Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Archives
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24

Release dates listed pre-release

I noticed a lot of editors removed the release dates of upcoming albums, citing Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Released as policy against release dates listed before it. I will quote this section for you:

Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified, using a single occurrence of  (), for example July 31, 2007 (2007-07-31) (or July 2007 (2007-07) or 2007 (2007) if the exact date isn't known). Later release dates can be mentioned in a Release history section.

I don't notice anything prohibiting release dates inserted before the album release. So, that should clear it up once and for all, right? If not, please be so kind as to point out what I'm missing. Tom Danson (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the section says nothing about the scheduled release dates of upcoming albums. I think that as long as those dates are referenced for verifiability, it is perfectly appropriate to have them in the article and would be fairly neglectful not to include them. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not upcoming dates (when sourced) should be included in the article, but rather where in the article. Certainly, upcoming, sourced dates in the body of the article are fine. The "Released" section of the infobox, though, is a bad place for this.

I often run across articles where a future date was added in that section (usually, the source (if it exists) is buried in the article somewhere), time passed, the album was delayed or cancelled, and no one updated the infobox. Once the "Released" date (which was actually a "Scheduled release" date) passed, the article wrongly stated that the unreleased album was "released" (no vandalism or ill-intent required) on that now-past date.

It seems to me that either the infobox should be adjusted to include a "Scheduled release" field or any future date should be augmented by "(scheduled)" (or somesuch).

At present, though, the field calls for "Only the earliest known date that the album was released..." Before an album is released, there is no date that the album "was released". The field is "Released". Yes, put the date in the article, just not in the infobox where it can create problems later. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This was also discussed at Template_talk:Infobox_Album/doc#Release_date (with links elsewhere). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• For my money, the infobox is as editable as the rest of the article and thus future release dates, where aptly sourced, are as appropriate there as in the rest of the article. tomasz. 14:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Editable, yes. Include cited info? You bet. I'm talking about making it clear what the date is, no matter how long it stays there. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with what Mdsummermsw says; I'm not sure if I can add anything to the discussion because she has managed to cover all the bases. In trying to clean out (not too successfully) the Unreleased albums category (cancelled albums, not-yet-notable future releases, albums that have been released but still are tagged as unreleased, etc.), I frequently find albums where the infobox "Released" date has passed yet the album has not been released. I am all for future release dates appearing in the body of the article (properly sourced, of course), where it can be put in the proper context ("The album is scheduled to be released on April 3, 2008"). I would be amenable to a "scheduled release date" field being added to the infobox. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(Exdent) I have just invited several other editors who have crossed my path on this issue (sample invite). I am specifically trying to avoid "stacking" this discussion, but would like as many voices on this as possible. So far, I have posted messages for User talk:Freekee‎, User talk:Torc2‎, User talk:Huntster‎, User talk:Hello Control‎, User talk:Tom Danson‎, User talk:Admc2006‎ and User talk:Spellcast‎. Without intending to speak for any one of them, I think Freekee is for some kind of change, Torc2 is weakly for, Hunster is for, Hello Control is for, Tom Danson is against (or at least disagree with my interpretation), IllaZilla is against, tomasz. is against, Spellcast is against, Admc2006 is against and you all should know where I stand. I think we have a decent sample of those involved, but bring more if you find anyone else interested. Again, my goal is to find a solid concensous on this so we can all move ahead. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm for it. Since the release date is already specified in the body of the article, we should wait until the release date occurs to add it in the Released section. Admc2006 (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

On further thought I think I agree with Mdsummermsw. The fact that the field says "released" (past tense) causes confusion if the date listed is a future release date. That being the case, I say leave it out of the infobox but put it in the opening paragraph with a reference for verifiability. Once the album has been released, add the date to the infobox (and adjust the opening paragraph wording, of course). I think this is a simpler solution than adding a "scheduled release date" field to the infobox, esp. since that field would only apply to a particular category of articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Although people know what a future date in a "Released" field means, it's not grammatically correct so I don't think it should be added. Two possible solutions is changing the "Released" field to "Release date" or modifying WP:ALBUM#Released to say future dates should only be said in the article. I prefer the second option because the less redundancy in the infobox, the better. Spellcast (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the best answer is to change the infobox field to "release date". That would be better than changing the guideline to exclude future dates, since that's harder to police. Having said that, I wouldn't complain if the guildeline were chaged. The third option, adding a field for "Scheduled date," would be fine too. The fourth option, to make no changes (or to explicitly allow future dates with no changes in wording), would not upset me either. It's only a minor grammatical issue. But my preference is for the first thing I mentioned. -Freekee (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Freekee, changing the field caption to "Release date" would be the most sensible route. Excluding future dates from an infobox would unnecessarily gimp its one-glance value for the reader and make things more complicated for editors as well. If anything, the template manual should be updated to include a "refs still go into the article body" rule; I still have nightmares from previous revisions of Blink-182 and System of a Down. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 10:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing "Released" to "Release date" is fine with me. I think a lot of people don't even read WP:ALBUM and they'd add future dates anyway, so the first option works for everyone. If there's no objections or anything in a few days, Template:Infobox Album should be slightly modified. Spellcast (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply changing it from Released to Release date doesn't solve any of the problems (other than the semantic ones). I say either add "Scheduled release date" or disallow future dates from the infobox. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting an extra field like "Scheduled release date" is WP:RECENTISM and isn't useful in the long-term. There's always going to be future albums and people will always be adding it even if the template says not to. Changing it to "Release date" solves the issue altogether. The template should be made in such a way that it's applicable at any point in time. Spellcast (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. In the instance of a pushed-back or shelved release, once the "Release" date has passed, it would give the appearance the album has been released even though it hasn't. If there are "Scheduled" and "Released" fields, it would serve much the same purpose as (and more clearly than) Amazon's "original release date" field and the actual release date that appears in parentheses next to the album format. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, that idea sounds ok. I've just released the problem with "Release date" is it's totally redundant once an album is released. Once future albums are released, "Released" is much better and less redundant than "Release date". Adding an extra field or disallowing future dates are both fine with me. Spellcast (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the point of having separate fields is that you'd only use one of them - the future or past field, and the one that's blank wouldn't be visible. -Freekee (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

^I agree with this one 100% (almost posted the suggestion myself). Makes the most sense to me. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 12:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving ahead. 1) Any objections to change? 2) Which option: a)change "Released" to "Release date" or b) add "Release date" (or similar) to be used pre-release only or c) update infobox guide to bar future dates from the box?

My opinion: b. Changing to "Release date" just changes the nature of the problem. Usage instructions are widely ignored. Adding the new field preserves the "at-a-glance" nature of the box for future albums while avoiding the "we're saying it was released because we haven't updated it yet" problem. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Option A is out the question. I'd choose C. For B, once an album is released, the template will have a useless field in the source (even though it may not show in the article). Since a future date is only a small piece of info and that it's only temporary, an extra field just isn't worth it. The template not having a future date is hardly a loss and it would already be said in the article anyway. Spellcast (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Release dates listed pre-release (section break)

Okay, I think we need to be clear on this issue. Let's answer this question first, and then decide how to handle it, if necessary: Should scheduled or projected release dates appear in the infobox? -Freekee (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the opinions seem to be:

- No, because the field is never updated as the future date is missed.

- Yes, because future dates are going to be added no matter what.

- Yes, as long as it is clearly identified as "projected future".

- No, because it can't be identified properly given space constraints.

- Umm... what else?

-Freekee (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly that it needs to be in the infobox. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we just put TBR next to the date in the infobox in <small>? Then someone would see that, say Oh the date has past and change it. Grk1011 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Scaruffi

A minor debate over at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band has led to the fact that Piero Scaruffi's web site is listed here as a suggested/acceptable source. According to the criteria at Wikipedia:SPS, it shouldn't be since:

• Scaruffi's training and area of recognized expertise is not in music;
• His website and books in the area of music are self-published and therefore not citable.

Discussion? Jgm (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

the last few were self-published. the old ones in italian werent. i think his publisher was called Arcana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.148.170 (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with your observations. That situation is not limited to the Sgt Pepper debate. I have noticed it a few times for other pages with similar circumstances - and similar consensus that the unverifiable sources shouldn't be used. Peter Fleet (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• It seems possible that he has become notable for listmaking itself. Please see the 2006 New York Times article, "The Greatest Web Site of All Time", I think it grants him and his reviews a bit of cred:

"MUSIC magazine editors have few more tried-and-true formulas for boosting newsstand sales and Web traffic than best-of lists. Rolling Stone’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time; Spin magazine’s 100 Greatest Albums 1985-2005; Pitchforkmedia.com’s Top 100 album lists for the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s: vast digests of gathered knowledge and opinion, usually the work of teams of editors, journalists and musicians, painstakingly assembled. But their collaborative efforts pale in comparison to the solo work of Piero Scaruffi...

In the cases where there are many reviews available (e.g. Sgt. Pepper, perhaps though currently the article only cites a few reviews), I'd like to leave it up to the editors of a given article to decide if Scaruffi's content is worthy of the album infobox.

Given that he covers a lot of albums that others don't, however, I'm hesitant to say that his reviews aren't fair game. Besides, is there really formal training in music criticism?

I guess I should note that my opinion is one of a few that has been solicited by Jgm, but not in a way that I think violates any policy. I assume I was contacted for one of two reasons: (1) I've participated in similar discussions on this page in the past and/or (2) I've occasionally cited Scaruffi in album articles (usually for somewhat obscure albums). -MrFizyx (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I find his recent addition to music reviews to unacceptable. He seems no more qualified then you or me to have his reviews posted, in fact it seems that any hotheaded critic can write something unfounded about an album and get it posted on just because people at Wikipedia are so desperate for sources. I'm going to get something together to work to have his reviews removed and also to have Robert Christgau reviews removed if no explanation is given because this would not be music journalism in any way, shape or form. See you around. 156.34.179.152 (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Stubs

Some of the album stub categories are getting rather large. I have been working through the Category:2000s album stubs and this has led me to propose some further splits (breaking down jazz, folk and R&B by decade). Any comments are welcome (especially here). Waacstats (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I want to re-open the issue dealing with categories. I think that it is a waste of space to create a category that contains only one or two albums in it. Please shed some light on this issue. Undeath (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Space is cheap. And it's a navigational aid. Once one knows that every artist has a category for its albums, one can always find them with ease. One can go through the band's articles, or through the category tree. -Freekee (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a naming convention for soundtracks?

Is there a naming convention for soundtracks? In a list I am creating in my user space, I have been using film name (soundtrack) or television series name (soundtrack). I added The Big Chill on the list as The Big Chill (soundtrack) only to find it as The Big Chill (album). Several of the soundtracks use (soundtrack) after the name to disambiguate them. Which would this project prefer? - LA @ 08:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

afaik (soundtrack) is much the preferred format. tho if i am wrong, i suspect i will be quickly corrected. tomasz. 11:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 12:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - LA @ 12:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it not by the actual title as printed on the soundtrack itself, ie "xxxx Original Motion Picture Soundtrack" or "Music from xxxx", rather than just by the film title? I would tend to use the title as it appears on the album cover. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends. I looked at Category:Soundtracks briefly and the articles there are very inconsistent. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My inclination is to title the article as the title appears on the album cover (as mentioned above), but then defaultsort it as "xxxx soundtrack" for categorization purposes. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on what the article is about. If we are dealing with a single soundtrack album that bears the exact same title as the film/TV series/video game/etc. the music was taken from (with none of the usual additions IllaZilla mentioned) the standard "[Title] (album)" disambiguation should be sufficient. If the intended scope of the article goes well beyond an individual album, elaborating on several different records or (if still notable) the music alone, the "[Title] (soundtrack)" or "Music of [Title]" formats would be more accurate. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought this was a simple question with a simple answer. I am looking at the cover of The Fifth Element soundtrack. The words "Original Motion Picture Soundtrack" are in a different font and at least 2 font sizes smaller, so if an article was to be done on it, I would title it The Fifth Element (soundtrack), the same for The Big Chill (old cover, same font just smaller and not directly attached to the film title). - LA @ 22:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, there seem to be a lot of variant titles for different editions of The Big Chill soundtrack. This is definitely a trickier question than I thought it would be. I think that even if the words are smaller and in a different font, they are a subtitle and should "count" as part of the article title. Kind of like Spawn: The Album or Alien Resurrection: Complete Motion Picture Score. The subtitle "Original Motion Picture Soundtrack" or whatever is largely how the music industry distinguishes soundtrack albums as soundtrack albums, I think. When in doubt I think it's better to use the subtitle that's on the album cover in order to differentiate it from the film itself, rather than imposing (soundtrack) or (album) as an arbitrary disambiguating term. Of course, if the album has no subtitle, I'd say go with (album) as the dab. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree—my suggestion is name the article either The Fifth Element: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack or The Fifth Element (soundtrack), preferring the former. There should be some cleanup in this regard and a standard established. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 00:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the cover art, Fifth Element and Alien seem to have the the soundtrack phrase as mere descriptions, while Spawn seems to intend "The Album" as part of the title. I'm not sure what you mean by "standardization." -Freekee (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with most people here, so I'll just reiterate: take your best shot at determining the actual title. Then, if it needs disambiguation, tack on (soundtrack). And feel free to set up some relevant redirects. -Freekee (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Would someone here be willing to help me find the titles of various soundtracks for a special project I am working on in my user space? I am trying to put together a list of media franchises from a list of my favorite films and television series which will possibly be used as a base by WikiProject Media franchises. You could also use this as a base for WikiProject Albums, maybe as a little side project or task force since there are soundtracks and scores for a good number of films released. (This is an invite to edit that page in my user space, so if I don't have the right title, please correct it. If a seperate article has not been started for the album, please make the red link. Click on the numbers in the soundtrack column to get to the headings for each franchise. Feel free to expand any section that is incomplete.) - LA @ 07:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Automatically assessed Albums articles

This category page is a redlink, but is being heavily populated by {{album}}. Should this actually be at Category:Automatically assessed Album articles, say? If so, someone needs to fix the twisty maze of nested templates that will put about half the article-space on the job queue. Otherwise, the page could just be re-created. Alai (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, for the time being I've filled in the category page. Feel free to adjust it to some other solution. Alai (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding tracklist

On a few pages, I'm seeing mini edit wars based on the composers and producers of certain tracks. Can the liner notes themselves be a reference, or must there be an actual print source somewhere else stating the fact? I'm sorry if such a question sounds stupid, as to me, the liner notes should suffice, but it seems as though not everyone agrees, so I want to bring it up here. Thanks in advance. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would think that the liner notes would be acceptable regarding the composers of tracks. I use them as a reference in album articles all the time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Unless contradicting information can be found in a reliable source (e.g. the album credits one person but it later turns out that it was someone else). In this case I would think a more-or-less unimpeachable source should be used. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can readily think of cases where the liner notes were deliberately "wrong" (Motown songwriters getting shafted, EVH's guitar on "Thriller", Stings vocals not credited on first pressings of "Money for Nothing", Eric Clapton/the BeeGees as "the Bunburys", etc.). That said, any reliable source mentioning the "true" writer, guitarist, etc. almost invariably makes not of the conflicting label/liner info. Basically, Ten and HC have this wrapped up, but I'd just add that a source that is conflicting the label/liners that isn't noting the conflict is probably simply wrong. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I try to use Template:Cite album-notes in most album articles as a primary source, or at least list the liner notes as a "general reference". This at least gives evidence that the basic info in the article as based on some good source. If there's a conflict between the liner notes and the actual songwriting credits, as in the examples above, that bears further discussion in the article and should reference secondary sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders may have an impact on the widespread use of Image:Nocover.png so comments from members of this project would be appreciated.Genisock2 (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction (soundtrack)

This article is looking much better. It could use some help sourcing the composition section, which should be fairly easy for someone with access to the liner notes. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got both. Will do. Fantailfan (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, nothing special there. --Fantailfan (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC: Halo 3 Original Soundtrack

Eh, it's sorta under your scope, and its the first album article I've written, let alone put up for FAC, so any comments would be appreciated. You can find the FAC page here. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (soundtrack)

I wish to edit the section of the article regarding one of the cues not in the Special Edition. It says that the film version of 'Funeral Pyre for a Jedi' was replaced with the Alternate verision, but that info. is flat-out wrong. The tracklist from the SE called 'Light of the Force' uses both versions of Funeral Pyre for a Jedi, with the alternate version played first followed immediately by the film version.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.27.59 (talk • contribs) 04:03, April 28, 2008

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", so feel free to make the changes. The only thing you should be careful of is that the info is absolutely correct. And if you don't prove it, your changes could get reverted. So please source your information. If you can't figure out how to place the proper citations/references on the page, feel free to explain them on the discussion page, and someone else can take care of it. And please sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) -Freekee (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

EP formatting

So, just to clarify what is on the main page, EP is always preferred over E.P.? And EP should never be included in the title unless the name of the EP is already an article? I know this is made pretty clear, but there seems to be a need for unification. SorryGuy  Talk  02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; we should come to a consensus on how different kinds of releases are disambiguated. I see a lot of EPs and singles dab'd as (album), when I figure it ought be (EP) or (single)/(song) (I prefer "song" in the latter case as it's a more descriptive dab term than "single"). Anyway, yes, it's usually "EP" or "LP" as opposed to "E.P."/"L.P." I'm not sure why that is, though I tend to agree with it. I think it's just an industry standard not to use the periods. In record stores & on release titles I see it without periods more often than with. But you're correct, the disambiguating phrase is unnecessary unless there is another article with the same name as the title of the release. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont like that we use "song". Often ill be making a page for a cd single where theres say 4 tracks, all different. Sure its good when its one song with remixes, but it gets confusing when its basically a mini-album. Grk1011 (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. It should be (single) if it was commercially released in single format (ie. a CD single or a digital single on, say, iTunes with its own tracklist & cover art). If it's a song that wasn't commercially released as single, then (song) is probably better. Of course, this is only if a disambiguation is needed in the first place. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Song is better because—in most cases—the record would have achieved notability because of the a-side charting and the bulk of the article would likely be about that one song. It's easy enough to say "'Blahblahblah' is a song by The Blahblahs and was released as a single" and then include the track listing for said single. My rule of thumb regarding singles/EPs is that if the title of the record is the same as the first song on the record, it's a single, otherwise it's an EP. Mini-album is kind of an out-dated marketing thing and I avoid it unless the record specifically uses the term. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's usually my criteria too. Does it have more than a couple of songs on it? Does it have its own title, not just the title of the lead track? Then it's probably an EP. If it's clearly meant to promote a single track, ie. the first track title is the title on the cover, then it's a single. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"EP" should not be in the article's title unless (1) it is part of the record's title or (2) it is within parentheses as a disambiguator. -Freekee (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of the word 'so'

According to album capitalization guidelines like WP:ALBUM and WP:MUSTARD, conjunctions in album titles should not be capitalized. Depsite this I see the conjunction 'so' capitalized numerous times in articles such as "Don't Stand So Close to Me", "You Are So Beautiful", "You're So Vain", "(What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love, and Understanding", So Far, So Good... So What!, "You Look So Fine", etc. Can someone clarify for me what the official stance on this word is? Xnux the Echidna 22:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In those instances, so is being used as an adverb, and adverbs are capitalized in titles. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Foreign language capitalization

Is there a rule as to which words should be capitalized in a foreign language song? For example, in Mi Sangre by Juanes, all the songs are always capitalized. But in Nuestro Amor by RBD, the songs are capitalized in the "Track listing" section, but not when you open up the articles for the links to the singles themselves (e.g. Tras De Mí/Tras de mí). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually the MusicBrainz standards are what we use here. The Spanish rule is that only the first word (and proper nouns, etc.) are capitalized. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 00:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed the same inconsistent capitalization on some Danish language albums (e.g. Efter endnu en dag article name vs. contents) which shows that this is an issue in several languages. The MusicBrainz standards clarifies it completely (thanks), and I would propose to add that as a rule in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization. – IbLeo (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully support it. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 13:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am quite new to Wikipedia, so I am not sure where to take it from here. We are two people who think this is a good idea, nobody have expressed their opposition. Is that sufficient to go ahead and update Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization? If yes, I would need assistance on this as I don't know how to indicate an external source (i.e. the MusicBrainz standards) as a standard for the project. – IbLeo (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The MusicBrainz approach is not quite applicable to Wikipedia. Our naming conventions implore use to use English, hence we would either apply English language capitalization standards right away, or at least consult reputable English sources on how they handle the respective medium/language (and then choose a format that provides the most consistent results). The style guide of a user-maintained online community does not quite fall into that category, an example for an appropriate source would be The New York Times. One a side note: The MusicBrainz style guide suggests to give preference to an artist's preferred format, which would open a back door for the use of stylized typography, something WP:MOSCL, WP:MOSTM and the current revision of WP:MUSTARD are intended to prevent. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 15:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm not convinced that WP:UE applies heavily to albums. I have always been encouraged when dealing with this issue to use the "official" (foreign-language) titles for songs and albums, especially since I started a big debate here and found out that I was wrong about wanting to use title caps for that album. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Your motion was well grounded in our guidelines, had good support among other editors and reflected every single review and reference used in the article. It does not get much clearer than that. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 08:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If we apply English language capitalization standards to titles in other languages here (i.e. in the English Wikipedia), then I deduct that we should apply Danish language capitalization standards to all titles in the Danish Wikipedia, German language capitalization standards to all titles in the German Wikipedia, and so on. So Danish band Gasolin's album should be called Efter Endnu en Dag here, Efter endnu en dag in the Danish WP and Efter endnu en Dag in the German WP. Likewise, The Wild, the Innocent & the E Street Shuffle should be The wild, the innocent & the E Street shuffle in the Danish WP and The wild, the innocent & the E Street Shuffle in the German WP. Besides creating total lack of synergy btw. WP's in different languages, it would make language cross-referencing a nightmare. Conclusion: The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me to use the capitalization rules of the original language for an album or song title (or any other title for what it matters). – IbLeo (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly how I see it, and I think that's a very strong argument. Cyrus, I'm a little disappointed you moved Rossz just now, especially when there's disagreement here about how we should do it; even though you cited the MOS and 'outside sources', the MOS can be changed and outside sources don't have to follow any rules whatsoever, and I don't think they should be used for determining whether we should capitalize things or not. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 12:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside sources like Allmusic, Rollingstone or The New York Times have their own internal style guides, in order to achieve a consistent, professional presentation. Our own Manual of Style operates under the same credo but since we don't do any original research here, we are bound to refer to those outside sources not just for content but also on how stuff is formatted in English general purpose publications. Opinions among editors on whether to rely on outside references on a per-case basis or just to get the general practices down may vary (personally, I more often find myself in the latter camp, given that the former again opens up back doors for stylized typography among less publicized subjects), but the notion that established style guides should have no bearing whatsoever on our own is quite unheard of. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 13:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would use the capitalization found on the original album, since it is a title. I think it should be preserved as published... Unless the Spanish album had a title using English words that used Spanish capitaliztion.... -Freekee (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. On many albums all song titles are written with all letters capitalized for cosmetic reasons (example). I don't think it makes sense to repeat this in the article on that album. Furthermore, there is not necessarily any consistency between the way capitals are used on the cover, booklet and on the disc itself. So which one should take precedence over the others? – IbLeo (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about how a title is written in its original language, and not the form that it appears on the cover art. I agree with your statement below regarding titling in the Opera Project. -Freekee (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, we def wouldnt want to write it as it appears on the cover, its all about how it looks on the covers. Also, i dont like the music brainz idea, tho it makes sense, we're writing these in english letters (from greek for example) so i think the capitalization rules should follow the english rules unless written in the original alphabet of the album. Grk1011 (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There recently was a similar discussion on the talk page of the Manual of Style for Japan-related articles, which came to the same conclusion, i.e. capitalizing romanized Japanese titles, save for mid-title particles. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 13:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese issue is in my opinion a slightly different matter as Japanese is written in a different alphabet. In that case it makes sense to establish a rule for writing transcriptions of Japanese into our roman (latin) alphabet. On the other hand, the MOS for French works of art states: "For consistency of French titles on the English Wikipedia, the general consensus has been to follow the rules used on the French Wikipedia, which are those used by the French National publishing house (l'Imprimerie nationale) and put forth in its Lexique des règles typographiques en usage à l'Imprimerie nationale." Likewise, the naming conventions for original language opera titles (within WikiProject Opera) is: "When listing operas by their original language title (provided that language uses the Latin alphabet), the spelling in the original language, including any accents and diacritics, should be preserved, (etc.)". So in both cases the rule is to use the capitalization rules of the original language. I would strongly support to adapt it for albums as well (provided the original language is written in the Roman alphabet). – IbLeo (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Beach Boys Love You"?

The page appears to be at the wrong title. Can someone look into this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Love You (The Beach Boys album). = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course; I messed it up—it should have gone to Love You (album). Crap. Well, a request would have had to have been put in at Wikipedia:Requested moves anyway. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now done so. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this an OK use for a track list table?

I was just looking at some of the album pages for Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, who are a punk band who only do covers. Would this be an OK time to use a table for the track listing, so that it will show number, title, writer and original artist? It seems like it would be a bit much to have a separate section just to list who the original performers were. As it is, they usually list the performer and not necessarily the writer in the parenthesis next to the title. -Joltman (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than a table, see if Template:Tracklist would work. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 15:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced ?

Mikeblas (talk · contribs) appears to be working through an alphabetical list of albums, adding {{unreferenced}} to articles where it would appear to be patently obvious that the article content (track lists, personnel, etc) is likely to be pretty much wholly verifiable from the product itself.

I don't really want to get involved, but this doesn't seem particularly useful behaviour to me. So I thought I'd bring it here, in case anyone else thinks it's worth taking up. Jheald (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through a few of Mikeblas's recent contributions and I do see some merit in them, in so far, as that many of the {{unreferenced}} tagging seem to be tied to notability concerns and some of the articles I've taken a quick glance at also contained unsourced information on things like creative process, which is not commonly covered by liner notes. Still, you could ask the user to be a bit more specific, by employing {{fact}} tags as well and use {{cite album-notes}} yourself to cover the obvious ... well, more obviously. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 19:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate that {{unreferenced}} tag. I tend to delete it, unless there are specific concerns stated, or obvious ones ({{Fact}} is not usually so bad, as long as it's attached to a sentence or paragraph). I think the proliferation of those tags throws the veracity of the entire encyclopedia into doubt, so please only use them when there's a real concern. Don't place them simply because an article has no references. And if you come across one, please consider finding a reference for the offending material. -Freekee (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What to do with WP Film Music?

We've had some discussion at WP Films because an editor requested that we merge the Film Music project into the Films project due to the former's inactivity. However, since the actual subject matter is the music, we thought maybe this project would be a more appropriate place for deciding what to do with the moribund project, be it merging, deleting, etc. Any thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Loose (album) on hold

I have reviewed this Good Article nomination and placed it on hold for one week. The editor who nominated this article tends to nominate articles that he has not contributed to and then ignore the concerns brought up during the GA review, so I am hoping that editors from this project can help out with the remaining issues. Overall, the article is very good and I don't think that it should take a ton of work to get it to GA level. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Producer categories

I've run across a bunch of album articles that are categorized as "albums produced by (whomever)" even though that producer only did one song on that particular album. So this seems wrong to me. The category shows that the album is produced by that guy, when really, it was only the one song. You'd get the wrong idea if you were only looking at the category page. It doesn't seem like a good excuse to say, "well you should really look at the article," when we have a responsibility to be clear. Does anyone else have an opinion? -Freekee (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For rap albums, etc., where individual tracks are produced by different people, rather than the full album being produced by one person, these albums could end up in five, ten, fifteen producer categories. But what is the alternative — Category:Albums with tracks produced by X? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether a producers is responsible for one track or ten, he or she is still, ultimately, a producer of the album. Countrymusicfan (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

i disagree. Especially in rap circles, where this is most relevant, they may be a producer on the album, but if they've done one track on the album, the album can't be said to be produced by them. Like Twas Now said: with some rap albums this could end up in rakes of categories. For me the best solution is to leave such categories off albums with large amounts of diverse producers like this one. tomasz. 12:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A number of these categories are beginning to appear at CFD, and the objection to some of them is the notion of categorizing albums with a half-dozen producers will result in category clutter as each of the six categories gets created and added to the article. I have made a proposal at Category talk:Albums by producer and hope that you all will lend your thoughts to building a consensus on how to handle the category structure in general. Otto4711 (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Francophone album articles needed

How many separate articles on Francophone albums exist in the English Wikipedia? I would like to create several of them as it clearly meets notability guidelines have been notable in Quebec. If anyone familiar with Francophone albums, can some of you help for on the creation of articles of albums by artists such Bruno Pelletier, Eric Lapointe, Marie-Mai, Garou, etc and also on older albums in the past. Thanks! --JForget 00:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairport Convention

I'm taking a long look at this large collection of articles at present, usually managing to write-up two albums a day to standard and finding sources; there are a lot of redlinks and a few omissions in {{Fairport Convention}} itself. Also I've tabulated the albums section of the Fairport Convention discography and am proposing a similar table (in a separate article) to show the various line-ups over the years. Hopefully some of these articles can get to GA without much more effort, but if anyone wants to take a look and stop me, or even help, that's fine. I'm up to Unhalfbricking now and will tackle Liege & Lief & Full House a little later. --Rodhullandemu 11:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

iTunes review excerpts

I've recently noticed a trend on many album articles in which there is a quote box containing a quote from the "iTunes review" of the album. First, I'm not really sure if this is encyclopedic or not, and second, iTunes tends to take all of its reviews from All Music Guide. So my question is 1. should these quote boxes be there in the first place, and 2. if so, should all of them be changed to say "excerpt from All Music Guide review"? Glassbreaker5791 (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to quoteboxes in this case. I'm not opposed to quotes at all, in general, but they should be in the body paragraph. Setting one or more in a quotebox makes it seem like they carry more weight than other reviewers' comments, which certainly isn't the case if it's coming from a source like allmusic or itunes. If there's a particularly iconic quote from a very notable source, then maybe it could go in a quotebox. I can't think of a good example offhand, but let's say that highly renowned music critc x called album y "the most important album of all time"...that might merit a quotebox. Or maybe in the Nervous Breakdown article if there was a quote from Henry Rollins about how much it affected him, that might merit a qoutebox because it's a notable source directly connected to the album & act. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If the reviews are originally from Allmusic, iTunes should get no credit for them. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious: is this a general trend you're noticing, or can it be traced to a particular editor or group of editors? If so it might qualify as spam. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

iTunes is a store—we wouldn't include a "Walmart review" or even a "Tower Records review"—so no. If the quote is taken from somewhere else originally, the original source should be used (if, indeed, the quote is appropriate for use in the first place). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiding the reviews

I've just edited the infobox to add a show/hide button to the reviews section. See Template talk:Infobox Album for discussion. Flowerparty^☀ 23:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed category: Sync albums

Would it be of any use to make a category with sync albums (double albums of which the two discs synchronize, or albums that sync with other albums, such as Dronevil, The Galilean Satellites, Times of Grace/Grace, Zaireeka)? I think this would be an interesting thing to look into. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Might be interesting if the sync can be reliably sourced; any idea what sort of numbers we are talking about here? --Rodhullandemu 17:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how many articles would use it; I only know of the ones above for sure. I can guess that there would be quite a few. However, sourcing would not be a problem at all, since discs that sync are usually marketed and promoted as such and the fact is also usually mentioned in reviews. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sync album? Is that a term that's in common currency? Flowerparty^☀ 21:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the official term is. It's really hard to search for this sort of thing… = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 21:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitals question

Does the five letter rule apply to all words? The way it is currently written it is not 100% clear. Should words with 5 or more letters always be capitalized? BeastmasterGeneral 19:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Killer album Cover

Just thought I'd let this Wikiproject know I've initiated a request for comment on the album Virgin Killer as the cover contains a borderline child pornographic picture which has recently received press coverage and has initiated a swarm of people trying to unilaterally delete/remove it from the article. The RFC is at Talk:Virgin Killer#This is child porn.

Track list

Might it help to use the words mintds and seconds to make it clear the numbers are play times? i thought they were hymn numbers to begin with.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You thought that times listed next to the tracks on an album were hymn numbers? That's the first time I've ever heard of that misunderstanding. Unless you were reading an article about a gospel album, I can't imagine where you got that idea. Many, many albums print the song lengths right next to the track titles on the back covers of the albums and even on the CDs or LPs themselves. It's pretty self-explanatory. IMHO listing the track lengths is largely unnecessary. Many album articles have them, many others don't, and I'm happy either way...but I don't think they need any additional text describing what the numbers mean. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hymns have colons separating the digits? -Freekee (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Task Force: Record Labels?

Does anyone think that it would be a good idea to create a task force for record labels? Izzy007 Talk 18:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think so, but I don't think this is the right project for the task force to be under. Perhaps WikiProject Companies would be a better home for it. Record labels are, after all, companies or brands, so that project's guidelines are probably going to be a lot more helpful in improving articles about record labels than this project's would be. In fact, they already have some guidelines for what types of record labels they include in the scope of their project. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I set up the Task Force. Anyone who would like to join can do so HERE. Izzy007 Talk 21:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! I'll probably sign up, as I've worked on a few label articles (punk/indie labels mostly). --IllaZilla (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Professional review lists

In November 2006, Template:Infobox Album/doc was given a major update and one of those changes was this: "due to their proliferation and dubious value, lists (e.g. Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Punk Rock Albums of the Early 1980s) may not be included." Is removing those review lists still the consensus now? I couldn't find this specific issue in the archives. Spellcast (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO it seems to be the consensus based on the general view that such lists are increasingly trivial and meaningless. As sources like Rolling Stone or VH1 keep making lists like these, the criteria for the subject matter gets narrower and narrower until we're ranking London Calling among the "Best albums by The Clash in which the bassist is pictured smashing his guitar on the cover". Also there are lists like this on dozens and dozens of websites that are not known to be reliable sources with regard to music criticism, yet their lists were being cited as sources of critical commentary in dozens and dozens of music-related articles. I've never read the discussion on it either, but I agree with the statement that these proliferations of lists are of dubious value and inappropriate for mention in encyclopedia articles. I obviously can't speak for anyone but myself, but I believe that would be the majority opinion amongst most members of the project. I certainly feel that way, anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked because I frequently saw Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time in the reviews. It should be ok to mention it in the article, but probably not the infobox. Music publications frequently release these kind of lists and the infobox could eventually look cluttered (especially for influential albums) if articles like Spin magazine's 100 Greatest Albums or Blender magazine's The 100 Greatest Indie-Rock Albums Ever were added. Spellcast (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Possibly suitable for inclusion in the article body under "reception", "influence", or the like, but not appropriate for the infobox. The infobox field is for reviews, and although such lists may sometimes have review-like critical commentary in them, they usually don't or only have commentary in the context of the subject of the list. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new album type

We have a type for almost every album out there, studio, live, comp.etc..., but not one for split albums. I think we need one for splits. Undeath (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the various album types for Template:Infobox Album, we do have that. In the "Type" field of the infobox, use whatever type is appropriate (studio, EP, live, etc.). Then add the field "Longtype" directly underneath "Type" and put "split". You should get a result like this. The reason it's kind of complicated is that a split release can be of many different types. It might be an EP, a studio album, a live album, or whatever. The "Type" field displays the type and gives it the appropriate color, while the "Longtype" field adds "(split)" to the display. There's even an option to add an extra chronology for the second act, as you can see in the example I used. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about a new, completely new, category. Not a sub part of EP. Splits are a different type of album in their own. I think we should make a new color and a new part for it. Undeath (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but not always. For example, I have many split singles, split EPs, and a few split albums in my collection. They are splits, for certain, but whether they are classified as a single, EP, or full album is usually a larger consideration. You'd have to create separate album types for each of these in order to cover all the bases, which is why we simply allow "split" to be added as long type to any of the existing types. This could probably be better explained on the template page, I'll grant you, as it doesn't give instructions for dealing with a split release. But these topics should really be brought up at Template talk:Infobox Album rather than here, as they are specifically about proposed changes to the template. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The split album would be a new type. I see a potential need for splitting certain existing Types in Template:Infobox Album into LP and EP wings (the execution thereof being consistent with the existing code of Template:Infobox Album); I used Longtype for clarification of Cover and Tribute LPs, one example being the Infobox Album for the Deborah Gibson tribute LP to various musical theatre shows, Colored Lights: The Broadway Album. See also the "Single, Album or EP" discussion below; Rhino Entertainment is now releasing compilation EPs in the form of the Rhino Hi-Five Series, and I already have a prototype Article for one, Rhino Hi-Five: Debbie Gibson, as of 00:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC) (see User:B.C.Schmerker/Article PrototypeB). As I understand the situation, with LPs and EPs both being studio, demo, live, compilation, &c., Infobox Album may be in need of update to accomodate all known combinations of LP and EP. See also my New Category proposal for the Rhino Hi-Fives. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Albums in the 33⅓ series

Can I get people to comment on this cfd. It's hungry from a dearth of participants. Flowerparty^☀ 11:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for genres

Are there any sources in particular that are generally accepted for album genres? Professional reviews? SouperAwesome (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The All Music Guide comes to mind. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 10:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think anything that's specifically mentioned in a professional review could be cited as a source for a genre. AMG is pretty good on that. Alternative Press also sorts their reviews into general genre fields like punk/indie/metal (in the magazine, anyway). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Crocodiles (album) peer review

I've recently expanded the Crocodiles (album) article with a view to getting it to GA standard. I've requested a peer review and would be grateful for any suggestions. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Album category discussion

I was wondering if a couple of project members could weigh in on this discussion and offer their opinions. Does anyone know of any previous consensus on this issue? I'm not watching this page (and comments here won't be seen by the discussion's closing admin) so could any thoughts please be directed at the discussion page. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Compilation albums and band categories

I recently cleared out Category:Black metal albums, moving all albums to the appropriate artist sub-category, and was left with a batch of compilation albums. They are all in the appropriate year category and the category for compilation albums, but they have no single artist, and, being black metal albums, it could be argued that they belong somewhere in the category. Should they be placed in the category for every one of their artists? Stay in the parent category? Be removed? Get a new category altogether? ('Black metal compilation albums' or something?) Anyone have any thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! My suggestion is to either move them to Category:Black metal compilation albums or leave them as they are. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 13:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes a professional review?

I have been removing reviews from infoboxes that come from non-notable review sites. It has come to my attention that policy doesn't really permit this, and I have stopped for the time being. I would like to clarify what is an acceptable review.

Any blog is unacceptable. This is a given, I think. But pretty much anyone can set up a site that's not a blog and get volunteers to contribute reviews. This is my problem with the current policy, which allows "any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff". I could go register professionalmusicreviews.com (really!) and start putting up wildly biased reviews, but as long as it was not a blog it would seem to be an acceptable source for infobox reviews. Is this really the case?

I would like to propose that preference be given to review sites that are both reliable AND notable. Notable in this context means worthy of an article here on Wikipedia. If no reliable and notable reviews of an album can be found, it would then be acceptable to fall back to reviews that are merely reliable. Thoughts? 66.93.12.46 (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not having a Wikipedia article doesn't always equal a non-pro review. A review is ok as long as it meets the criteria for reliable sources—not notability, which is a different issue. Some publications are reliable despite not having an article. For example, AllHipHop was deleted but it's a reliable source since it's used by noteworthy publications.[1] If an unprofessional writer started professionalmusicreviews.com and wrote bias reviews, it wouldn't be acceptable because it's a self-published source from an unreliable author. Spellcast (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There's not really an all-purpose litmus test for reviews. Most of the time an editor with sound judgement can tell when a review source is appropriate or not. Obviously blogs, self-published sources, and most sites with user-submitted reviews (ie. Amazon) aren't appropriate; whereas professional music magazines and websites (Rolling Stone, All Music, Pitchfork, etc.) pretty obviously are. As Spellcast points out, the guiding principle is WP:RS. If the source of the review doesn't appear to be reliable, then go ahead and cut it. If it's questionable, you can bring it up here and we can collectively try to determine whether it's a reliable source or not. That way we'll also be able to add it to the list of review sites on the project page (either as acceptable or unacceptable). --IllaZilla (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's try it out in practice: Diorama (album) currently contains a review from Yahoo! Music which is not currently listed as a reliable source (nor the opposite). For me it is not clear what category it falls into. WDYT? – IbLeo (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. I had a nicely cited reply to this all drafted and lost it. In short, I think it's reliable. Yahoo! is a reputable company, and they claim that their reviewers are music journalists, here. I don't know if I'd make it my "professional review" cite of first resort, though, so I personally would probably not be inclined to add it to either list at the moment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the link provided by Moonriddengirl, it looks reliable to me. I'd list Yahoo Music as an "acceptable" review site (as opposed to "unacceptable", though based on just that one example I probably wouldn't prefer it as my first resort either). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have added Yahoo! Music to the list of reliable sources per above.

One point that needs to be made is that blogs by nature are not excluded based upon this group's policy. The language both clearly sates and clearly implies that "personal blogs" are not professional sources--and that makes perfect sense, because in the example given above (professionalmusicreviews.com), that author would not be a reliable source--but it does not ban new media as a bloc. There is a blurred line between old media and new media, and I think it's dangerous to exclude "blogs" as a whole simply because of the term used to describe them. What's the difference between a web publication and a blog? What's the difference between the online section of a newspaper and a blog, if that blog is published by respected persons within the field? Where do we draw that line? If we exclude new media as a whole, what we're really saying is that the only reviews which are worthwhile or "credible" are those which are presented by major, mainstream media. And frankly, I just don't think that always gives a fair or accurate reading of an album's reception. Do we really want to force the reviews contained in infoboxes into such a narrow frame of reference? From the credibility standpoint, I think we have to judge each publication on its own merits, especially when dealing with new media. Countrymusicfan (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

←I don't think it does exclude personal blogs due to the use of the word "or". :) It says "may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or' found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)" (emphasis added). Given our difference in interpretation, though, I can see that this may not be clear. WP:V says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Personal blogs should, I think, be fine in that context. It's on the basis of the former, I imagine, that we accept [2], as Robert Christgau is a professional music journalist. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Tracklist template

For those of you who haven't seen it, there is a template for setting up track lists. It is {{Tracklist}}. Its use has slowly been spreading, but there are certain people who are reverting it because they say it hasn't been approved (whatever that means). It has both advantages and disadvantages, so most people feel that it should not be used in all cases. Does anyone feel that it should not be used at all? -Freekee (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent move towards presenting a standard "look & feel" for album articles, although not compulsory of course. Two minor points- could it be extended to cover "Various Artists" & Soundtrack compilations & samplers by having "Artist"/"Original Album" fields, and is there a way of having indented listings, say for medleys, as in Live at the Palladium (Carpenters album)? Cheers --Rodhullandemu 16:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Various artists albums be tagged using the "Music" field (see this article for an example). = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 16:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 16:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try it out on Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Duty Now for the Future to see how I like it. Fantailfan (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't like it, I take it? Why not? -Freekee (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I could imagine that Fantailfan did not like the column spacing, given that that this particular use case has rather long names in the writing credits and until recent updates (which added more dynamic spacing), these would only receive a meager 20% of the template's width. I've put the template back in for now, lets see if reactions turn out more positive this time. By the way, would at this point anyone object if the template was added as a (strictly non-mandatory) option to our track listing guidelines? – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 09:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It'll be useful for new, inexperienced users who aren't familiar with the correct way to format a track=listing, but for people who in-the-know, its unnecessary additional code to deal with. There's particularly no need to use the template in articles where the track-listing is already perfectly formatted. indopug (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, I really like the inclusion of a place to optionally include "other" song info, to accommodate non-English-language music. Thank you for taking that into consideration. --hamu♥hamu (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cy is about right. When dealing with names like Mark Mothersbaugh and Gerald Casale in the same song credit it looks (a) cramped; (b) it doesn't work with the single track double song "Smart Patrol"/"Mr. DNA" that has separate songwriting credits. Other comments I will leave on the template comment page.

On Indopug's comment, it is a bit... well, let me illustrate by way of response. "In-the-know"? When I was "away" for a year or so, coming back I found many aspects of the standard WP:ALBUM elements had changed, as had some of the metaWiki rudiments, so while my sources had increased (i.e., I bought more CDs) I had to feel my way around again as if I were a "new, inexperienced user" again. Fantailfan (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole "cramped" issue isn't that critical, as it is only "cramped" in two tracks, and the split track is pretty clear, as the credits are given with a slash (/), as is the track title. It seems obvious to me, and I think it should to most people. I think for crediting in this case, the credits could be given as "G. Casale", rather than "G.V. Casale", that would cut the length a bit, and a note could be made of the "arrangement" by Mothersbaugh on track eleven. The technical issues with this template can usually be solved with a little intuition, and while it is a bit of code, the code is much easier than a full wikitable for beginners and intermediate users. Often, the simple numbered list is used, but this shifts information to all different positions, and the WikiProject states that more than three criteria justifies a table (track number, title, and length give the three). I think the template is fine for regular (but not mandatory) use within the scope of WP:ALBUMS. --Jacob ^Talk 23:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely useful if you want a guideline for how to format tracklistings, but there's no reason to convert to the template in articles that already have a formatted tracklist. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

==Personnel== & ==Track listing==

What are the rationales behind using en dashs (–) for these sections, instead of using bullets and tables, which is more readable, legible, and more standard with wp:mos and other standardization projects?68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Custom? Ease of use? These are just my guesses, mind you. :) I've used tables for complex situations (e.g. The Best of the Girl Groups), but I believe they would be a lot more difficult to implement with not a lot of pay-off in some others (e.g. The Complete Hank Williams). That's as regarding track listing, anyway. In terms of personnel, I'm not sure that a table would make things any more readable under most circumstances. And, of course, those are already bulleted. But you may be thinking of situations that I've not run into. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

En dash is preferably used for the tracklisting section to delimit the title from its duration, per WP:MOS. The personnel section has still no guideline yet, I think. --Efe (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mixtape albums

So you can't create articles of mixtape albums then? why?-SCB '92 (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean here? If they have "significant independent coverage in reliable sources", then they are notable per general policy, but I suspect few will attain such coverage. The reason is that there are many such albums around and not many will be by notable artists or be notable in themselves, per above criterion. --Rodhullandemu 13:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Or are you suggesting that we add "mixtape album" as one of the album types for the "Type" field of the infobox? If that's the case, you should bring it up at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Single vs Album vs EP

Hello! I've been doing some editing on an article for a Korean release, Scandal. In Korea, this type of release is called a "single album" or (less commonly) just an "album." They seem to often be releases by brand new artists prior to any album releases, "special projects" to commemorate an event, or special collaborations, and the songs don't seem to generally wind up on a regular full-length studio album (except for those of the first type). I've seen these categorized as both singles and albums on Wikipedia (haven't run across any listed as EPs yet), but they actually seem to fit what I've always thought of as EPs better. Should these all be handled the same way or is it more trouble than it's worth? If consistency is your choice, what method do you think is best? Thanks for your time! --hamu♥hamu (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated - I learned from the article history that it was created as an EP, and was changed to Album by a user who left no notes or explanation. For further info, Show Me Your Love is also called a "single album" in Korea, though it clearly does not approach being a full-length album. The time guidelines set by Wikipedia aren't followed in Korea. hamu♥hamu (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually, the answer is to find out what the record company calls it. In this case, they call it a "single album", so you need to find out what that means. It sounds to me like a marketing term, where they're trying to make a single sound more substantial. The track listing has two different versions each of four songs, so it looks to me like a single. -Freekee (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well this particular release (4+ unique songs, 2 music videos, multinational promotion) seems to meet at least Wikipedia's definition of an EP. What I'm trying to determine is if it should be treated as an album or an EP. The only differentiation I've seen in Korea between what Westerners call singles, mini-LPs, and EPs is one- or two-song digital releases (see Bae Seul Ki as an example) which are indeed called singles. Everything else is a "single album," marketing term or not. My underlying query was if all Korean "single albums" should be classified the same way on WP, but on second though that's clearly not appropriate, so I answered my own question. I think I'll bring this up at Wikiproject Korea, and see what they think, as well. Thanks for your time! Consistency can sure be a challenge, huh? :) --hamu♥hamu (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the scope of this Project, the Extended play (EP) and Long play (LP) releases are both properly here (viz., at WPAlbums), whereas Singles are in the scope of WPSongs. The "single album" term from Korea could refer to a maxi single, which is in the scope of WPSongs. Since EPs could be studio, demo, compilation, cover/tribute, &c. (long the case for LPs), I am considering posting a proposal to Template talk:Infobox Album concerning LP/EP split of applicable types, a matter to be executed only after some agreement on the need is reached. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:IbLeo passed along the fact that the EP is currently recognized as a subset of the album; as I understand things, EP has nearly as many subsets as Album itself. Unfortunately, "single album" is not so clear-cut as I first estimated. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have the impression you misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. My POV is that single, EP and album are distinct, mutually exclusive animals. EP is not a subset of album. LP is a subset of album; an album can be an LP if it is issued on vinyl. The definition of these concepts should be found in the respective article. The Korean "single albums" sounds most of all like EPs to me. – IbLeo (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input & consideration. It's not clear at all, LOL. In my experience, South Korea uses "single album" for pretty much everything that isn't a full-length album or digital-only single. But I could never source that - total original research. I guess it's just a case of looking at each release individually and trying to assign it based on its perceived "intended" role in the industry, and a label that will "make sense" to most readers. If that makes sense. :) I think maybe the best goal is to shoot for consistency in terminology and categorization among similar types of releases from Korea, which will take coordination of effort. Does that seem like a good goal? --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 07:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that taking each release on its own merits is a good idea. Consider leaving an explanation on the albums' talk pages, of why you went the way you did. That might help other editors to reach similar conclusions as you do, which would gain us some consistency. -Freekee (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Split album naming convention

I apologize if this has been brought up before and I didn't see it, but: I was editing an artist's discography and attempting to format the titles for split albums as per convention, but then I looked at Category:Split albums and realized that there isn't one. People have just been titling these albums whatever they feel like, it seems. Now, if split albums have a definitive title, and some do, then obviously the article should be named that. However, there's no consensus for untitled split albums. Some examples of different names are "Artist1/Artist2", "Artist1 / Artist2" (note the spaces), "Artist1/Artist2 split 10″", and so on. I believe there should be a standard. My proposal is to use "Artist1 / Artist2 split", with Artist1 being whichever gets side A (or comes first alphabetically, if sides are inapplicable), as the physical format of the record doesn't matter. Of course, it's not up to me, so does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 03:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll back you up. -Freekee (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Having a standard for a recurring situation is always a good idea so you have my support. I just think we should consider the situation were the same band constellation issue more than one split album. How would you distinguish them? – IbLeo (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean where two or more bands release multiple splits together? Hm… that is a good question, as I've seen this before; the way I know one article does it is to just swap the order of the artists in the title, which I don't agree with. Maybe "Artist1 / Artist2 first split" and "Artist1 / Artist2 second split"? It's hard to say. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 13:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Project guidelines state to first disambiguate using the year. Artist1 / Artist2 (1995). Or should it be (1995 album)?

By the way, why do the article titles have spaces on either side of the slash? That seems weird to me. -Freekee (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh! of course, using years is definitely the way to go. I don't know why I didn't think of that. So it'd be like Artist1 / Artist2 split (1995) (I say don't say "album" in the title simply because it already says "split", but that may not be most correct.) … Also, I don't know why they have spaces…perhaps to look cleaner? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 01:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A few more thoughts, for what they are worth:

• Is "split" really needed? Isn't it implicitly indicated by the presence of the "/" (provided we chose it as standard)?
• Spaces around the "/" looks cleaner to me. I prefer Jimi Hendrix / Britney Spears to Jimi Hendrix/Britney Spears - but this is purely visual.
• Agree about the usage of years for disambiguation. So it would be Jimi Hendrix / Britney Spears (1969) and Jimi Hendrix / Britney Spears (2004).

– IbLeo (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, "split" shouldn't be in the article name unless it's actually the title of the release (or used in the parenthetical disambiguation, which would be rare). The year would be used to DAB two similarly titled albums, while (album) would be used to distinguish and album from some other thing that's called that, like a film or something.

I think it looks cleaner without the spaces, but I won't argue about it. Whatever you guys want is fine with me.

Incidentally, the project guidelines aren't clear on whether the proper DAB for albums of the same title and band, but different years is (1985 album) or (1985). Just sayin'. :-) -Freekee (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The official naming conventions here use the years and the word "album" for disambiguating (as in Artist1 / Artist2 (2000 album)). So then I guess officially the standard should be Artist1 / Artist2 with Artist1 / Artist2 (2000 album) to disambiguate? I'm gonna go add that in if no one objects further. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 03:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree – IbLeo (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com review

I had a question concerning Amazon.com reviews, now before you jumpt to conclusions and refer me to the RS list, hear (or read) me out. While writing the Iowa (album) article, I included a small quote from the "Amazon.com Editorial Review" from Dominic Wills. The review (scroll down, under the track listing) was brought into question during the article's GA review; a comment was posted on the Reliable sources noticeboard and a conversation has evolved. The quote has since been removed from the article, but for future reference I would like to know: Why are Amazon.com editorial reviews deemed unreliable? I can understand the fan reviews, since there's a number of ways to mess with those (and quite simply put people in general are stupid). But why is Dominic Wills' review discounted because of his employer? If he worked for Rolling Stone and wrote the exact same review, it would obviously be reliable, but because he's employed by Amazon why is he not "reliable"? Thank you. Blackngold29 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazon post reviews to make you want to buy the album- Rolling Stone don't care whether you buy the album, instead, they aim to tell you about the album, give an impartial view of it, and, to an extent, entertain you. An Amazon review is little more than a third-party advert. I admit, it isn't an awful source, but for such a (mysteriously) prolific album, it shouldn't be too hard to cite different reviews instead. J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, however, (I should've said this) I didn't use the review in the "Reception" section; I used it to describe how the music itself sounded. It was not a "This album was good" or "This album was bad" type of quote. Which to me would change the situation, but I understand how allowing some would be a slippery slope. Blackngold29 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Category: Rhino Hi-Five albums

During basic research for an Article on Rhino Hi-Five: Debbie Gibson (see User:B.C.Schmerker/Article PrototypeB), I found that Rhino Entertainment has, as of 00:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC), one hundred twenty-nine (129) compilation EPs in the Rhino Hi-Five series available at:
http://www.rhino.com/store/digital/hifives.lasso
That appears sufficient numbers for a dedicated Category for these compilation EPs, to be titled Category:Rhino Hi-Five albums. Support, opposition, comments please. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as I work on album articles, I'm not really familiar with some of the categorization schemes. :) I guess the general notion is that categories are useful search tools, allowing people to quickly view other things "of a kind". So I guess the question would be whether those might be the kind of thing somebody would be interested in as a group. If so, I would think it more useful than the typical "Record Company X albums" category, as it is a more discrete number. It looks like it should be a valid subcategory of Category:Rhino Records albums, handled similarly to Category:Rhino Handmade albums (though looking at that sub-category, I can't say that I'm convinced of the usefulness of it. A little lonely in there. :)). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Point noted, but I see a potential problem of numbers, should the Hi-Fives be lumped with equivalents from other labels into a Category:Digital albums or Category:Digital EPs; there are most likely thousands of downloadable EPs and LPs out there, as of 16:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC). How better can this categorization be approached? B. C. Schmerker (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question here, so I'll review quickly. :) You say there are 129 albums in the series. I say if you think the series is the kind of thing where somebody might want to know what else is included, that a subcategory should be appropriate. I referenced the handling of Category:Rhino Handmade albums as a "for instance", with it's topnote of "This category is for releases done on Rhino Records' limited-edition imprint Rhino Handmade. For standard Rhino Records releases, please see the main Rhino Records category linked below", but I did note that Category:Rhino Handmade albums is lonely (it currently has one entry). Review out of the way, are you saying that you think 129 entries is insufficient to warrant a subcategory? Or did I mislead you into thinking that I do? I'm inclined to think that 129 items is quite a nice size for a subcat. There are certainly much smaller subcats out there. Take Category:1632 series books, for instance. :) My only question is whether in your judgment you think people would be likely to want to view the category; if so, I'd say go for it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My first inclination is to create the High-Five category as a subcat of Category:Rhino Records albums. 129 entries is certainly an appropriate amount for a subcat. Go for it. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Importance rating?

Hi. I currently wind up addressing a fair amount of the albums listed for assessment, but I have no background in assessing importance. Since those who do may not be watching the assessment requests, I wanted to point out that there's a request there for an importance assessment on the GA Iowa (album). I would guess that this album may be "Top" importance in its specific field, as it evidently premiered "in top ten album sales in nine countries". Top importance says "Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field." Internationally notable, yes, but is it crucial? I don't know. :) "High-Class" Importance indicates "Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent." That doesn't seem to be sufficient in this case. But the text at the top of "Importance" describes "Top Importance" as "the most vital albums (Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Blonde on Blonde, Dark Side of the Moon, Nevermind, etc)." Is this one of those? How does one tell?

I generally leave Importance out of it when assessing album articles, but I am curious to know how these (and this one in particular) are evaluated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

They're not evaluated. :-) I've only seen importance listed for Top albums, like the ones you mentioned. Either that or whatever some kid thought would be cool to say. I don't think we can go by the general scale. The international thing doesn't quite apply. Iowa went platinum, but "high" seems pushing it, since I can't see a whole lot of influence. But then "Mid" definitely seems low, considering not only how well it sold, but that it garnered them a Grammy nomination, and a #6 in NME's top albums of 2001.

There are only four levels. Top for top. High for big sellers like this. Mid for albums by well-known bands that made an impact on some level, and Low for albums (or albums by bands) that hardly anyone has heard of? ;-) Pink Floyd would get Top for DSOM and The Wall, and High (no pun intended) for most of the rest. Peter Frampton would get Top for that one album, and Mid for the rest. -Freekee (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the insight. I have been, as I said, curious. :) Since I asked this, there's an individual who has been importance rating albums he's working on. Well, actually, he's been rating his own albums, too. I've spoken to him about that a couple of times, and reverted where necessary, but not about the importance rating. (Talk:Porgy and Bess (Miles Davis album), Talk:Radio (LL Cool J album), Talk:Chocolate Factory, Talk:Coltrane for Lovers are all I see.) Is this the kind of harmless thing that most people would ignore, since we don't really use these, or should these assessments be removed?

In terms of the specific request for Iowa, would you think it would be best to go high, low, or politely decline the assessment request? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd kinda like to see importance removed from our template. If someone specifically asked for a rating, I'd either tell them that we don't rate them (even there's no backup for that in the project pages), or rate it. If you rate it, especially after a discussion here, that's better than ignoring it and letting one of the kids give it a "Top", leaving it open to edit warring. I guess I'm leaning more towards "High" for that one, only given its sales numbers. It might also have some influence within its genre, but I can't say about that. -Freekee (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know its influence, either. :) I'll go with high. Any way we can remove importance from our template? I am clueless about such things. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

New Category

I saw there was [[Category:Number-one singles in the United Kingdom]] so I thought it makes sense to make [[Category:Number-one albums in the United Kingdom]]. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Misspellings in song titles?

I was wondering what our policy was when dealing with misspellings in song titles for tracklistings. It is annoyingly common among the underground black metal types (the main sort of music article I edit) for song titles to be spelt incorrectly. Off the top of my head, we have some conflicting policies here- on the one hand, we keep misspellings and formatting intact when directly quoting, but, on the other, we have our own guidelines for capitalisation, regardless of whether the band stylises their album and song names with lower/uppercase. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think misspellings should be kept, as should the foreign standards for capitalization... = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with = ∫_t^c 5th Eye. The phenomena of deliberate misspelling is not new in rock music. Slade had a #1 hit record already back in 1972 with "Mama Weer All Crazee Now". I wouldn't like to see the spelling of that one "corrected". – IbLeo (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Surely capitalization should be based on how the artist captilizes the title, ie. how it might appear if on Windows Media Player or iTunes, rather than rules that we impose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pechark (talk • contribs) 13:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example in mind? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization isn't always consistent for official releases, especially with titles entered into electronic media formats. -Freekee (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why "surely"? This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertizing (not that you are necessarily implying that). Consistency (hopefully of the non-foolish variety) helps users locate pages. If a friend told me about KoЯn or I heard about them on the radio, I'd want a search for Korn on Wikipedia to lead me to the details about the band (along with a mention (on the page) of the non-traditional typography, of course). I do, however, think that redirects should be there for spellings that are used by artists, on packaging, etc. that differ from the Wikipedia Style guide (which I hope satisfies at least some of your concerns). Alan smithee (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the kind of publication that emulates stylized typography (while other venues do and probably should, e.g. MusicBrainz). See the lead paragraph of WP:MOSTM for the underlying rationale. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 21:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I Should Coco Peer Review Request

I've been working on I Should Coco for a while now. I asked for a peer review on 16 June but only got a semi-automated review . Could someone take a look at the article and leave comments here please.

Thanks --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Importance" in project template

In the "Importance rating?" section above, Freekee suggested the idea of removing the "importance" parameter from the WikiProject Albums template. How about it? It could either be removed from the template entirely, or at least made not to display in the banner. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's doable, I'm for it being done. :) Currently, it seems pretty useless. While I'd love to see a ratings drive to get the massive backlog handled of articles that aren't rated for quality, I don't see the value of that blank importance field. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's my 2 cents on why I think importance ratings are helpful. They're a tool for project members to organize their own workload. "Top" importance should be assigned to articles that have a really strong potential to eventually become FAs, but haven't gotten there yet. In this project's case the criteria might be articles about albums that have been #1 or had record-breaking sales numbers. Therefore it's highly likely that tons of good third-party source material exists, but the articles haven't been developed to the point of being FAs yet. "High" importance might be for albums that have charted highly and had high sales figures (ie. certified platinum), and which have been cited by critics as being influential (again, an indication that lots of secondary sources are out there). "Mid" could be for albums that have charted, but not highly, and probably had mid- to low sales (ie. gold, silver). "Low" would be for albums that didn't chart at all and had low sales. These criteria are pretty helpful because they are indicators of notability as well as the likelihood that reliable secondary sources are available. Rating an article's importance as "top" doesn't mean "hey, this album is great", it means "here's an article we should really work on because there's a good chance we could get it to FA." If it does in fact reach FA, then we might change its importance to a lower rating because it no longer needs much work. Thus the importance ratings help us to organize our article work, which is kind of the point of a Wikiproject to begin with. The importance scale is a way of prioritizing tasks; it's not an article assesment (that's what the assesment scale is for). I think it's very helpful (it's certainly helped me the project I launched a few months ago...WP:ALIEN) and I don't think we should get rid of it just because it occasionally gets misinterpreted or because we're overlooking it. We should actually be using it more, because it would help us get better organized and get stuff done. If it's being left blank, it's only because we're not being proactive in using it. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to modify the template so that if no importance rating has been assigned, the banner does not display the message saying "This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale."? In other words, can it only display the importance rating if the article actually has one? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be okay with keeping "importance", as long as we can agree on guidelines for its use. If we can do that, then let's start tagging them. If not, let's get rid of it. -Freekee (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

←Looking at the guidelines proposed by IllaZilla above, I think #1 is a good benchmark for "top", although we'd probably have to define what charts qualify. Are we talking Billboard and equivalent? Billboard_charts#Albums lists a whole lot, including the "Heatseekers" charts. Do those count? Also, I'm not sure how record-breaking sales numbers breaks down. Would that be triple platinum? Something more unique like "top selling country record album of all time"? If we can nail down questions like those, I think we might be able to arrive at workable criteria. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Should charting be the only criteria? And that's a good point about not merely chart position, but whether it was a record amount of sales at the time. Also number of sales over time. Should there also be criteria for sales records in a genre? I hate to have subjective criteria, but I also hate to exclude important records just because they weren't number-ones. -Freekee (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. One could almost argue that sales is more important than charting, since the amount of units an album needs to chart differs every week, but a certification (gold or platinum) remains the same all the time. Blackngold29 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

While chart position or sales can be good indicators of the importance of an album, there are some albums that didn't sell that well but, in hindsight, were highly influential musically in one way or another. That should definitely be taken into consideration. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Help Me

Hi people, I just built an article for the King of Pop (album), however the track list is going to be constructed for the most part by fans. I wasnt sure if it was a tribute album, I then changed it to a greatest hits album. I thing that wrong too, looking at the sources it seems that regular tracks that were never released as singles could end up on it. Could an expert on these things correectly decide what type of album it is. Cheers. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it a Compilation album. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thankyou very much. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Future singles, notability

There has been an ongoing discussion about the notability of Psychosocial (song). I'll try to bring that discussion into this one as little as possible, but one key aspect has been ignored so I'll raise it here and hopefully recieve an answer. Per the policy on the notability of songs there are a few different requirements that a song can be considered notable, and therefore warrent its own article. One aspect that all of these requirements has in common is that the song can only achieve notability after it is released (high chart positions, awards won, etc). Which brings me to my question: Why does the {{future single}} template exist? After all, per the current policy, only songs that have already been released are notable enough to deserve their own article. So basically, there should be no articles which is a "future" song. This question has been asked in the mentioned discussion four or five times by three different people, it has not been answered. I have tried to argue that a "single" is a CD containing multiple "songs", Psychosocial is notable because it is a single, not because it is a song; this has also been ignored. (There are more reasons, but you'll have to read the discussion for those) But anyway, I would like to know why the future single template exists, because per the current policy, the template, and every song in its catagory should be deleted. Thoughts? Comments? Blackngold29 06:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The template exists because a future single can be notable. If it meets the general criteria at WP:N and it is verifiable using reliable sources then it can be notable prior to release. --JD554 (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The notability guidelines for songs are specific for songs because the general Wikipedia guidelines are... not specific. It helps editors to have such guidelines so they can follow established standards without having to look up lots of articles themselves. There are general notability guidelines that the article may fall under, while not meeting any of the song-specific criteria.

Also, this is the Album project. Please see WP:SONGS for future questions about songs. -Freekee (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Songs by Frank Sinatra

Says it was released in 1948 and yet some of the songs were recorded in 1950 (Let It Snow) or later —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.162.121 (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've brought the article inline with the single source, and I'm about to address the copyright violation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 7207 articles assigned to this project, or 10.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark Prindle

Reviewer Mark Prindle is currently being used on 145 Wikipedia articles. User:Indopug has made the claim the reviewer is not notable, when he removed it from an album article. If this is the case, I am seeking a consensus ruling on whether Mark Prindle should be used as a review or not. If the consensus is his reviews should not be used, then Prindle's review should be removed from all 145 articles. Anyone wish to agree or disagree? MegX (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any indication at his website that he is or has ever been a professional. If he is just an individual with an awesome website, then I would agree that he should not be used. Do you know if he's ever been professionally published? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Apparently the Mark Prindle article was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Prindle. According to Google, he has been published but not in regards to music reviews. If the concensus here is to remove, do you know of an admin who can send a bot around to delete the Mark Prindle reviews on all those album infoboxes? There is no desire from the original editor who instigated it to manually remove every one of those entries. Given the numbers involved I nmyself have no desire to do this personally either. A bot might be the best option. MegX (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am completely clueless when it comes to bots. :) I can barely script my own templates. Maybe ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests? That seems to be the place for such things. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. MegX (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And done very nicely, I might add! :D Let's hope some bot-builder is feeling generous. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A request has been submitted so we should know shortly whether a bot can be used specifically to remove them. MegX (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The bot is all ready to go, just waiting final aproval. I've written up an update to your request that can be found here. It has a link to the list of articles that the bot will go through.Printer222 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Printer. Good job. MegX (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mini-LPs

I would welcome opinions on the issue of mini-LPs. This has come up both in articles about Pixies and My Bloody Valentine. In the 1980s, when vinyl was the dominant format, record companies released 'short' albums (still 12-inch vinyl releases, and with a title for the release, e.g. This Is Your Bloody Valentine), categorized as mini-LPs, typically with around 7 tracks. These were marketed as albums, and were eligible for and appeared in the album charts, but there are some editors who insist that these be classified as EPs. A vinyl EP was an extended version of the single format and usually quite different to a mini-LP, so retrospectively deciding that mini-LPs are not albums seems ridiculous. This WikiProject does not have a classification for 'Mini-LP', so how should mini-LPs be correctly categorized? It should be noted that articles for bands often include discographies with chart positions, and thanks to some editors who put their POV before chart company rules, record company intentions and published sources, we now have mini-LPs that charted in album charts listed with EPs that charted in singles charts. Given that we have official rules for single/album eligibility, I feel that we have an easy way of classifying releases as albums or otherwise. I have suggested a compromise of a separate category for mini-LPs in discographies/band templates, but there seems little will among other editors of these articles for engaging in discussion on the topic. Your views would be welcome. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with this debate. If some of these charted and were recognized as "albums", that would seem to me to be considerable support for your perspective. It seems that Wikipedia is not the only place uncertain how to class these. AMG lists "This is Your Blood Valentine" as an album in the discography, and "Ecstacy" as an EP. Rolling Stone fails to take note of either of them. Given what little bit you've said here and what little bit I've been able to discover, I'd say that in the absence of anything definitive, I'd probably be inclined to follow suit with the most notable/reliable source. If it charted on the album chart, it's an album. If it didn't, I'd probably drop it wherever AMG does. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: All Music Guide → Allmusic

I invite everyone to take a look over here and express any concern on replacing "All Music Guide" by "Allmusic" with the help of a bot. Thanks in advance. – IbLeo (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Project template image

Um, what's happened to the image on Template:Album? Looking at the image page Image:Vynil record.jpg it appears to have been vandalised by a non-existent user and I can't see how to change it back. --JD554 (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone has fixed it now. --JD554 (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack albums

I have recently come across Category:Film soundtracks and feel a significant number of its articles have no true independent notability and should be merged into the respective film articles to something like The Truman Show#Soundtrack or Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (film)#Soundtrack. The mergist in me feels that this is the best presentation until someone really wants to expand the information beyond the intro and a tracklist (e.g. add half-decent sections for production, reception, or chart positions), or when a soundtrack has two or more discs or special editions (e.g. Forrest Gump (soundtrack)). I have already bold-merged Pride & Prejudice (soundtrack) into Pride & Prejudice (2005 film)#Soundtrack once, but I am getting qualms now since there was some claim of notability via awards. Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Film Music is inactive, I wonder what people here suggest to do - bold-merge and wait for possible reverts, make merge proposals and wait a while (how long?), or leave such articles alone. I guess about 50% to 75% of the 700 articles in Category:Film soundtracks have only a short intro (two paragraphs at best) plus a tracklist (<15 songs). Comments? I deal mostly with film and television articles up to FA level and have no real experience with album articles, but I don't want to mess up any unspoken-of conventions. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is exclusively a question of notability, I think it's a question of content. WP:MUSIC says "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." I think "little more than a track listing" would probably qualify for the state of Pride & Prejudice (soundtrack) when you found it. It did have a little more text, but you merged it all. The appropriateness of that merge doesn't need to hinge on the notability of the album. It's notable by its awards. But you're not deleting information; you're including it elsewhere. And as long as it doesn't overwhelm the parent article, that seems appropriate. If an article is heavily edited, I would not merge without a merge proposal. If it looks possible that somebody could or might expand it into something of more value as a stand-alone, I'd consider tagging it {{expand}}. If it's stagnant and not precisely demonstrating potential, a bold merge should be fine. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)