Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Review site: Metal Storm

Dear all,

In April of this year I had proposed Metal Storm as a professional review site. This case has remained unresolved and was archived in June after nobody had contributed to the discussion anymore. Half a year later I'd like to bring this topic up again, mainly because I'm not too fond of it being unresolved, but also because there have been some important changes on the site, such as the institution of paid positions instead of the volunteers-only nature of the site.

In the following I'll just copy my old appeal and also add some remarks. If someone wants to read the full discussion, you can do so in the the archive link provided above.

I'd like to propose Metal Storm [1] as a professional review site. It's listed among the non-professional sites, but I cannot find any discussion in the archives which has led to this classification. Metal Storm has existed for ten years now and is run by a fixed staff of volunteers.

• Add one paid part-time and two paid full-time positions to that.

It also features a lot of guest reviews, but those all contain a disclaimer. According to Alexa Metal Storm used to be the most visited webzine in the heavy metal category while it still was on the URL MetalStorm.ee, second only to the database Encyclopaedia Metallum. Recently the URL was changed to MetalStorm.net to emphasize its global character - through the change it has also dropped in Alexa rank as the former URLs (.ee and .eu) still redirect to MetalStorm.net.

• I just checked, it would be rank 4 in Alexa's heavy metal category - maybe 3 if the .ee domain's page would be merged into the .net domain's page (current #3, current #4).

Nonetheless it is a highly notable webzine which has made its appearance in print magazines and many other online media: the German print magazine Legacy has featured an article by Metal Storm in its October 2009 issue [2] [3] (the last sentence mentions Metal Storm and the involved staffers), the (now defunct) Estonian print fanzine Pläkk used to feature a page in English with Metal Storm’s reviews and the Belgian/Flemish newspaper "Gazet Van Antwerpen" has printed news about the victory of the Belgian band Oceans of Sadness in the Metal Storm Awards (here the news item on the newspaper’s online portal). The online news portal Blabbermouth regularly references Metal Storm’s news and interviews [4] and the annual Metal Storm Awards have received several mentions on Brave Words. Metal Storm is also in official partnership with Hellfest, one of Europe's biggest heavy metal festivals [5]. A quote from a Metal Storm review has also been printed on a sticker on the Peaceville re-release of Carpathian Forest's "Through Chasm, Caves and Titan Woods" in 2007. Unfortunately I don’t have the image link anymore.

• A comment by another Wikipedian had rebutted the importance of Blabbermouth and Bravewords links, and of the mentioned sticker. I actually agree. Nonetheless the appearance and reference of Metal Storm in print magazines like Legacy (add another Metal Storm article in Legacy #68 p. 225 to the list (last line of the Black Troll article)), the print fanzine Pläkk, the newspaper Gazet Van Antwerpen or in an article by the professional music webzine laut.de [6] should make it notable after all. Speaking of notability, could someone please check if the two years old notability banner on Metal Storm's Wiki page is still justified? Due to COI I don't like meddling with it myself.

The rating system of the site generally is the 10 star system, some reviewers however refuse to add ratings to their reviews, so for those cases tags in the "(favorable)" format should probably be used.

As a staff member of the site in question I am probably accused of COI. I am however familiar with the policies and standards of Wikipedia. Therefore I’d also like to add a restriction: the standards of Metal Storm have changed over the years, there are a lot of sub-par reviews on the site, especially from the first half of the decade before our standards shifted. I guess a remark "Only add official reviews (i.e. without guest review disclaimer) from 2007 onwards" would be fine as that would also be the time when Peaceville quoted Metal Storm on their album sticker, thus being the first date I can think of when MS has fulfilled Wikipedia’s notability standards.

• Make that "from 2009 onwards" - the sticker wasn't notable, but the articles in print certainly are.

I hereby rest my case. What do you think? Any chance Metal Storm could be included? Promonex (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I supported your request from earlier this year, but looking closer at the recent reviews on your site I am confused. Do you mind clarifying how one can tell the difference between your staff reviews and user submitted reviews. For example, in which category falls this review? In the author profile his position is described as "Elite", what does that mean? – IbLeo^(talk) 05:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference between official and user-submitted reviews is the disclaimer at the end of the review: [7].

Elite users are closely associated with the staff, many of them being former staff members who have stepped down from contributing regularly, but still do so once in a while, such as the guy you picked as example. Consider them freelancers, if that makes any sense in a staff of mostly volunteers, so their reviews are considered official and representative for Metal Storm's standards. But that's a good question, I've noted it and it will be added to the FAQ soon. Promonex (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Third opinions on this proposal would be highly appreciated. – IbLeo^(talk) 17:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I like the fact that there is a very clear disclaimer when reviews are by 'guest reviewers', I'm not thrilled that not all of the staffers give their full names. 'Jeff' doesn't give his last name but 'Undercraft' does give his full name, Kike Congrains. If all of the staffers gave full names I would fully support, as it is now I'm leaning that way but would like to hear others' thoughts. J04n(talk page) 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  I am not sure that is a valid argument against inclusion. Artist names are commonly widespread and accepted amongst musicians (e.g. everyone knows Saul Hudson as Slash), so why shouldn't journalists be allowed the same? – IbLeo^(talk) 07:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I was shown this discussion by Promonex (I'm a user on Metal Storm), and figured that I might as well contribute. I haven't really got anything new to say, other than that I agree with the notion of using the official reviews on Metal Storm here. I should probably be a bit more in-depth about my viewpoint, but right now I'm mainly trying to revive the discussion, since last time a decision wasn't reached. --LordNecronus (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Work in progress: automatic certification citation - feedback request

This is still work in progress, but I think it is ripe enough for me to show it around and get feedback. All of these template are still in my user space, I am going to move them to the template space after getting some feedback as to what is required. This is also relevant to WP:SONG and WP:DISCOGRAPHY but I'm putting it here since I mostly tested for albums.

Following the relative success of {{cite gold platin}} I took it upon myself to create an automatic certification citation template, and this is it: User:Muhandes/Certification Cite. It currently supports only 15 regions, out of which for 11 it actually creates exact links, and for the rest it creates instructions on how to get the exact page. Here is a usage example:

Believe was certified 4× Platinum in the United States, 2× Platinum in Germany and 4× Platinum in the United Kingdom.

Note that no direct link is made for the UK ref.

But, this is just the beginning. I created a set of templates for creating a full certification table, User:Muhandes/Certification Table Top, User:Muhandes/Certification Table Entry, User:Muhandes/Certification Table Bottom. Here is a usage example, again for Believe:

User:Muhandes/Certification Table Top ! scope="row" | Argentina (CAPIF) | Platinum | 0^{^} |- ! scope="row" | Australia (ARIA) | 2× Platinum | 140,000^{^} |- ! scope="row" | Austria (IFPI Austria) | Platinum | 0^* |- ! scope="row" | Finland (Musiikkituottajat) | Gold | 32,682 |- ! scope="row" | France (SNEP) | Platinum | 300,000^* |- ! scope="row" | Germany (BVMI) | 2× Platinum | 0^{^} |- ! scope="row" | Netherlands (NVPI) | Platinum | 0^{^} |- ! scope="row" | New Zealand (RMNZ) | 2× Platinum | 30,000^{^} |- ! scope="row" | Norway (IFPI Norway) | Platinum |   |- ! scope="row" | Poland (ZPAV) | Platinum | 0^* |- ! scope="row" | Sweden (GLF) | Platinum | 0^{^} |- ! scope="row" | Switzerland (IFPI Switzerland) | 2× Platinum | 0^{^} |- ! scope="row" | United Kingdom (BPI) | 2× Platinum | 600,000^{^} |- ! scope="row" | United States (RIAA) | 4× Platinum | 4,000,000^{^} |- User:Muhandes/Certification Table Summary ! scope="row" | Europe (IFPI) | 4× Platinum | 4,000,000^* |- User:Muhandes/Certification Table Bottom

Discussion

As one can see, the table also calculates the sales/shipment figure based on the award and different parameters, notably the year of release as in many regions the amount for certification changed over the years. If we have no concrete information on the sales threshold it can also be ignored, see e.g. the Norway entry. So, what do you think? Is this helpful? Would you like to see this released? Be kind, I worked hard on this :) --Muhandes (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Initial feedback is that you shouldn't include the table end in the template. {{singlechart}} doesn't, and the reason I chose to do that was to allow editors to add extra columns. I'll look it over in more detail.—Kww(talk) 16:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Editors who want a different number of columns should not use either the top or the bottom which both fix to three columns. But if one uses top, they might as well use bottom. I'll add that to the documentation (once I write it) --Muhandes (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Great work! This would be a great help, both saving editors' time and giving one less variable for inexperienced editors to misapprehend or vandals to distort. I would recommend that you use templates requiring both year of release and year of certification for all titles whether or not it seems relevant at the moment, as we may learn about past or future cert threshold changes after a table is presented and then whatever function is processing the threshold would change automatically, without editors having to individually update every single table or necessitating the creation of a bot to do so. The SC article says Finland's album cert threshold is accurate only as of Jan. 1 2010, but it says nothing about what the threshold was at any time prior to this. Yet the singles certifications say those figures are as of 1994, so they had a cert authority and the means to gauge; surely they certified albums prior to 2010, no? (I'd swear I saw a Finland Gold album cert once.) The record in the example you use was released and certified prior to 2010, so I'm guessing that if I'm correct, and if the meaning of the "as of Jan. 1 2010" is that this is the date this cert threshold debuted, then this wouldn't be accurate...? Thanks for your work on these! Abrazame (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Good idea. Year of certification is only required for citation purposes, and is not always available, but I will make sure year of release is always passed through. I'll check what I can find about Finland's certification. I will also add in the documentation the data I was basing the sales thresholds on. --Muhandes (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Regarding Finland's certification levels, I don't use them at all, since the website supplies the exact sales figure. --Muhandes (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Well, I'm conflicted about two or three things in that regard. Do the "exact sales figure" numbers get updated at the Finland Musikkii Tuottajat page, or is that figure simply the actual sales at the moment of that title's audit? Because by citing a non-rounded number (and not adding the "+"), we're representing it as an updated figure that is inherently more accurate than the rounded numbers. But of course it's not necessarily so, as an album's sales can peter off at any number and any time, no matter how close or far from a specific audit or random certification threshold. So it seems counterintuitive that we would call it a column of actual sales of that album when in fact it is a column of a dozen or so certification thresholds met and only one allegedly actual sales figure. Abrazame (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I believe it is just at the moment of audit. In a sense I am only duplicating the current status in certification and sales tables. On most existing tables the numbers are based on certifications, with one or two exceptions which are a reliable source with a sales figure appropriate for some date. Would adding the date make more sense? We can make "certyear" mandatory and then all the numbers will look like 100,000 (1991) or something like that. I'd be happy to hear other opinions. --Muhandes (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Well, we need to talk about what data we're working with, and how we are presenting it to a reader — not current status. And my point is that if in all cases the number is presumed to be over the amount, yet in all cases there has been no official count since the time of the certification audit, then there should be unanimity in the way the table presents and footnotes the information. A "+" symbol implies that it is more than this amount, so either that is a misleading substitute for an asterisk when used with numerical data, and should be changed in the other instances, or it should be added to the unrounded numbers as well. And to my understanding, the point of the column (its current status) is not to tally the most accurate count of actual individual unit sales possible, it's to list certification thresholds met (of course if the certification audit reports a threshold met with an unrounded number, that would be the number we present). Is someone able to correct me on that point? Because it's important that if we're standardizing this with templates that we both know and indicate what we intend to be presenting and how it will be interpreted. For example, if it is simply intended as a rundown of all sales certifications, I see no problem in listing the European certification as we are doing, but then we shouldn't be adding updated figures between thresholds. However, if it is intended as a tally of individual unit sales as best and most updated as we can cite (which it is likely to be perceived as by a reader), then the way we are presenting the European certification is misleading, as the individual European country certs are components of that continent-wide cert. Just as we don't present component chart data in tables where the main chart is represented, for fear it will be conflated with an additional success and not understood for both components of a whole and that whole — we should not be presenting in a column a metric that in some instances we're implying would be added together to determine a whole, while in many other instances (all of Europe, the majority of most chart tables' rows) it would be double-counting to do so. This is not a criticism of your work, but I raise the issue with you because form follows function and it affects the design (and accuracy) of your standardized table, which in turn dictates how this data is input by editors going forward. If it is a sales tally, we might put the Europe-wide cert in the tally column, with a subsection in the table (but not that column) breaking that figure down by country. Is there anyplace at IFPI or Wikipedia where we can find out which countries have been/are included in their European award? The member states of the European Union have changed over the years and have only recently come to include Eastern Europe, while the EU currently does not formally include Norway and Switzerland, two countries often cited in chart/cert tables. I would point out that the IFPI Europe award — indeed, the very word "Europe" — does not appear in List of music recording certifications. Abrazame (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC) The + was replaced with a *. To my understanding, the column represents the best knowledge we have of sales in a specific region. That region can be a country, continent, or in some cases, worldwide. In most cases (way over 99%) the best we have is the latest certification. If a better figure is available it should be added, and the template facilitates this as well. I hear your concern about the European certification. Breaking the number down is impractical. Rather than removing the certification entirely, which would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I added a summary certifications section to the table which prevents misunderstandings.--Muhandes (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC) What is the consensus on double albums certified in the U.S.? Doesn't the RIAA certify a double album that sells 500,000 copies as platinum? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC) The wording is "Each unit within set counts as one unit toward certification", so indeed this seems to support what you say. I will make a note to add a "mutlidisc" parameter to account to this. --Muhandes (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)  Done --Muhandes (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC) I hate to come stumbling in here so late after you've done so much hard work, Muhandes, but I just saw what you're doing. I hate to tell you this, but the last discussions I remember ended with a consensus to avoid using Slaes/Shipments columns in general, and in particular not to back-derive some figure based on certifications. I'll go to find these discussions now, but they were in 2010 and, as I recall, there was a pretty solid feeling that the uncertanty of whether the awards represented sales or shipments was a strong reason not to show anything at all. I believe we ended up agreeing that specific sales figures, well-sourced, were okay, preferably in the text (and not in the tables). Off to find links. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Though this would be somewhat disappointing, the main target of my effort was to provide a standard citation method for inline certifications and a standard certification table - the sales/shipments column were an afterthought based on the so-many articles in which I saw this used (which should be cleaned if this is the consensus). If indeed consensus is against a sales/shipments column I will see my investment in this column as a worthwhile exercise and move on with the rest, but please do supply the discussion link so I can see what exactly was agreed upon. For example, some of the certifications (Dutch for instance) are based on pure sales, what's the consensus on specifying only the numbers for which there is certainty? Also possible is to specify for each figure if this is sales, shipments, or we don't know. --Muhandes (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Without having read the discussion John is searching for the link to, it should be simple for Muhandes to append each country's figure with an asterisk when that country's certification denotes shipments, and none (or a different mark) when it denotes sales. These are the only two metrics used to gauge a cert. If the distinction between sales and shipments really is a sticking point for editors, then why would they want to be conflating sales certs and shipment certs in the same column? For that matter, we routinely present in the same column certs from before and after a cert threshold change, for artists whose careers span that change; and from before and after a shift from counting shipments to counting sales, for artists whose careers span the advent of SoundScan, for example; yet without any standard indication that the underlying data indicated by a single word (the cert) is a number that is varying by 100% or up to 2 million (in the case of Platinum and Double-Platinum U.S. singles, 1 million vs. 2 million and 2 million vs. 4 million). Without knowing who came down on what side or for what reason, so not directed toward anybody, I find it perplexing that editors would find a big deal in such distinctions, yet the result of their consensus would be to obscure those distinctions. I wasn't trying to give him a hard time before, I applaud Muhandes' efforts to standardize a template because in so doing, editors who do not know the difference in what threshold or metric was being measured at what date will have a foolproof tool to determine that automatically for them, and editors who do know the difference will have an easy and standard way to present it, while unsavvy readers comparing two artists' or releases' stats (or, for that matter, one artist's stats over time) will actually see the distinction. Frankly, if, as John states, consensus was based on the uncertainty of which was which, then I wonder if the previous consensus would be different had it considered the possibility of a template like Muhandes' that could automatically figure out the different thresholds for each country at a given time as well as the distinction between sales and shipments for each country, whether the contributing editor knew the difference or not, and there was a standard way of presenting it that ensured that those who know these differences exist could see at a glance which is which when, and those who do not can learn about them or ignore them as they so choose. Sounds to me like Muhandes' development is grounds to revisit the issue. Abrazame (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I went ahead and distinguished between sales/shipments/unspecified. I'm open to suggestion how to make this look better, but I think, as Abrazame suggested, that this is actually better than not specifying anything. This way, at least when you compare apples to oranges you know which is which. Can anyone suggest how to move forward with this? Should I just move it all to the main space and start applying ? --Muhandes (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made the suggested improvements. To summarize, to address the issue of sales/shipments column I have made several major modifications.

• If the parameters provided are not enough to determine the applicable certification level (say, release year is not supplied), or the certification level is not supported by reliable sources (for example, Denmark before April 2009) the template will return "0". Editors can then either use nosales=true to hide the number, or supply another source by using salesamount and salesref.
• I have added a different footnote for sales, shipments, or unspecified figures. Thus it is clear what the certification applies to. I think this in itself contributes to correct comparison of apples to apples, and of course the actual figure helps even more.
• I added an option to completely omit the sales/shipments column. While this is not the default behaviour, if after the template is used for a while, consensus is still not to use the sales/shipments column, we can easily change the default behaviour and hide the column from all tables.

If I don't get any more comments for a few days I am going to start moving the template to the main space and start implementing it to hopefully get more feedback. You can see quite a number of examples of how it is going to look like here. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just letting anyone who is interested know that the templates are now working and I started using them on some articles where certifications were uncited or missing. --Muhandes (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can, could you also added RIAA certifications for Spanish-language albums? They have different standards from the regular RIAA certifications. Magiciandude (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I moved the discussion to Template talk:Certification Table Entry#RIAA Spanish-language albums. --Muhandes (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The biggest problem I see is trying to determine the sales/shipments column. The threshold numbers for meeting Gold/Silver/Platinum certification levels have changed in most regions over the years, so depending on when an album was released, the numbers automatically determined by your template may not be accurate estimations of sales. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is also my major concern. One of the major reasons to try to automate this column is that I noticed how many of the numbers mentioned in articles are simply wrong. Which is why the template only displays the number for regions in which we have reliable source for the certification. For example, note how the table in Believe (Cher song)#Certifications does not have a number for Austria and Norway. That's because we have no reliable source showing what the level in Austria was before 2007, or in Norway before 2002. The sources are all listed in {{Certification Table Entry}}. I'm happy to say recent help by Harout72 has also helped clarify the certification history in Poland, Belgium and Austria, at least to some extent. --Muhandes (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Sales/shipments column creates too much confusion, as in many cases they are separate things. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the reality not the template. In reality, these certifications are given for separate things in different regions. As pointed above, at least now everyone can compare apples to apples. I'm eager to hear suggestions on how to make it clearer and less confusing. I thought about adding a word instead of a footnote marker, i.e. something like 1,000,000sales, 50,000shipments or 100,000sales/shipments? when it's not clear. But I thought this will needlessly make the table wider. --Muhandes (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest separating the footnotes on separate lines, a is this (new line) b is this, rather than a/b/c is this/this/this. I would also suggest the project members who are most interested in the distinction between sales and shipments in certifications track down that information about those countries for which we apparently don't even know which it is currently, much less some years back, so that Muhandes' symbols and footnotes may be limited to two, rather than three. This should make it clearer and more straightforward. Abrazame (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, I'm also going to enable displaying just one type of footnotes when only one type was used. --Muhandes (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done If someone could help me remove the whitespace on the bottom of the table it would be even nicer. --Muhandes (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I find certification tables by their nature cumbersome and not very intuitive, so I opt for describing certifications in the prose (to be fair, most of the albums I work on receive a few, if any, certification awards, so it's much easier to do so). But hey, that's why these things are optional. I do think it's wiser to push for certifications to be explained in the prose and the tables reserved for mega-hits with tons of certs, though. I also see a major problem in that the table code is designed to automatically pull URLs without any information or easy, inuitive way to include necessary items like a retrieval date. It's very important that editors themselves verify sources. And what if they want to cite a book instead? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, tables are optional, but if they are going to be used, lets make sure they are correct. This entire project started when I saw the sad state of the certification tables used. As for your other concerns, you can use whatever source you want, by using the certref field. An example would be the certification for Portugal in ...Baby One More Time. As for stating access date, I thought I implemented that already, but I seem to have forgotten. It will be implemented in the next few hours. Thanks for the feedback, and if there is anything else you think could help make this more intuitive I'd be happy to hear it. --Muhandes (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done it was actually mostly implemented, so I added the final touch and documented. --Muhandes (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not really something that can be addressed by the table itself, but there should be a guideline describing the difference between sale certifications and sales figures (ie. the difference between an RIAA cert and figures offered up by SoundScan, the latter of which is more accurate), as they are not synonymous. I'd strongly recommend making the table for certs only and leaving actual sales figures for the prose, as it's easier to elaborate on the latter in that form. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The situation right now is that tables all around Wikipedia mix the too, so my implementation reflects the current situation, and allows the inclusion of sales figures via salesamount and a source via salesref. This could be easily removed if the consensus will be otherwise.--Muhandes (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you should be bold in just making it certs. From my observations, the tables that mix both are the result of editors who don't understand the difference between the two. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

New /Sources subpage

I also started Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources for a suggested list of sources as well. I would love to see other members of this project be more active and help to expand or modify both of these new pages :) Fezmar9 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites? As far as I can see, it serves the same purpose as your new page. – IbLeo^(talk) 16:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of this page, and it's actually one of the "See also" links at /Sources. Not all publications that are about music will have reviews, and not all sources that publish album reviews focus solely on music. I think about a third of the sources listed under "Online only" don't actually post reviews, but they're still valid sources of information. One of the big things I would still like to do with /Sources is expand the "Other sources" section to include other mediums like videos and books. Also, /Review sites goes into necessary detail on the rating system format and source-specific notes that would be irrelevant on the new page. So I do see your point, but the difference between these two pages is their scope. /Sources is for all places to find information, while /Review sites is more narrow and only focuses on one aspect of an album article. Perhaps that difference will become more apparent after it's expanded a little more. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand where you are heading. Nevertheless, from your description it sounds like /Sources would be more appropriate over at WP:WPMU, as it is much more wide-reaching than just albums. Also, I am skeptical to your inclusion of websites that don't even have their own article here on WP, like The Boombox and The Boot (website). In my experience, if a website is not notable enough to have an article, it's highly possible that it will fail the criteria for reliable sources. – IbLeo^(talk) 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the majority of Wikipedia editors like to believe that something without an article is automatically non-notable. This is generally a pretty logical way of thinking, and nine times out of ten it makes perfect sense. However, the two sites you have mentioned are part of AOL's genre-specific music news blogs, similar to Noisecreep and Spinner (website). If these other two AOL sites can be deemed notable, then surely by extension The Boot and Boombox are as well. Especially if you glance at the staff pages[8][9] that give a list of well-established writers with credible backgrounds. When writing /Sources I noticed that it largely appealed to my tastes of punk and metal, and when trying to come up with sources that cater to other genres, the other AOL sites came to mind first. Even though they don't have any articles. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to point it out as we are quite "picky" before including a new source on /Review sites, and I believe it should be the same here. I have never personally heard of those two websites, but your argumentation makes sense and I am not going to contest. Secondly, I still believe that /Sources and /Review sites have so much overlap (both in content and purpose) that they should be merged, and I actually think that /Sources is the better name. If the project agrees to this, I am willing to lend a hand. – IbLeo^(talk) 06:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It was proposed that /Source and /Review sites be merged together. I wanted to open this idea up to the community to see if everyone felt the same way. And if they indeed should be merged, how should we go about implementing this change? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Albums by artist and record label

{{Albums category}} and {{Album label category}} are new templates created by User:Rich Farmbrough to use in subcategories under Category:Albums by artist and Category:Albums by record label. Should their use be encouraged by the WP:Albums project group? I don't see anything inherently wrong with them but do feel one method should be adhered to unless stated otherwise on the Project page. The main issue has been their mass addition to red-linked 'Foo albums' and 'Foo Records albums' categories within articles without any checks for accuracy. Some of these have been taken to CFD (such as Category:Sunday Best albums) or changed to what is common practice (such as Category:Red Snapper albums) because of these issues. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose decommissioning /Summary

I propose that we decommission Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Summary (transcluded into the main project page). It hasn't been updated since 3 June 2010, nobody (including myself) seems willing to do the effort, and honestly I don't think it serves any purpose. Instead I suggest we assure that each category is referenced in one of the tasks in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/to do, and then people can simply go to the category and check if it's empty or not. WDYT? – IbLeo^(talk) 06:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I interpret your deafening silence as an intermediate approval and will go ahead and do it over the coming weekend—that is, unless someone protests within the next 24 hours... – IbLeo^(talk) 05:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Summary is no longer transcluded into the main project page and has been marked as historical. Furthermore, I have integrated all the listed categories into Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/to do so nothing has been lost. – IbLeo^(talk) 06:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Fall (Gorillaz album) – what kind of animal is it?

I found that The Fall (Gorillaz album) is currently included in Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes because |Type= has value "iPad Album" in its infobox. This obviously doesn't make much sense, but I actually can't see what value should be used. It's not a studio album as it's recorded at home, not a demo album either as there are no intentions of going into a studio to re-record the songs. So what kind of animal is this? – IbLeo^(talk) 07:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Myself, I think it's still a studio album. More and more these days, artists are working on tracks at home on their laptops or whatever and then bringing in those works-in-progress to a studio. Looking at the WP article for the album, I assume that this is what has happened with this Gorillaz album, since I assume that Stephen Sedgwick’s mixing of it took place in a traditional recording studio. To be honest, this sort of thing isn't even that recent a development; I remember reading back in 2001 that large sections of Björk's Vespertine album were recorded on her laptop before formal studio sessions for the album began. Basically, due to the advances in music technology, the distinction between a home demo and a polished studio recording is blurring.

Arguably, this sort of thing has been going on since the 1960s, with the tape loops on The Beatles' song "Tomorrow Never Knows" having been created by Paul McCartney at his home and then brought into Abbey Road studios for use in the song. Nonetheless, "Tomorrow Never Knows" is still considered a studio recording, and rightly so.

I guess I’m saying that, even though the entire The Fall album was recorded on an iPad, I would say that this still counts as a studio album because it's a finished, polished release and therefore quite different to a demo album. I mean, really, is this any different to Damon Albarn recording the album in his own home studio? I don't think so, it's just that with modern technology, one doesn't necessarily need a recording studio (in the traditional sense) to produce an album. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Wise words above, much better said than I can say them, so I'll just add my support. --Muhandes (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Kohoutek1138, your position makes quite good sense to me as well. So basically, what we are saying is that a studio album can very well be recorded in a well-equipped home recording studio, and that with today's technological advances a home recording studio can consist of little more than an iPad, supposedly equipped with some sophisticated software and appropriately connected to various instruments (or not, if all the music is performed electronically). What counts is the quality of the finished product. I have changed the type parameter to "studio" accordingly. – IbLeo^(talk) 11:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally speaking, yes, I would agree with your above definition of what constitutes a studio album. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It is entirely possible to create and release music today without physically entering a studio by using modern technology. Software programs like Reason and Ableton Live can be used to make electronic music, and the music can be uploaded straight to the internet. In the case of The Fall, the group has released what are basically the liner notes on their official website which lists all the iPad applications used. It looks like the album was produced using the app StudioMini XL, which as the title suggests, is a mini studio for engineering music. The website also reads: "Mixed by Stephen Sedgwick at Studio 13. Mastered by Geoff Pesche at Abbey Road Studios," so this music did eventually make it to a studio at some point. I believe a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that the majority (if not all) of the music was created, rather than recorded, through digital means. This includes the digital drumkit known as FunkBox, the M3000 HD digital keyboard, the text-to-speech app SpeakIt!, and totally bizzare apps that almost seem more like games such as SoundyThingie and Gliss (sourced from the list of iPad apps on their site). In that sense, there was nothing to really walk into a studio and record; it was all saved as a file onto an iPad. However, the sounds created from all these different apps were combined and edited using traditional studio methods. So I would classify this as a studio album.

I also believe Gorillaz fans want to classify it as something else because it doesn't fit the continuity of their three "main" studio albums. The same phenomena occurs on Wikipedia when a band releases a Christmas album, or something else out of the norm. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting and insightful research. I think there should be no doubt that it qualifies as a studio album. I am also pretty convinced that you are right about your last statement; looking at Template:Gorillaz one can see that it has been put into the "Other albums" section rather than the "Studio albums" section as it is a bit of an oddity in their discography. – IbLeo^(talk) 12:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for information—the type of this album hasn´t been resolved yet. For the moment, the Type parameter is not filled and the album still pops up in Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes. The relevant discussion is here, in case anyone wants to give it a go. I am personally not going to spend any more energy on this. – IbLeo^(talk) 18:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see your problem with the album not being given a preexisting label. It doesn't really fit into any of the preexisting categories, so why try to cram it into one? This WikiProject is about improving articles, and this clearly is not about that. It's wasting time that could be better spent adding to the page so that it's not just a stub that was clearly only written by the hardcore fanbase of the band. If this has to be such a big problem, a better solution would be to create a parameter at Template:Infobox album that isn't overly specific. Right now, "album" translates into "Studio album," which makes no sense. Creating a new parameter there (maybe one that just says "Album"? Isn't that common sense?) wouldn't just benefit The Fall, but various other albums. On the article talk page, I used Frank Zappa albums as an example of this. A lot of them have been given misleading labels over the years, due to the fact that they don't fit into any one preset category. Otherwise, they would show up at Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes, which apparently bugs the hell out of some people. Some editors apparently can't stand the idea that an album can't be described by one of 10 given labels. That problem seems to be with either the editors, or the way things are set up, rather than a problem with the article itself. Friginator (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Single or not?

Does the release of a track as an Amazon.com mp3 download mean it being released as a single, such as this edit to Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams claim? Dan56 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to have its own cover art and promotional video, so it seems to have some claim to being a "single", albeit a download-only one. This says it's the third single off the album, and it's reviewed as a single here. Now that some singles only get released digitally, there can be a fine line between something being a single and being an album track that gets a bit of a push. This looks more like a digital single/EP release than the one track URL used in the article.--Michig (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"TONY" is definately a single, but in the edit I cited, I meant the additional four (single4 – 7) added by the editor. Is one mp3 download page at Amazon enough to support the release of a single, or should it come from the label's/artist's site, PR release, etc.? Dan56 (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Most seem to be multiple tracks/remixes with their own cover art and a release date specified. Ideally we would have more than an Amazon URL to go on, but they don't make these things up and even if a record company releases a single as a download from Amazon only, it's still a single.--Michig (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Dan56 (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to confirm: this is an example of an Amazon Digital Track which is taken from the main digital album release (notice the same cover as the album and the same release date) whereas this is most definitely a single release (notice the different cover and release date). The latter is an Amazon Digital Single. There's a small but distinct difference. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Genre - R&B?

There is a pretty silly conflict going on over genre with the Let's Get It On article, with the edits by me and User:WesleyDodds in question (see history). My understanding is that "R&B" is the marketing/radio term used in the music industry, historically to label most popular music made by blacks, such as hip hop, soul, doo-wop, etc. But this user seems to mistake it as some "overarching genre", when "soul" and "funk" are genres, according to Wikipedia, and "R&B" isnt very encyclopedic to have there, since as an actual genre it refers to 1940s jump blues (sourced info from rhythm and blues article). I don't see the problem with just leaving "soul" and "funk" in the infobox anyway, since there are more overeaching cases with album articles, with inclusion of sub-genres (Blood Sugar Sex Magik, In Utero (album), Thriller (album), South of Heaven). (Template:Infobox_album#Genre says "one or more music genres that the album reflects"). This seems to me like a case of being misinformed about black music, since WP shows more quality articles related to popular music made by whites, like the majority of FA albums articles being about rock/pop albums. Can someone help with some input? Dan56 (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Genres should always be sourced by reliable sources. Of course there is an element of judgement involved e.g. you cant just go out looking for a source to call something R&B... it has to actually be in the text itself. I've read the article (briefly) and get the distinct impression that soul and funk are better genres to leave in the infobox as they have support in the text and citations. I'm not being pedantic but rhythm and blues doesn't appear to be sourced. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the "funk" part is pretty well-cited, and "Marvin Gaye" might as well be a synonym for "soul music", but I added another cite with a critic's statement that should support both, just to be more complete about it. Dan56 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Both funk and soul are R&B genres, so why not simplify it in the infobox, is all I'm sayin'. As for "This seems to me like a case of being misinformed about black music, since WP shows more quality articles related to popular music made by whites", that makes an awful lot of assumptions based on was was simply an attempt to cut down four genres to one that summarizes them all. It's also a bit much to bring this here instead of the article talk page or even my talk page first. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That is less encyclopedic; "R&B" is just a term used ..... I explained this in the paragraph above. I see that most of your contributions related to rock music. Many of the articles you edit recently actually include subgenres (alternative rock, grunge, punk rock). Soul and funk are popular music genres, so why not just put in "popular music"? It's two completely different genres, that are sourced in the article. Your the one that brought up removing "soul" and "funk" in the first place, only providing a petty edit summary to removing genres that have been there since the article's GA selection. Leave it be. Dan56 (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

To simplify Let's Get It On as just an "R&B" album is undermining its legacy. It not only had funk and soul elements but it also included doo-wop styled arrangements, some jazz elements were in there, as was some pop in some of its arrangements and of course a subgenre Marvin helped to define later on - "quiet storm". I'm with Dan on this. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 02:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What does my editing of rock articles have to do with the matter at hand? My recent edit history on other articles isn't the subject of discussion here. I really have no preference whether more specific or general genres are listed for this specific album; I simply decided to be bold and offer a solution to avoid listing four genres in an infobox if one could suffice. Also, there's no need to state "Leave it be" when I have expressed no intention to change the field again, and the description of my edit summary as "petty" is in bad faith. Frankly, I'm kind of offended by the way this minor issue has played out, and I see no point in continuing a discussion that could've been settled pretty easily if you'd addressed me directly in the first place to talk about it, instead of going directly to a WikiProject talk page and writing statements like "This seems to me like a case of being misinformed about black music" which actually made me kind of angry when I first read it given my background (which admittedly you would be unaware of). As for your contention about R&B not referring to soul, read this. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Dan56 is quite right. The terms "R&B" and "rhythm and blues" have been used by different people, at different times, in different places, to mean different sorts of (at least originally) African-American music, since the 1940s. Without going into too many details, it's probably safe to say that adding the term "R&B" to any article isn't particularly helpful in itself, without any further explanation being given. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

After watching this discussion and listening to both sides of the argument, I've gotta say that I think Dan56 is correct in this case. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've gotta say that before we here at Wikipedia start rewriting music history, I'd like to see a convincing degree of reliable sources showing that R&B is somehow some racist and limp category that never should have been used. Simply arguing that certain recordings could be more accurately described with more specific sub-genres, or that they transcend a single category and contain elements (in the event of singles) or songs (in the event of albums) that fall more accurately in a different category seems a bit myopic, as that can certainly be said about any category, be it Pop, Rock, Dance, Latin, Classical, Jazz, etc. Yeah, everybody's favorite is so much more inspired and nuanced and transcendent than just your run-of-the-mill (genre X), but that doesn't justify editors from eliminating the use of primary genre categories.

I'm speaking broadly, I'm not saying any individual editor is right or wrong about a particular recording's categorization, I certainly don't argue that Gaye's album is R&B but not soul, if that's the crux of this for someone, but nor do I think it's reasonable to state that Gaye's album is soul but not R&B. (And I'm completely confused by the inclusion of, for example, BloodSugarSexMagic—was the argument that someone had termed this R&B? I don't see that in that article's recent history.)

I think this thread's argument is a good example not of why we should eliminate R&B as a category but why it should be reasonable for an infobox to note more than two or three descriptors for a recording.

I reiterate, where is the broad-based, reliably sourced justification for doing so, and would someone please speak to the Allmusic definition of the Soul style linked by WesleyDodds? http://www.allmusic.com/explore/style/soul-d7 Abrazame (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Elvis (Züri West album)

The article Elvis (Züri West album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is nothing but a track listing. No encyclopedic content.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pais (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Album reviews in languages other than English

Recently an editor added some album reviews in Russian to several articles about Allman Brothers Band albums, for example this edit of "At Fillmore East", which links to this review. I'm not sure about this, but I'm thinking that it would be better not to have album reviews in languages other than English. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available...." I'd be interested in getting more opinions about this. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

We already have a guideline about this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites#Non-English reviews. It reflects your quote: Reviews in English are preferred, but the door is not completely closed for other languages "especially if the language is especially relevant to the album in question". For the Allman Brothers Band I would say that Russian is not especially relevant. I could imagine that it is hard to find reviews in English for albums that came out in the 1970s, but I don't think this justifies adding reviews in Russian to the article. That however is just my personal opinion. – IbLeo^(talk) 05:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of New Music Canada, Vol. 1

The article New Music Canada, Vol. 1 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found promotional references only, no references on article, no mention of notability, fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Are Proposed deletion announcements redundant here?

Now that the automatic article alerts are working again and available on the project page, I am curious to know if I am the only editor feeling that the Proposed deletion announcements are redundant and unnecessarily clutter this talk page? For example, both Proposed deletions above (Elvis (Züri West album)) and New Music Canada, Vol. 1 are also posted on the project page. – IbLeo^(talk) 19:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Chronology ambiguity

In what case should a studio album article's infobox chronology include other kinds of releases (live, compilation, EP)? It was brought up in an edit to Music Box (album), in which an editor claimed "Artists with sufficient coverage are NOT subject to this. Check out Madonna". And will the infobox guideline page be revised to specifiy about the "for most artists" piece? Dan56 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed a little bit here with respect to The Allman Brothers Band. My position is that non-studio albums can be included if they demonstrate contemporary artistic development. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 01:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A more recent discussion on this issue can be found here. I may dig it out of the archives soon to hold a poll that was talked about but never happened. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternate covers

Can someone point me to the guidelines regarding when it is appropriate to include alternate cover art? Thanks! Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover: "If the album has been released with different album covers, they can be added to the infobox using this template. However, please ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria." So NFCC is the overriding policy. I don't believe it's formally written down anywhere, but past discussions and precedent have been that if an alternate cover is significantly different from the original and widely-distributed (as with The Dark Side of the Moon), or replaces the original cover from that point forward due to controversy (ie. Virgin Killer) or reissuing (ie. The Offspring), then it's appropriate to include both the original and the alternate. This requires a lot of case-by-case evaluation, so is there a specific article you're looking at? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It was inregards to a question posted [[10]]. I was hoping to direct the user, although xe hasnt edited again since posting. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of foreign-name albums and songs

I am aware that if an album or song is not in English, then the rules of capitalization of that language applies. But if there's a bit of both? Albums like Desde un Principio: From the Beginning is in both languages. While on the Grammy Award for Best Mexican/Mexican-American Album, there are album and song names that uses both Spanish and English languages. How do we address the rules of capitalization then? Thanks! Magiciandude (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe this guideline is incorrect and contravenes over-riding Wikipedia guidlines, such as WP:NAME. I have started a discussion on the scores of unilateral moves made by the above editor here and would appreciate the input of this project's contributors. It should be noted that article titles should be verifiable, and in most, if not all cases moved by the above editor, reliable sources use the pre-move title. It is fine in, say, Spanish Wikipedia to follow the academic rules of Spanish grammar. This, however, is English Wikipedia, so we don't need to follow that blindly. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Unilateral moves to meet a foreign language music guideline because if there is consensus then the wording of this project may need changing:

Possibly not the ideal location for this discussion, but here goes... User talk:Magiciandude is moving a whole bunch of Spanish-language singles and albums without discussion in order to decapitalise certain words, in accordance with a Wikiproject guideline (namely WP:ALBUMCAPS). I'd like some input from the "moving" community on (a) whether this unilateral behaviour is appropriate, (b) whether this guideline supersedes WP:COMMONNAME and (c) whether ALBUMCAPS is actually correct in relation to the way in which we verify our facts. The user also seems content to move the page, leaving references to the old title throughout the articles he moves and in templates that reference the old name. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A case in point, which speaks for itself: 100 años de mariachi, changed to lower case despite musica.hispavista.com (a prominent Spanish-language site) listing it as "Plácido Domingo : 100 Años de Mariachi" and the upper case on the album's cover. I smell a hyperforeignism campaign. Chris the speller (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NAME states "Most articles will have a simple and obvious title that is better than any other in terms of most or all of these ideal criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice." I don't think this should be trumped by musicbrainz.org, and even that site says "It is usually hard to know if the title appears in the way it does because of the artist's will, or because of the producer or even the designer. In these cases it would be good to look for more references that help us decide one way or the other. Even the official websites of the bands and labels have their good share of mistakes, so it is important to use common sense when working on this." Do you think Plácido Domingo lacks influence over the album designer? Chris the speller (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't say I like the ALBUMCAPS policy. EN Wikipedia should subvert its own naming policies to follow foreign language naming conventions? Why is that? I think we should bring this up at WP:NAME as well - it appears the policies are in conflict; one of them needs to be revised to accommodate the other. --JaGa^talk 17:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've invited discussion from WT:NAME, good idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

First I want to make an apology over this commotion. Yes, I did start by following a guideline, not knowing there was a contradictory policy over it. It started when El Mexicano informed about the incorrect grammatical error on Spanish-language album and song names. Then I saw the guideline about capitalization and thought that's how it's supposed to be done. To be honest, I am indifferent as to whether or not the all foreign names should follow the English standards or not. Again, I apologize for this. Magiciandude (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Magiciandude, your comment is appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I doubt that any editor came to the conclusion that your actions were not well intended. You need not apologize.Chris the speller (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Spanish spelling rules, only the first word of ANY title is written with initial upper case, except for proper names in titles. I have told this several times here, but I was always ignored. I think Royal Spanish Academy knows better than anybody how to write titles in Spanish. English sources are unreliable in this matter. If something is written in a foreing language, you must keep the rules of THAT language and not the English ones. Several Spanish language titles are incorrectly spelled here. So Magiciandude did it the right way when he moved the titles. --El Mexicano (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, and we use language that is verifiable by reliable sources, not something that you may consider academically perfect. The moves are incorrect, they should stop immediately and you should wait for consensus as it's clear that the ALBUMCAPS suggestion can directly oppose a Wikipedia-wide guideline, i.e. WP:NAME. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the Rambler; "Everytime" is not found in any respectable English dictionary, but I haven't changed the article about the song to "Every Time". All over Germany, the name of the city is named "München", but I haven't changed the title of the "Munich" article, either. I know what is academically correct, and what the foreign name of the city is, but this is an English-language encyclopedia, and article titles should reflect what its readers expect to see; do you hope to shock the readers? Chris the speller (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I came here via the invitation, I agree with TRM and Cts: "Use the source Luke" -- PBS (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But those should be (as PBS will probably agree) secondary sources in English; if the label decides on some funky spelling and capitalization, use it if and only if most people do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

--PBS (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, use reliable secondary sources, not titles synthesised from a particular academic perspective. We use "verifiability not truth" in English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe that the current rule in WP:ALBUMCAPS for foreign language titles makes absolutely sense. I managed to dig up the discussion that led to the current consensus, back in 2008: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 26#Foreign language capitalization. I can only ask you to read through this discussion, all arguments are as valid today as back then. Furthermore, I don't believe that it contradicts WP:NAME; WP:UE even says "If there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject". This would be the case for the large majority of foreign language albums. – IbLeo^(talk) 20:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry? You disagree that we use reliable secondary sources, not titles synthesised from a particular academic perspective. We use "verifiability not truth" in English Wikipedia? Are you contradicting one of the most fundamental pillars of Wikipedia? In any case, most pages are cited by Allmusic, Billboard etc. There are seldom "too few English-language sources". The images used on most of these pages are from the album/single covers themselves and they argue against your position. The point is, and this is really for real, the point is that we should defer to WP:NAME. If you can find more reliable sources to verify that lower case is more verifiable than upper case, then go for it. In the meantime, this being English Wikipedia, we use English language sources as a rule, and they will not follow your argument at all. This bizarre "guideline" is irrelevant, incorrect and should be deleted. We should follow WP:NAME. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Example, User:El Mexicano moved 100 Años de Mariachi to 100 años de mariachi. A quick search on Google (English, of course) came up with:

• Amazon - 100 Anos de Mariachi
• MSN - 100 Anos de Mariachi
• Billboard - 100 Años de Mariachi]
• Discogs - 100 Años De Mariachi

I'd like to see other English language sources that refer to this differently. Of course, don't forget this is English Wikipedia, not Spanish Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Example 2, User:El Mexicano moved Ponle Remedio to Ponle remedio. A quick search came up with:

• The two references on that page - eil.com Ponle Remedio
• Amazon - Ponle Remedio
• Allmusic - Ponle Remedio
• Billboard - Ponle Remedio.

I can do this all night, I'm sure. But I'd prefer not to. I think we have substantial ground for modifying this "guideline". My advice, follow WP:NAME. If all else fails, and there are no verifiable English sources then resort to native language. But still using verifiable foreign sources. Not an academic "rule". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I am not questioning the fundamental policy about reliable sources. They are just not usable for spelling and capitalization. Your own example on 100 años de mariachi illustrates it perfectly well: Two of the sources uses "ñ", the other two "n". One of them says "De", the 3 others "de". That's why we need an established, common rule. Otherwise there will be endless edit wars because different sources outside Wikipedia simply aren't coherent. Furthermore, I doubt that neither Amazon, MSN nor Discogs qualify as reliable sources. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My objection is with this Wikiproject "guideline" (which suddenly became a "mandate" at WP:FLC according to a zealous editor) which has no credence at all. FYI WP:MOS deals with diacritics, WP:RS deals with reliable sources, WP:V deals with verifiability. This "foreign language guideline" does not match them, would be subservient to them and actually contradicts them. For the title of albums, singles etc, surprised you think that Amazon can't reliably publish the names per the screenshots of the covers, and in any case, Allmusic and Billboard invariably go against this weird approach. I'm afraid the next thing will be that we can't have Spain, we have to have España. This is English Wikipedia. We use WP:NAME. If you can find English-language sources which go against the capitalisation then feel free to let me know. In the odd case I'm sure it's true, but in general we should defer to the English Wikipedia guidelines. That means deleting this "guideline" here and resorting to normality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, well, first of all, I agree that we need verifiable sources for every information in Wikipedia, BUT: there are some facts, like spelling rules for languages, that can be easily verifiable, even though they are not written in English. In Spanish, as a foreign language, the rule for titles is to write only the first word with initial upper case, except, of course, for proper names in the title. This rule, I think, can't be misunderstood. So I think, in this case, since it is an encyclopedia, me must keep the spelling rules rather then follow incorrect customs. Anyhow a Spanish title is written even though in the album itself, it can be the incorrect as well, as they are the most of times.

Panhispanic Dictionary of Doubts, "Mayúsculas" (Use of Upper Case), Royal Spanish Academy, 2005

"[Se escriben con letra inicial mayúscula]

4.17. La primera palabra del título de cualquier obra de creación (libros, películas, cuadros, esculturas, piezas musicales, programas de radio o televisión, etc.); el resto de las palabras que lo componen, salvo que se trate de nombres propios, deben escribirse con minúscula: Últimas tardes con Teresa, La vida es sueño, La lección de anatomía, El galo moribundo, Las cuatro estaciones, Las mañanas de la radio, Informe semanal. En el caso de los títulos abreviados con que se conocen comúnmente determinados textos literarios, el artículo que los acompaña debe escribirse con minúscula: el Quijote, el Lazarillo, la Celestina."

"[They are written with initial upper case]

The first word of the title of any created work (books, films, pictures, sculptures, musical pieces, radio or tv programs, etc.), the rest of the words contained, except for proper names, have to be written with lower case: Últimas tardes con Teresa, La vida es sueño, La lección de anatomía, El galo moribundo, Las cuatro estaciones, Las mañanas de la radio, Informe semanal..."

Regards, --El Mexicano (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant I'm afraid. This is English Wikipedia, we use our own guidelines and policies, not those of some Academy. That means we use the English language were possible, and verifiable sources from English language sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly the problem. You won't find any English sources for it, as Spanish titles are not in English. You can't apply English rules for something that is not English. That's the point you all should understand. As in Spanish Wikipedia they write English titles as they are correct in English, the same way you should respect the Spanish spelling rules and write them as they are correct in Spanish. --El Mexicano (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that's silly. We have plenty of English language sources like Billboard, Allmusic, for almost all of these Spanish singles and albums. They are the ones we use, per WP:V. We don't use a synthetic title created by you or some academy according to some rule of language. We use verifiable sources. By all means, respect the Spanish spelling at es.wiki, here we use English sources. Simple! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

But I remember you, this is an encyclopedia, where we should spell titles correctly, and not the way they appear in unreliable databases. Allmusic is good at music critiques, but not a reliable source for spelling. And the url I put is also a verifiable source. --El Mexicano (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody proposes to follow unreliable sources; but this makes two assumptions: that Spanish forms are invariably correct in English and that all Spanish language albums are titled in Castillian - really rather unlikely for a mariachi ablum, I should think. In this case, it is probably simpler to follow the illustration and call the album "100 years of Mariachi" - which appears to be how most sources capitalize the English. Compare our article on One Hundred Years of Solitude.

So it is really simple? Let me just check if I understand you right: So according to you, WP:V tells us that we should rename

• Template:Da icon Live sådan to Live Sadan because this title is verifiable at Allmusic [11]
• Template:Fr icon À la Belle de Mai to A Belle de Mai because this title is verifiable at Allmusic [12]
• Template:De icon Liebe ist für alle da to Liebe Ist für Alle Da because this title is verifiable at Allmusic [13]

Is this correctly understood? I would also like you to explain what would be, according to WP:V, the correct title for 100 años de mariachi amongst the three variations you quoted above from four different sources? – IbLeo^(talk) 07:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well we're getting somewhere at last!! Yes, you need multiple verifiable sources to support the name of anything, so your examples which quote only a single example really aren't very useful. This is very straight-forward indeed. You need to follow WP:NAME. The current recommendation of ALBUMCAPS is simply incorrect and contravenes the Wikipedia-wide policy of verifiability. This ALBUMCAPS approach basically says "make the name up according to some linguistic rules on a website somewhere" whereas we need verifiable, netural point-of-view names with no original research (e.g. using a set of rules on a particular website to create album/single names).

The approach that El Mexicano has taken, to blanket move many articles based on his interpretation of how albums/singles are titled according to his version of the naming policy is incorrect. The moves should be reverted. ALBUMCAPS is incorrect and needs to be deleted.

Of course, the answer to your last question isn't simple. We need multiple reliable sources. We should look for more instances of the title published elsewhere and then move the page to the name which has a consensus that it meets WP:NAME. Hope that helps! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

With all respect, I don't appreciate your slightly arrogant and haughty tone. And if by "at least we are getting somewhere" you mean that I am beginning to see things your way, I am afraid I have to disappoint you. While WP:NAME is obviously the governing policy for article naming, when it comes down to the exact spelling and capitalization of the words in the title, it is necessary to establish more explicit rules to deal with the fact that WP is surrounded by an incoherent world where the reliable sources we use for fact-checking are inconsistent between them (and sometimes directly wrong when it comes to foreign language titles). This has already been fully demonstrated in the examples given above and consequently acknowledged as a problem by many WikiProjects in the past, especially in the area of music. To overcome this issue, standards like WP:ALBUMCAPS have been established, but it is far from the only one, and you will find many similar rules guidelines, even as a part of our WP:MOS:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)#Names (foreign language): "The letters, accents and diacritics in the original language should be preserved when referring to works by their original language title (provided that language uses the Latin alphabet), e.g. Schöpfungsmesse not Schopfungsmesse nor Schoepfungsmesse, Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune not Prelude a l'apres-midi d'un faune."
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related)#Works of art: "For consistency of French titles on the English Wikipedia, the 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."
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Naming: "If the song is in a foreign language and titled using the Latin alphabet, then, unless the song is commonly known by a translated name in the English-speaking world, the original foreign title should be used. This may require using accented letters which are not used in English. Examples: "Ein bißchen Frieden", "Je n'ai que mon âme", "Fångad av en stormvind"."
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Operas: original language titles: "When listing operas by their original language title (provided that language uses the Latin alphabet), the letters, accents and diacritics in the original language should be preserved, e.g. Mosè in Egitto not Mose in Egitto, Götterdämmerung not Gotterdammerung nor Goetterdaemmerung, Weiße Rose not Weisse Rose, Les fêtes de Ramire not Les fetes de Ramire." Furthermore: "For titles in their original (non-English) language, the style used is "sentence capitalization". That is, the title is capitalized as it would be in a sentence in that language."

In other words, WP:ALBUMCAPS reflects an overall consensus by editors working on music articles here on WP, and if you question WP:ALBUMCAPS you question all the standards listed above. Honestly, if they are there it's because there is a very good reason for it and I profoundly believe that they makes perfectly sense, do not contradict WP:V or any other policy, and need to stay. – IbLeo^(talk) 07:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's all very well, but unless you can verify the names used, it's synthesis to make them up according to the "rules of the language". Incidentally, since when did we start using a wiki (wiki.musicbrainz.org) as a reliable source for how to write foreign languages? Oh, and you say "rules" while two of the links you provide are project guidelines, the other two are MOS guidelines, just to clarify. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And, for example, are you arguing that Ponle Remedio (which has at least four sources with my capitalisation) should be Ponle remedio (thus directly contravening WP:V)? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for misusing the word "rule"; certainly, here on WP we have policies and guidelines, and the MOS is a guideline. Yes, I do believe that WP:V does not rule unilaterally over spelling and capitalization, that's why we have WP:MOS, and in particular WP:NAME. Let me take another example: Entre gris clair et gris foncé. This French album is called Entre Gris Clair et Gris Foncé by both Allmusic [14] and Billboard [15], but nevertheless Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related)#Works of art dictates the current capitalization, which is correct according to the rules of the French language (and as a French speaker I can tell you that the Allmusic/Billboard way looks really awful). Unfortunately, we don't have a MOS for every language in the world, and while I agree with you that the guideline to use musicbrainz is not the ideal solution, at least it points people to a place where they are likely to find the answer they need. So going back to Ponle remedio, yes, I believe that this is the correct capitalization, as explained above by El Mexicano. I can tell you by experience that even for albums with English titles we need WP:ALBUMCAPS to clarify the capitalization rules, as some reliable English-language sources capitalize coordinating conjunctions and/or prepositions in album titles. – IbLeo^(talk) 12:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I still don't see why a "one-size-fits-all" approach is mandated here. That's what verifiable sources and consensus should be dealing with. And I still don't understand how we can justify the use of a Wiki page as a reliable source. In spite of anything else, that's clearly flawed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Question: on this project page, it says:

If the album title uses the Latin alphabet, the article name should be at that title. Translations of titles in languages other than English should not be used as titles unless such a translation is commonly used as a title for the album in the English-speaking world. For example, Født til å Herske, not Born to Rule...

Now I just used that Wiki-linked guide to see what should be capitalised, and apparently only the first word and proper nouns. I may be wrong but it doesn't seem to me that Herske is a proper noun, so is this example in your own project guideline incorrect? Or is the Wiki incorrect? Or is there a third way? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm also marginally confused by the advice on naming which says:

...but Common Jasmin Orange, not Qi li xiang, 七里香, or Seven Mile Fragrance (because the English name "Common Jasmin Orange" appears on the album cover along with the Chinese name)

This uses capitalised first letters (because it's English I guess), but moreover, recommends their use as a result of their appearance on the album cover. Is the album cover advice for certain cases only? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

On a re-read I also saw "Vrisko To Logo Na Zo, not Βρίσκω Το Λόγο Να Ζω " but the Wiki says "Only the first word of the title should be capitalized. Use normal Greek grammar rules for the rest of the title." So should that be "Vrisko to logo na zo"? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted! You are completely right about the Norwegian title; the guideline is clear but the example is wrong, it should actually be Født til å herske. Apparently it's the same for the Greek title, but as I don't master all languages in this world I never noticed. Regarding the Chinese example and the album cover advice, I don't really know where that comes from (but it's out-of-scope of this discussion). Now that I have answered your questions, maybe you would be so kind as to complete the answer to mine: What would be the "correct" name for 100 años de mariachi? Your previous answer was quite vague and I can easily see it leading to endless discussions and edit wars. – IbLeo^(talk) 22:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it isn't really outside the scope of this discussion. If this "guide" is intended to be used verbatim then it needs to be definitive, unambiguous and certainly not self-contradictory. In any case, the answer to your question was the one I gave above. With my rationale, we'd need to do more research to find a clear consensus on a verifiable name. That would involve finding a number of reliable sources in English which named the album consistently. If we couldn't do that, we'd need to initiate a discussion to determine the most reasonable solution per consensus of the community. We certainly shouldn't be using "academic rules" from an external Wiki to determine the style of naming of articles. That would set a truly unhealthy precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Some considerations:

• Guidelines should not offer guidance which is not consensus. This paragraph isn't; it shouldn't stand if only one editor will defend it.
• It is easy to find reliable sources on the spelling of Debussy's titles in English; Grove's is the place to start. The music guidelines do not discuss enough the case of works which are sometimes anglicized and sometimes not; but that's an endemic problem.
• Similarly, if there is an English source on an album, follow its spelling - it may well be that the album is intentionally ungrammatical, but if this is what idependent sources call it, we should too. How many English songs are titled in l33t? When they are - and people call them that - it is OR to call them something else.
• When there is no English source, notability is dubious; if Billboard doesn't mention an album, should we? If there is massive non-English documentation, fine; but that should also establish the prevalent spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As I see, IbLeo is the only one who understands my point of view. Just an example. If a Spanish title is simply misspelled in an English source or US album edition, like it happened with Lunada: they put "Desolvidantode" instead of "Desolvidándote", you will use the incorrect and misspelled title just because it is in an English source??? Another example. If song titles appear on the album itself ALL CAPITALIZED, then you will entitle here the articles this way??? Sorry, but you can't think it seriously. In an encyclopedia you should spell everything according to the spelling rules of each language, regardless of what appears in any English sources. --El Mexicano (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

All capitalized? Usually not; unless independent reliable sources do; but we are not discussing the vagaries of the album producer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with PMAnderson, and not wishing to repeat what I've already said a number of times (and PMAnderson has re-iterated), let's go for verification via multiple reliable sources, not some arbitrary ruling that contravenes our general policies of WP:V ("verifiability, not truth" - go and re-read...) and WP:RS. And once again, this is English Wikipedia, where we spell things according to our guidelines, we definitely do not "... spell everything according to the spelling rules of each language..." because then you'd need to move the "Spain" article to "España" which is, frankly, nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but your last statement is completely off limit. Nobody here is suggesting to move "Spain" to "España"; clearly, WP:UE says: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage" and Spain is obviously the established English name. This discussion concerns album titles in languages in the Latin alphabet other than English, and these are normally not translated into English, except if the album has been released in an English-language version, in which case the English title is used. So what we are talking about is album titles in foreign languages, and basically WP:ALBUMCAPS (and the 4 other music-related guidelines that I quoted above) says is that they should be spelled and capitalized as in the native language—basically as it would be on Wikipedia in that language. – IbLeo^(talk) 20:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh? I quote El Mexicano directly from above : " Sorry, but you can't think it seriously. In an encyclopedia you should spell everything according to the spelling rules of each language, regardless of what appears in any English sources". I also look forward to your responses to my questions above which clearly show this "guideline" (or whatever it is) to be internally inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I certainly hope he only referred to names in Spanish. I do believe it, too. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hope so too, but the indignation in some posts here is showing something of a hyper-nationalist approach to these things. In any case, I "called a spade a spade" and interpreted the sentence as he wrote it. And actually, why should albums/singles be any different from the rest of Wikipedia (apart from the couple of guidelines you've linked to)? Anyway, that aside, onto the inconsistencies that I think I noted above. Please help me understand what's going on there... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I won't pretend I have read through all of the above, but the handling of this issue at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (visual arts) may be a useful comparator: "Foreign language titles are generally only to be used if they are used by most art historians or critics writing in English – e.g. Las Meninas or Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. In that case they should be used in the form used by most art historians writing in English, regardless of whether this is actually correct by the standards of the other language." Of course if there is no EL coverage you take the normal foreign form, but this is rare in art. As you may know, the opera project takes the opposite view, using the correct foreign form regardless of usage in English. I think this can be a matter agreed at project level; taking it back to fundamental policies is not necessary. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed, and I find it rather disrespectful, that Pmanderson removed the debated guideline from the project page before this discussion has come to an end. Anything on this project's pages has been thoroughly discussed until a consensus between the interested project members was reached. I have already added a link to the relevant discussion in the project archives: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 26#Foreign language capitalization. I am going to be off-line for the next four days, so I will take a step back from this discussion. At the same time I have put all my arguments forward and don't really have anything else to add. In the mean time I hope that some of the other project members will step forward and state their opinion on this matter. – IbLeo^(talk) 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that PMA was hasty but I agree with his action. If the 2008 discussion had been advertised on Wikipedia talk:Article titles, it is highly unlikely that it would have gained approval. But having said that, we have not always included use reliable sources in WP:AT (I think it was introduced in 2008) and before that was introduced many guidelines had wording in them to try to simulate usage in reliable sources because sometimes common use in all sources and common use in reliable sources differed. However now that policy includes surveying only reliable sources, there is not need for these additional rules (such as the ones here) because sometimes they throw up inconsistencies between the rule and usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just my two cents - I agree with the current capitalization policy. I currently come across this problem with Japanese album titles. Japanese artists use Roman characters in poetic and expressive ways. There are no capitalization rules for Roman characters in Japanese, so we apply the English standard here. I believe since this is the English Wikipedia, English capitalization and punctuation should always be used. I also think your average reader will assume any lack of capitalization of an album title to be mistake, especially if they aren't familiar with the source language. Denaar (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Ok re-reading - The capitalization listed on this article is the opposite of every other guideline on Wikipedia. Per the WP:MOS: "Observe the style adopted by high-quality sources. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources on the subject. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources." It doesn't make sense to use the capitalization of the language, because that contradicts what the Manual of Style says - which is to use reliable English Language secondary sources. When those sources can't be found, or are found to be unrepresentative of current English usuage, use current English Usage - ie, use standard English capitalization. I suggest we change the language to match the WP:MOS. Denaar (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. This is the English language Wikipedia and it should strive to follow established English language sources. And after all, consistency in form promotes neutrality towards subject. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 11:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Categorization by certification

As {{Certification Table Entry}} already standardizes the certification citation procedure I went a bit bold and experimented with letting it categorize by the certification. To activate this, one needs to manually set the autocat variable. While the feature is fully working, I applied it only to two articles, Britney (album) and Amarantine (album), and created only the categories needed for this. I tried to follow the established standards for the category names. I might do some more tonight. Opinions? Keep in mind that these categories already existed, they were just used mostly for Japan and to some extent for singles. Edit: also did PCD (album), And Winter Came... and ...Baby One More Time. See what you think. --Muhandes (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is a lot of categories. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. But I did not start this. All the albums in Category:Albums certified by the Recording Industry Association of Japan were manually added. If the consensus is not to categorize by certification I will accept it, but these should go out too. --Muhandes (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)