don't see why sales is being rejected. Use the common name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Certifications are often mentioned in the discussed section, as are chart positions that don't have the sales listed and year-end charts too. Are you in agreement with it being called commercial performance or not because your sentence read confusingly? --Kyle Peake (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

He said "use the common name". "sales" is the more commonly used term - see this comparison of articles at Billboard.com, over a million results with the term "Sales", vs. 104 results with the term "Commercial performance". An ideal Wikipedia album-article would not have a section of prose limited to chart positions. Specific sales figures would have to have been reported. isento (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those articles are already ignoring the advice laid-out here. I can see why they would ignore the advice of section naming in general. So to reiterate, I'd prefer the simpler "sales" if that's all that is discussed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Track listing

Hi all,

Just to notify you that there are some suggested changes up for discussion to the template at Template_talk:Track_listing#Suggested_changed_to_bring_in_line_with_MOS:ACCESS. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 10:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

A&R in personnel section

The guide states "artists and repertoire representatives who have little if anything to do with the creation of an album" should not be listed. Most A&R people have a lot to do with the creation of the album. They help determine which songs go on and which don't, they also help determining if a song "needs something" and which songs will be singles. More is detailed in the overseeing the recording process process of the A&R article. I'm not sure why they're not to be listed and how we can tell when they have "little if anything to do with the creation of an album" and when they do have something to do with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, You just included a redlink. Did you mean A&R? Many A&R persons are just someone who tricks a band into signing a contract. By that thinking, managers, lawyers, accountants, etc. have something to do with making an album (and sure enough, there are sometimes voluminous thank yous to all of them as well). If some of them do have something to do with creating the album, source that in the article's proper body. Your post is self-contradictory: you claim that A&R are responsible for making an album but then also say that we can't know if they are. Which one is it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, A&R. Not all A&R people fall into that category though. No contradiction as I know many bands rely on their A&R people or complain about their A&R people getting too involved, but our guideline states that we should not included them if "have little if anything to do with the creation of an album" and so how do we prove that? How do we prove the producer (not the production, which is another ignorant change this project insists on) is actually involved in the production of the album? I've heard stories of band members doing all the work of the producer because the producer could not get the band's vision for an album (think Boston or other bands), yet the producer gets credit on the liner notes. If the role f producer is credited, we list it. If A&R is credited, we list it. I agree that it makes no sense to list legal, manager, booking agent, etc. Production assistants should be listed and production manager should as well. They're helping to fit the pieces of the album together. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, These questions are easily solved by WP:OR and WP:RS: if sources state that a nominal "producer" did not have anything to do with making an album or if they state that an A&R person was deeply involved in making one. If someone is credited as producer and did not have anything to do with making the recording, he should not be listed as such. As the next paragraph at WP:ALBUMSTYLE states:

Note also that some liner notes are vague or inaccurate—in such cases, cite reliable secondary sources to inform readers of who was actually responsible for creating the album. For instance, My Chartreuse Opinion by Scott McCaughey and the Minus 5 lists Bob Dylan as a drummer in what is clearly a joke; it would not be appropriate to actually include this reference, nor to add this album to the Bob Dylan discography. Similarly, the Dylan album Street-Legal uses some vague titles for some of the contributors—producer Don DeVito is listed as "Captain in Charge". In this instance, it's not clear what some of the contributors actually did, so providing these titles with an explanatory note on their nature is the best information we can provide the reader. Secondary sources outlining how they actually contributed to the recordings should be sought for clarity.

This isn't a liner notes transcription service, so we should not reproduce whatever is written in liner notes in all circumstances. I think that production assistants and production managers make sense to add for the same reason that you stated. If you have any sources other than stories you've heard, please dispel my ignorance. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

But that's the whole point, most times, we don't know when an A&R person was heavily involved, the producer was uninvolved, the musicians actually played the instruments they are listed as having played, or anything else, but the advice is that we shouldn't list A&R people and that's ridiculous. Lawyers, tour managers, etc. I understand, but not A&R. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, I guess I'll just appeal to common sense that producers have something to do with making an album. I'm still not seeing any real evidence that A&R typical have anything to do with the actual final product of an album. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any clue why you keep pinging me, or why you don't know what an A&R person does, but then again, little you do makes much sense to me so how about you stop typing and let some of the rest of the project comment, preferably someone who knows what A&R does for a band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, I'm pinging you because I'm responding to the messages that you are writing on a third-party talk page. Fortunately, there is no typing rationing, so anyone else can jump in at any time to substantiate your claim that A&R are typically involved in the making of individual albums. If you have any sources showing how they do this while discovering 3,000 bands a week or that they do anything more than market existing albums (and that's assuming that they aren't just label reps that try to cut costs), then I'm happy to see them. My only recollection about what they do other than go to concerts and listen to demos and then present contracts is from a memoir where a former musician said that his job was just to connive young musicians into lopsided contracts. None of this has to do with actually making an album. Happy to read any sources that show otherwise. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Koavf No sources just now, just felt like pinging you. Expect more of that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, Feel free to ping me if you are directly responding to something I said: that's helpful. What is not helpful is your weirdly antagonistic attitude. I would sincerely hope that two Anabaptists wouldn't have such a petty slapfight on a collaborative reference work but here we are. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Koavf Feel free not to ping me. I watch this board and will respond when I want. The big, red alert reads urgent, so don't use it. OK? Nothing you have written here has been helpful, as usual. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, don't be rude to me. Please feel free to take some time off and come back when you want to use appropriate language. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

See. No need to ping. And when you don't ping me, I respond nicely. Feel free to take some time off and come back when you want to stop pushing your POV on the project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, I find it hard to believe that you think that is nice or assuming good faith. Does anyone have sources showing how A&R are involved in making albums? The sources I have all say nothing about this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Second major bullet point at musiccareers.net is "overseeing the recording process". No details are provided. thebalancecareers.com states "booking recording sessions where required. Any task that needs to be done to get the record ready for release may fall to the A&R rep." The next paragraph underlines that they may also connect the band to songwriters (if that is what is required). musicbizacademy.com lists two bullet points: "Provide creative input and direction on artist's material" (read: picks the music to go on an album). "Find suitable producers and recording studios." This echos the work above. Berklee School of Music differentiates the A&R Representative's role and the A&R Manager's role. The role of the latter, they claim, is "finding new material for an artist to record, introducing an artist to potential musical collaborators and producers, ... or even planning and supervising entire records." Any way you cut it, A&R is as involved in the actual work of the recording as that of many "songwriters". Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Personnel track credits

Since I first created a heapload of album articles in 2008, I always included which tracks a performer played on if there is more than one performer of the same instrument, in the Personnel section. Later on I also started adding technical/production credits such as engineering, mixing and mastering; again specifying if more than one contributed to particular tracks. But apparently "we exclude track info here", according to someone who suggests to me that I should "roll up my sleeves and add content rather than trivia".. huyy. What is the actual practice we go by? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Mac Dreamstate, I have no clue what he's talking about or why he's removing the technical personnel who helped make the album. You can easily see on several featured album articles as well as the examples given in this style advice that "we" include such information. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

One has to question some users' mental health on here sometimes, heh. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Not just for music anymore

Albums don't just contain music; they are also used to record comedy (and for that matter, radio drama too). The WP Albums advice documents should all be generalized to allow for this. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Tour sections?

I've been seeing exhaustive tour sections pop up on some album pages as of late, such as the one here. This seems excessive to me, and another user brought to my attention that it may be an example of fancruft, but I'd like to get some more opinions on it. Someone obviously put a lot of work into that example I provided, but it's very esoteric and also poorly sourced. Should sections like this be removed?—The Keymaster (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the main problem I have is with the very long tour dates table, as well as the section near the bottom that lists percentages of songs played from albums. This all seems like absolute overkill to me and maybe even OR. The prose paragraph seems okay, although a lot of that appears to be unsourced, too. Thoughts?—The Keymaster (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree on all points. It's there at another Devo album article: Oh, No! It's Devo. Definitely fancruft and OR (it's embarrassing ...) Where a source does occasionally appear, it's a questionable one. Besides, it's not enough to justify giving that much detail on tours that don't appear to have received sufficient coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. JG66 (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and they've popped up on nearly all of the Devo album pages, unfortunately. Should I take the liberty of just nuking those sections?—The Keymaster (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'd have no qualms – perhaps keep the tour dates, and tag for a reliable source (not a fan site), but definitely remove all unsourced commentary and analysis such as those percentages. I don't want to lead you into dangerous territory, though, and I know from experience with a Siouxsie & the Banshees uber-fan that it's just draining, and often easier to give up, walk away ...

You know, you might want to post at the proper WP:ALBUMS talk page (WT:ALBUMS) for more feedback. This is the talk page for the Album Style Guide (got renamed for some reason), so it's geared towards content of the guide – what should be added, reworded, clarified, etc, for editors. JG66 (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll pitch it over on that page as well. Thanks for your input.—The Keymaster (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Personnel pseudo-headings

Having read MOS:PSEUDOHEAD, I wanted clarification on the use of either '''[Band name]''' or ;[Band name] in the Personnel section. Rust in Peace uses bold, but I've seen plenty of other articles use the semicolon. Which should we definitively use? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Listing the band members, etc., appears to be a "descriptive list", for which semicolons are acceptable. PSEUDOHEAD doesn't include bolding as an example of an incorrect use for descriptive lists, so it may be just a matter of personal preference. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)