Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aston~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 12:09, 31 October 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8

Proposed new colour theme

At least two other users (ReyBrujo/MightyMoose) have suggested that we decide on a colour scheme all at the same time rather than replacing colours one at a time, here is a suggested scheme change. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart

I have tried to chose colours which are differentiated from each other without being overly vibrant (which, I think, minimises taste concerns) or too pale. - BalthCat 04:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I said we should choose them all together I didn't mean as a scheme, after all, the only page they'd be seen side-by-side is this project page. What I meant is we should choose them together so we didn't get any that were too similar, and choosing two types of light____blue is exatcly what I was trying to avoid. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 10:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then suggest another? I went through a bunch and they kept coming up ugly so I got tired and left that as it was. The problem is that there are about as many substantially different colours as we have categories, so our options left are bright pinks, oranges and browns. What about rosybrown insted of lightskyblue? - BalthCat 15:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps tweaking will suffice; I like the wheat, but introduced some revisions as well. Comments on the spectrum below is requested:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart
We can simply keep tweaking until an acceptable spectrum [to the stakeholders/participants/voters] is attained. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Palegreen seems a bit too fluorescent. Khaki overlaps with {{Infobox musical artist}} (see color selection code at {{Infobox musical artist 2/color selector}}); that one specifically chose plum as the only overlap with the current spectrum. (Note to self: update whatever we decide on for cover and tribute albums to match in the color selector.) –Unint 03:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon a mix between the two:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart
Except maybe wheat & khaki are a little too similar. That way they're all the same colours, just a bit quieter. But I have to say, I don't really care, so long as they're easily distinguishable. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 02:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the first set. I like the pale-ish colors. Except maybe for the wheat. But it's okay. I don't see an issue with colors being the same as on other templates, since they won't show up on the same page. -Freekee 04:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe his (?) concern is that they will be so similar that people will be asking themselves, "Is that LiveAlbumBlue or StudioAlbumBlue?" - BalthCat 23:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the one. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 02:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the colour coding is a minor and largely decorative feature, as most (if not all) articles will mention in the text whether it is a compilation, live album (also usually compilations of sorts) or whatever. Some genres don't fit easily into any single category anyway, such as jazz. This meritricious use of colour coding is the subject of an often-ocurring debate I have with numerous book editors, most of whom are simply anxious about a project's content and feel they need to add 'something' to attract or retain interest – i.e. they have doubts about the worth of the text itself. Anyway, the debate you are having here is that you can't decide whether a contrasting or aesthetically-pleasing spectrum of colours is most useful. I suggest you try and increase the contrast by starting with primary and secondary colours and harmonize their brightness. BalthCat is right: if the colours are too similar they will only be distinguishable if seen side-by-side, such as in a transport network diagram. Ricadus 23:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look further, you will see that the hue and saturation of an album type's color bands have to do with their type (chiefly having to do with type of recording), not their genre, which defy easy categorization. These tints have nothing to do with their value as albums - Elvis Costello "rates" the same color as The Plasmatics, as long as they both are full-length albums. Brubeck albums of sufficient length are lightsteelblue, the same as Tupac's latest offering from beyond the grave. –Fantailfan 00:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was this discussion about? I was watching it, and all of a sudden, Folajimi says the voting is closed. And then I see the voting was about halfway up this page (wish I'd noticed that going on). So what were were talking about here? And why did we only change the studio album color? If nobody was interested in changing the others, what was this discussion for? -Freekee 05:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of upgrading the "kitchen sink" was put forth by BalthCat, after the initial proposal for switching from orange to LSB was made. In other words, the outcomes of each proposal are independent of one another.
You might have noticed that MM22 took the liberty of re-arranging the spectrum, which is legitmate. However, this discussion might be around for a while, since it appears that the LSB switch has drawn more attention to this page. So, while the vote on switching from orange to LSB was closed; it is independent of what becomes of BalthCat's proposal.--Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So further changes to the color scheme is still an open discussion - though nobody seems interested anymore. I've been very confused by this whole template/colors thing. -Freekee 04:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the first propsed new colour scheme. If we changed the orange to lightsteelblue, we should get going on the others. Especially for Live albums, the blue on those is rather horrid. Should we get up another quick voting system for these again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrzejbanas (talk • contribs) 05:23 (UTC) 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Freekee, it is quite possible that ReyBrujo can address whatever in particular has you confused about the template. As for inactivity on this discussion, notice that MM22's proposed change was submitted a day or two ago; by my count, there are at least four interested participants.
Andrzejbanas, do you have a preference for one of the proposed templates? If so, which one? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 13:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably the one propsed by BalthCat above, I don't know we only changed one but didn't change the rest really. I just assumed the rest would be taken care of later. Andrzejbanas 17:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Folajimi, I hope I didn't sound like I was blaming you (or anyone). It all just seemed kind of weird. And I wasn't too worried about the changes. I figured I'd just wait and see how things ended up. -Freekee 01:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems everyone agrees on keeping the colours for Greatest hits, box sets and other compilations, and Soundtracks and television theme songs the same, and changing Cover and tribute albums from plum to thistle. I think light steel blue is popular too. I have tinkered with the colours (holy geez, they look different than on the X11 colour chart for some reason) and I propose the following for the other 3, as they look like a good matching pale set to me.


Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart

Now the light steel blue and the powder blue could be argued as looking similar, but if you ask me, people will be able to make the distinction. -- Reaper X 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The beige looks a bit to pale for me. And if we are going to test new colors, here is my try:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart
→AzaToth 21:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i think i said i wouldn't contribute to this discussion any more but i wanna say that if we really must faff around changing the colours, this set above from AzaToth is about the best we're getting, i reckon. - W guice 16:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Except that I don't care for the wheat. I think the light pink would make a suitable translation for the godoffal salmon. -Freekee 01:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I failed to see my similarities with BalthCat till now. Like Freekee though, I dont care for the wheat and suggested beige. I also thought light sky blue was too bright compared with the other colours, so I believe powder blue seems to match better. -- Reaper X 17:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the current live colour? I did a page for Live From Oz and cannot get it change to whatever the live colour is - I used darkturquoise after looking at an Allman Brothers page, but it didn't take. Tvccs 02:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tvcccs, the colour code isn't being used anymore due it being abused. To get the colour to match correctly label the album "Live album" instead of simply "Album". Well, do it next time. As I already fixed that page for you. :) Andrzejbanas 03:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(continued in next section)

Proposed new colour theme (part two)

AzaToth, the lavender is almost indistinguishable from the background; do you have any other hues in mind which could be used for cover albums? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Songs changed from yellow to khaki for singles, and that hue is too close to palegoldenrod. Fantailfan 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_colornames.asp for more colors->AzaToth 20:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or just go to Web colors. -- Reaper X 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart -- Fantailfan 21:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with burlywood. Fantailfan 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I motion that a vote be called per Fantailfan's nomination. Anyone to second the motion? Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what of peachpuff for EPs? no, it's for something else. nm -W guice 18:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think gainsboro was just fine for soundtracks. -- Reaper X 18:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we want to retain a gray hue for nonstandard album types. Fantailfan 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps change EPs to peachpuff, and change soundtracks to rosybrown? Also I don't like 'paleturquoise', it's too bright, I propose lightpink instead →AzaToth 19:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart[reply]

Okay, but make it a swap of EP and Soundtrack colors... I disagree on lightpink v. paleturquoise, but I'm not going to argue. I only have flatscreen monitors and maybe that's why I think paleturquoise isn't too bright.Fantailfan 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Information. What is the spectrum on the left hand side supposed to represent? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 00:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what the cuurent colours are now. -- Reaper X 00:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall a vote on a background switch to lightsteelblue from orange for studio albums; what did I miss? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 00:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I made up the first (recent) full spectrum the vote was not yet finished (I think), so I believe showing the spectrum on the left as it is there is a holdover from then. ps: I think prefer gainsboro to silver, but I can't tell without using another infobox, since the new one automatically colours. (I think there should be an override field or something.) - BalthCat 03:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What — pray tell — is the rationale behind having an override field? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be kind of nice if the new colors were at least somewhat similar to the original colors, so it's less confusing of which new color is which. For example, I think if we are going to use silver it should replace Soundtracks. But that's just my opinion, that's probably just me.
BTW, I had no idea you guys were talking about this again. Is is possible whenever you do start a new discussion or a new poll that you either do it at the bottom of the page or at least mention it down there? Joltman 18:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Azatoth started a new color palette and then I split it up into two wastes of spacesections. Just substituted gainsboro for silver in non-standard album colors. Fantailfan 18:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated spectrum

Below is an amalgam [of sorts], derived from the responses so far. The nominations put forth by AzaToth and Fantailfan were blended, and I discarded the peachpuff — the amount of red and blue used by the lightpink is quite similar to that used by the discarded hue. (Besides, ReyBrujo has expressed interest in use of the latter hue, whereas use of peachpuff was barely noticed). Lightsalmon was selected as the possible replacement for the eshewed hue.

Finally, based on Joltman's remarks, I have reshuffled the hues so that they bear some semblance to the original spectrum. Here is the end result:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart

Contructive feedback requested. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the television/film and other/unknown should be switched, as I think the unknown type should be grayish. But otherwise it's fine. →AzaToth 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is album changed away from lightsteelblue? There's not point in changing that one again as most of us agreed for that to be a good colour for it. Andrzejbanas 19:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with Andrzejbanas and AzaToth. Studio album should stay lightsteelblue, so swap live w/studio since burlywood seems acceptable. New point: What do we do about combo live/studio albums? (Rattle and Hum) Fantailfan 20:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Here is the updated spectrum based on the feedback:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart Fantail, is your question regarding recordings which feature live and in-studio recordings? If so, that would probably be best suited for the box sets/compilations category.

Alternatively, it may just be tossed under "Other albums" until the issue can be resolved. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 21:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can implement this change now, I'll change it soon unless someone complain. →AzaToth 21:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me --Alcuin 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strike while the iron is hot? Yeah, okay. Back to the live/studio combo - it is a compilation only in the general sense. The definition of compilation is (I believe) previously-released material with maybe one or two 'previously unreleased' tracks. This means that reissued albums with bonus tracks are, technically, compilation albums. However, albums issued right off as live/studio are different. The problem (I think) is that we made Studio album the chief category, whereas with Album you could fudge a little. Ah, maybe we can figure it out later. Fantailfan 22:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Album should default to studio album --Alcuin 23:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-change Infobox Album Comments

  • The poll for switching the studio album template parameter(s) has been closed. The orange has been replaced by lightsteelblue.
The motivation for the entire effort — replacing the unmanageable infobox template — is now complete. The hues were a secondary issue, and I am content with the status quo. Thanks again to all the participants. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 20:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paint It, Black. :-) Fantailfan 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified {{Infobox Album color}} to take into account more options. In example, if the Type of an album is Studio album (the ideal), it will paint the background in lightsteelblue. However, it will also happen that if the Type in uppercase is [[STUDIO ALBUM]], [[ALBUM]], ORIGINAL STUDIO ALBUM or ORANGE. This is a temporary measure to minimize the amount of articles with wrong types. Maybe we should implement the category for bad types soon, but I may wait until Friday night to implement it (the server must work some to include every album in the category). After some hours, we will be able to count the amount of albums with wrong types (each of those will display a wrong color) and determine if we can fix them ourselves or need a bot. After all those errors are fixed, we can remove, in example, ORANGE from the valid Studio albums, and fix all the albums that drop into the category for having been using orange as type. The ideal is to remove a type and fix the category until all the articles are fixed. That is work for a bot, undoubtedly, but if we can get most of the articles to fall outside the category (in example, meaning that the Type for a studio album could be 5 or 6 including studio, studio album, album, original album, original studio album, original), we can fix the broken ones by hand until the bot is implemented. Expect some complaints. -- ReyBrujo 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any challenges "opportunities" that arise will be addressed as needed.
Besides, what could be tougher than coming up with a newer, better, template? ;) --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still a proposal? About half the albums on my watch list have changed. -Acjelen 03:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With some help from AzaToth we just changed the album template, giving more priority to the type than the background color. If the type is not recognized, it will go with gainsboro by default (or it could take the Background in some circunstances, although I am not sure about that one). So, right now the colors found at {{Infobox Album/color}} are being applied. Once a color scheme is selected, that template will be updated with the new colors. -- ReyBrujo 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that if the "album" category has anything else in it (such as "CD" or "vinyl LP," or whatever) the infobox will display whatever the command code is. In my case, this was orange. If the category is "album" then it will ignore the command line and go with lightsteelblue (I believe). For reference, see the albums list in the Badfinger category. -ZincOrbie 23:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CD and vinyl LP aren't valid types, so the background color will override the out-of-range color (gainsboro). Fantailfan 13:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed this as well. I believe its simply due to the changes not being fully implemented yet. The orange -> lightsteelblue is a proof of concept, and who knows, maybe it's drawing more eyes to this discussion (Possibly people thinking "Sheesh, what's the big issue about colors???" ;)) ~Gertlex 12:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm a little late in the game here as I didn't realize that you guys were continuing discussion of this stuff in the middle of the page. I was confused as hell when I went to an album today and saw it was lightsteelblue even though it was set to orange :P
Anyway, I have two questions/comments:

  1. Is it possible to try to change all of the colors so that they are just different shades of what they were before? Album being a lighter shade of orange, live albums being a lighter shade of blue, etc. That seems like it would be less shocking to see than just arbitrary new colors.
  2. Shouldn't the default color on Infobox album color be something that isn't one of the other types? Like right now, if there is an unrecognized album type and no color set, it will be gainsboro, the same as soundtracks. Shouldn't it be a color that is not used by any of the album types?

Joltman 12:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To admins - could we break out the post-color-change discussion into a new topic? (I am chary since I archived a discussion without, uh, permission, of making the change on my own). Fantailfan 13:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to be an admin to refactor a talk page. But, if it makes you feel better, go ahead! ;) --kingboyk 18:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed the original thread - but what, actually, was wrong with orange for albums? :) --kingboyk 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments are the same as kingboyk. I vote to scrap the new proposed colour scheme and keep with the old - I have no problems with the old one nor does hardly anyone else. Seems quite pointless and stupid to change it, as it'll make more mundane work for Wikipedians who could be spending their time enhancing articles rather than changing infobox colours. Keep with the orange. Also, it'd be nice if people were consulted before someone plainly messes around with the colours, as nobody has had a chance to have their say (because they don't even know about the discussion!)LuciferMorgan 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree here - is there really any good reason to change the colours, or have some people not got enough to do? No offence to anyone who has spent time on this, but what's the point? Bretonbanquet 18:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shining orange could bring certain health issues in determined people. Searching for that information in the archives. -- ReyBrujo 18:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See here. -- ReyBrujo 18:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was conducted from 21 June until 14 September which period, I believe, was sufficient for anyone who was interested to monitor the WikiProject Albums talk page. The color scheme was decidedly secondary to cleaning up the Infobox Album. Orange was removed due to a specific request regarding difficulty of visual perception. All other proposed color changes were jettisoned due to how long it would have taken to decide on them. --Fantailfan 19:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if some folks have problems seeing that colour or it causes them discomfort, it's a different matter. I'd like to point out though that I was only asking, I don't much care what colour it is :) Thanks. --kingboyk 20:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is all news to me. I began creating my first info boxes on albums only on Saturday and used the project page as the basis for this. This page lists orange as the colour for studio albums; I'm puzzled at why, if lightsteelblue has been adopted for studio albums, the project page still shows orange.Grimhim 21:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I added a note about the colors being discussed. To know the real colors, try {{Infobox Album/color}}. -- ReyBrujo 21:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epinions

I've been noticing these popping up in the Reviews listings. From what I can see it is not a useful review source - like rateyourmusic. Should we allow them or no? Fantailfan 15:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on WP:EL, I vote NO; for the same reason MySpace is now considered inappropriate. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted a couple more... Fantailfan 14:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"User Reviews"

I know this can't be all things to all people...etc...and I also know Wikipedia has relationships with companies like AMG...that being said...

From an "end user" standpoint, groups of User reviews from established sites like "Rate Your Music or Amazon or other site contain as much, and often more information than on "professional sites". I have been doing research on a couple of artists and find myself having to send in corrections to the "big boys" on numerous occasions for things as simple as misspelled names...much less fact checking, which I have found numerous errors.

The bottom line is, from a User standpoint, it would be just has helpful to be able to include the Amazon's or Rate Your Music's and the like as it is to rely on a sole source reviewer who may, or may not know what the h* they are talking about.

As I heard a long time ago..."You can believe everything you read - except those stories of which you have first hand knowledge"

It would be helpful to be be able to add credible groups of "User reviews"...they can often be more detailed and better reseached than to so-called "pros". Thanks.

Tvccs 15:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We use AMG because they have virtually everything, even if they are wrong. User reviews, however helpful (and I do believe that there are far better reviews out on the web) are unbelievably inconsistent. This is not (primarily) a review site, but we have to have some reviews and we may as well go with the old farts at Rolling Stone. My 2cents. Fantailfan 19:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strange as it may seem, but Wikipedia's goal isn't to report the truth. It's to report what the verifiable, reputable sources say - and that is indeed the likes of Rolling Stone and NME, not Amazon customer reviews. Interesting idea though, and a less enyclopedic music only wiki wouldn't be a bad idea... but it's not Wikipedia. --kingboyk 19:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I love the Albums project, and I think that a free, independent repository of this data is a worthwhile endeavor. That being said, I have often thought the project is more suited for its own Wiki project rather than on Wikipedia itself. UnhandledException 02:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um...I write for a NY Times paper...and there is NO way I'd simply buy into the idea that "We use AMG because they have virtually everything, even if they are wrong" AMAZING!!! Let me show an example of what I mean...AmazonAll Music Guide Facts - The American Metaphysical Circus was in print for nearly 20 years and had two re-releases before 2000, while the United States Of America was in print for no more than two years and had no re-release until 2004. The twelve Amazon people give it five stars...while Mr. AMG who believes otherwise,largely pans it with a three, simply because he preferred the earlier work. I referenced the Amazon review in the text because the feedback is well-written and helpful, but it would be easier to include it under reviews and not get raped for doing it. That...or add a field to the box for "user reviews", or modify the box script to just read "reviews". Relying exclusively on so-called "professional" reviews in the days of the Web is extremely shortsighted at best, IMHO. Tvccs 01:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People just use AMG for things cause it's often a place to find out some more basic straighthead information for sourcing (e.g: songwriting credits, year of relase, record charting, etc.). I've been constantly browsing around to add reviews from sites like [1] and the Robert Christgau site to add to reviews. It's best to have at least more then one to keep it unbiased. The problem with sites like Rateyourmusic.com and Amazon.com is that people who rate things there have an even more topsy turvy rating scale then allmusicguide. Is it fair to rate a Britney Spears album 1.5 due to the fact they don't like her as a person regardless of music? Most of those sites are either heavily biased in the 4.5 to 5 rating scale or to the lows of 1 to zero stars. As the albums page says "Use Your Best Judgement" if the All Music Guide rating suggests that it's heavily biased or fan-based. Then feel-free to remove it or not print-it. :) Andrzejbanas 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You write for a NY Times paper? Congratulations! This, however, is an enyclopedia and the rules are different :) Amazon stars just don't meet our criteria for sources, end of story. (I'm not taking a position on this, just laying down the facts.) --kingboyk 18:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the stars, although again, they are completely relevant in my opinion. AMG is riddled with fact errors, which I have tried to correct through the AMG mechanism, without a single reply or correction from AMG. Amazon has some excellent user reviews, which their readers in turn rate for the helpfulness. In the case of one of these reviews, I forwarded the copy to the artist themselves, and they responded that the reviewer had done an incredible job of nailing it, so to speak, which I agreed with - far, far better than the so-called expert from AMG, who made a major fact error of which he had no knowledge which tainted his entire presentation, and that fact error is being repeated worldwide through Wikipedia and its linking resources, I've seen it over and over and over now through Ansers, About, Encylopedia.com, etc. If Wikipedia simply takes the position that it's going to repeat the errors of so-called credible sources regardless of facts and use that as a shield of ignorance, then it does its readers a fundamental disservice, defeats a primary purpose of the entire collaboarative effort, and loses a fumdamental strength in being able to draw from a far wider range of sources than ever before possible. You suggest the rules are different for Wikipedia in that it has no responsibility to correct errors of fact, and simply rely on supposedly reliable sources when there are in FACT better ones and the so-called relaible ones are dead wrong? Frankly, that's both irresponsible and asinine - even if it is the norm, heaven forbid. And yes, if the AMG reviewer would have bothered, the issue was discussed in detail on Salon.com in April, 2002, much less bother to do credible research with the credible parties in question instead of approaching the issue from his POV which didn't support a major fact contention he forwarded in AMG and elsewhere. Oh...and the AMG review also had fact errors for the musician listing, issue date, etc. Credible source indeed. And my experience with the smaller artists I work on is that in many cases the user-driven sources do as good or better job of rating the "cream" of an artist's catalog numerically than the big boys, it's by no means just high or low, and they flag numbers which only represent a small sample with a warning, as they should. Tvccs 16:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a distinction needs to be drawn here. You are talking about facts/information and subjective views as if they can be judged by the same criteria. A reviewer may introduce some basic facts/information to provide context to the reader or make their review more colorful and cohesive. AMG also has facts/information to the side like release date, release history, etc. It is true that AMG is not very credible in this area; errors are abundant. Because of this, I agree that AMG reviews or even biographies should not normally be used as sources to back up facts/information in a Wikipedia article. The same can be said for similar resources (e.g. The Great Rock Discography by Martin C. Strong). However, for reviews, factual errors are petty. The primary purpose of a review is not to deliver facts/information, the primary purpose is to deliver views. Views are subjective and cannot be "dead wrong". When Richie Unterberger says "the songwriting is simply not nearly as strong as Byrd's previous group", he's neither right nor wrong; he's just sharing his perspective. When Unterberger gives an album 3 stars out of 5, that's his rightful opinion. Because their staff is made up of professional critics, AMG is credible in that area, regardless of whether you agree with them. Twelve Amazon reviews don't undermine the credibility of professionals. Wikipedia:Verifiability says "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false." It also says "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." I think Amazon reviews fall within that camp. If you want to change policy I think it is more appropriate to discuss it on the policy page. Punctured Bicycle 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments. And since you go to the heart of the matter, i.e. Richie Unterberger's AMG review and his matgerials for the 2004 release of the USA reissue CD - I'll go to that point. I disagree with Unterberger as to which of the two recordings is "better"...and for that...so what, it's meaningless. However, he goes much further in calling TAMC a commercial failure, etc., in dismissing it and tying that back to his opinion. The facts, as I knew first hand from professional experience and in talking with Joseph Byrd directly, are that in the U.S., and worldwide, TAMC sold much better than USA. Period. Yet Unteberger, because of his relationship with the "opposite camp" in this little tempest in a teapot, has repeatedly opined the opposite, which is wrong from a FACTUAL point of view. That's my beef, not that he likes one recording better than the other, which is nada importance. His review on AMG and other materials contain that complete error of fact, which Joseph Byrd addressed in his 2002 materials in the Napster case and which I have extended personal knowledge on going back 35 years at this point. The FACT that his error continues to be repeated in a variety of forums, now including Wikipedia, undermines his credibility on the entire issue in an undeniable way - he's perfectly free to opine about why he likes one recording better than the other, he's not free to make a major fact error on sales/popularity in dismissal as a rationale. My collaboration here with Ghmyrtle here has explained some things even Joseph Byrd, much less myself, wasn't aware of as to why the UK is much different than the US, and I've adjusted my copy accordingly and enhanced my knowledge, and am passing things along to Byrd directly as well - it's a textbook example of Wikipedia expert collaboration. Byrd's work is likely to be written about in scholarly research for the next 50 years. Unteberger is just plain wrong, because he never bothered to research the facts, rather he made an assumption based on a faulty opinion, whereas one review of the 2002 Salon article in question, or one phone call or e-mail to the only first-hand source (Joseph Byrd) would have readily confirmed otherwise. He could have them gone on to opine however he wished without repeating said fact error, etc. And as a result of his major fact error that colors his review, the opinions of some of those Amazon users who wrote them, as I illustrated, showed a far greater knowledge of the facts/technical aspects of the music in question than the so-called expert. As I stated earlier...you can believe everything that you read except those stories of which you have first-hand knowledge, unless you do the research as a writer, and I try and write to that standard. And thanks for the policy page suggestion as well. And yes...I get to write about Wikipedia for my newspaper tonight - will making it appear there first make it somehow more credible at the outset? P.S. My thanks to all who have offered thoughts on this...it's been very useful. Tvccs 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album credits

What's the policy on the credits for an album? More importantly, how detailed should they be? I'm asking because someone just re-edited an article that I had added information to, removing what I had added. My version included information on the engineers, mastering, layout, cover artist, and photographer. The artist is especially notable, as he did the artwork for the band's previous album, and his following was established partially due to these works. Shuckiduck 08:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion about this in Archive 3 of the discussion page, which cites Aquemini, where engineers, cover artists etc are included as "Personnel". Frankly, it looks messy to me. I've just bumped into the same issue while I add to some of the 10cc album data. On The Original Soundtrack the engineer is inserted after the producer's name in the infobox. It looks OK, so I'm now torn on whether I should add the same detail in the same place under 10cc's other albums.Grimhim 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, there's the History where you (or others) can retrieve the information. I usually remove production credits if I find them. (I add other information, so I am not an Exclusionist.) My preference for an all-inclusive listing would be:
1 - Personnel
The band
2 - Additional personnel
Musicians not present on every track; if possible with track(s)) # on which he/she participates
3 - Production personnel
Knob twisters and overdub specialists :-)
4 - Other personnel
Design and illustration, A&R, photography, etc.
-- Fantailfan 11:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where does this fall on the album page then? I'm guessing the order of play after the info box is (1) Track listing (2) Credits and then (3) Personnel with all the details you note above. There is nothing on the WikiProject Albums page on this, so I'm guessing it's an informal style? Have you got an example of the way you've don it? Thanks Grimhim 13:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikiproject Album only needs musician credits to be considered complete in that area, so I haven't been worked to make them all that way. So, it is very informal - I don't add the non-musician credits myself and usually but not always keep them around if they're there - so I am inconsistent. An example is Hounds of Love (which doesn't have design credits).
—Fantailfan 13:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that if the information was complete and correct, then why delete it. I believe it's important to the recording as well; the people did work, they should be recognized. If it's clear, I assumed it would stay. That's why I was surprised someone else removed the information. It's not like it was false. My assumption is that usually the research isn't done to include the producer, engeineers, artists, etc. - but if it is, more power to the article...
Shuckiduck 20:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the information should have been removed. I've seen many cases where some edit didn't meet the "owner's" standards, and was simply removed, with no effort made to integrate the information better. I think the attitude is often that "if they think it's that important, they'll come talk to me about it." Which I think is elitist. If someone removes your info, you need to evaluate it to see if there was a reason for it, but that fact in itself doesn't validate the removal of information.

Anyway, that could be the reason for the deletion, because that kind of info is certainly acceptable for an article about an album. Maybe the guy was just unhappy about how you listed it? Did you talk to him about it? -Freekee 03:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't talk to him directly, I wanted to check if there was a policy first, that's why I came here. Didn't want to start an edit war or whatnot. He's edited the article before, so I assume he also is at least somewhat knowing of the band. Not sure how to bring it up nicely without offending, either. Shuckiduck 09:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "I don't think the information should have been removed" sounded blasphemous to me months ago, but I have since learned (a) there is such a thing as too much information (listen to the song of the same name on Ghost in the Machine) and (b) since Wikipedia allows deletions, rather than engage in revert wars an agreement should be arrived at as to what constitutes important. This is not elitist, it's Exclusionist (which I am not).
(2) There is no such thing as an article owner. – Fantailfan 13:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like you're trying to disagreee with me. :-D Just for the sake of clarity, "exclusionist" is defined by a certain set of actions, whereas "elitist" is defined by a certain set of beliefs. In other words, the reasons behind the actions. What I meant by "article 'owner'", was the phenomenon where someone makes the major part of the contributions to an article, and devotes so much time and energy to making an article perfect, or what he thinks is perfect, that he considers himself to be the owner. Or, to use a less negative connotation, anyone with a stake in an article. Whether you use such terminology or not, when a person who has put a lot of effort into an article tries to exert pressure on newcomers, in order to mold the article in the way he sees fit, this can annoy those newcomers. This can be elitist. Or it can be good sense. It depends on how far he pushes it. -Freekee 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ok. No disagreement intended. I guess in some sense I'm trying to push my album format, which is evident from the articles to which I have contributed. I'm short on analysis, big on 'stats' - the definable information. But I am inconsistent, you can't deny me that. Fantailfan 17:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, heh. I like a lot of production info. I also like a lot of analysis. I wish I could write more if it. -Freekee 18:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Davis

Miles Davis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums:

Why is this here? I think we're busy already compulsively attending to our own narrow area of focus, not to mention obsessively finding out how Dolette McDonald's name is spelled, or whether Kate Bush is Alternative Rock, or just what the heck is proto-punk already, without worrying about the rest of Wikipedia. Fantailfan 19:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must be blind. Where is the list? -Freekee 05:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, at the top of this page. I was looking on the project page. If there's a to-do list, shouldn't it be on the project page, and not the talk page? And if there's a to-do list for the album project, shouldn't it be our own list? -Freekee 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you should probably ask that question of User:AzaToth, since he put it there. -Freekee 05:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's there for us to populate. See Wikipedia:To-do list. Could be useful. -Freekee 00:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updating template modifications

I implemented the category for wrong infobox types. You can browse it at Category:Non-standard album infoboxes. Note that the category hasn't been categorized. There are 4,400 albums with non standard types right now. I picked some randomly to test if the category was updated:

Album Type argument
This Narrow Road [[Compact Disc|CD]]
Imp Years [[Extended play|EP]]
My Game [[Vinyl record|Vinyl LP]]
Q (AAA) [[Single (music)|Single]]
Same Girl, New Songs [[Extended play|EP]]/[[Demo (music)|Demo]]
Strawberry Panic! drama CD Drama
Airbag/How Am I Driving? [[Extended play|EP]]
!Hero (album) [[Double album]]
A Thousand Lights In A Darkened Room [[CD]]/[[2X12"]]
Aégis [[CD]]

Team Invasion Presents Keyshia Cole is currently broken because it is passing the background color in hexa, and apparently is breaking the template. I will see how to fix it. I am guessing dropping the background color completely may help. -- ReyBrujo 15:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with dropping background parameter, as it should never be used →AzaToth 16:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, now that the colour is determined by the type field input, the background field is entirely superfluous. Chuck it. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 02:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a ridiculous measure. What was wrong with the old system, and if we must implement a new one, why aren't we allowing for more common variations? --CJ Marsicano 04:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the old system is that a few editors have said "that orange is ugly, I'm changing it to a nice pink that better matches the album's artwork", which in some cases went un-noticed for months. If you lose the background colour field, you lose the ability to screw it up so easily. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 23:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all the background=hex albums have been fixed now. Rich Farmbrough, 21:38 20 September 2006 (GMT).

DVDs

A similar complaint to one that MightyMoose22 mentioned above, I've been browsing through Category:Non-standard_album_infoboxes and I've found several people have made infoboxes for DVD's, such as Britney Spears - Live and More!, what colours should they be (as this user justed used "Pink" to fit the dvd colour schme), should the be filed just under "Compilation Album"? Cause that label doesn't sound terribly appropriate. Sorry if this has been brought up before. :) Andrzejbanas 06:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I brought this up before, now archived here and here. It was ultimately left unresolved with a suggestion to get the new infobox sorted first and figure it out later. Now the new infobox is sorted, however, it's a good time to revisit the issue. The questions that went unanswered were as follows...
  1. What should we call them? Video albums? Keep in mind we shouldn't be format-specific, as there are DVDs, Laserdiscs, VCDs, VHS and Betamax cassettes etc. and many are available in more than one format (and that the term music video is taken).
  2. Should we use different colours for live video albums and compilation video albums (or whatever we're calling them)?
  3. Should we use the regular live and compilation colours and just distinguish them by their type fields?
  4. Should we just treat them as audio albums, and only mention they're videos in the body of the article?
MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 03:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely need to figure this out. I think we should have one type, as it seems to me that most releases will include a mix of live footage, music videos, behind the scenes stuff and perhaps a documentary. As for what to call the type, I'm not sure. Would simply Video be too vague? Video album doesn't sound to bad, but my only problem with it is that it doesn't seem to be a standard term, and there's not even an article here called that, so what would we link it to? Joltman 12:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this too - I've been going through the Non-Standard albums and have noticed a lot of these. If they are actual videos then they should be in Films - if DVD-Audio should be in Albums. Or are Music Videos not considered films? Fantailfan 13:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, DVD-Audio is just a regular album on a different format, and as far as I know, there hasn't been a DVD-Audio release yet that isn't also available on CD at least. So that's not an issue, that's just another format listed on an album page.
"it doesn't seem to be a standard term" - from what I can tell, there is no standard term. That's part of the problem. That's why most people refer to them by their format, which is bad from our point of view.
"are Music Videos not considered films?" - actual music videos are sometimes called short films, but if you had a collection of shorts, would they collectively be called a film? I'm not so sure.
There's also audio+video packages to consider, like Animals Should Not Try to Act Like People and Salival (wherein the audio and video are equal parts of the product, as opposed to one being a "bonus disc"), along with those that are released seperately like Royal Albert Hall London May 2-3-5-6 2005. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 16:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of my view of videos or concert films (which is biased by my year of birth o so long ago) I think they belong in WikiProject Albums.
1. What should we call them?
Music video single (1-2 songs, up to 15 minutes) but I would prefer they be in WikiProject Songs ; Music video longform; Music video box set; Music audio and video for combinations (standards mainly from RIAA certifications)
2. Should we use different colours for live video albums and compilation video albums (or whatever we're calling them)?
3. Should we use the regular live and compilation colours and just distinguish them by their type fields?
Distinguish by type (see above) and use the standard live & comp colors or a color very close in saturation to them.
4. Should we just treat them as audio albums, and only mention they're videos in the body of the article?
They should use Types as I suggest above. The cover art should be like 250 x 500 or so.
-- Fantailfan 17:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And we would require template for Music Video. Fantailfan 18:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Music video single is just music video, that's simple enough, and (as you said) should probably be handled by WikiProject Songs. How many videos are released independently of the single anyway? The other types you've suggested seem too clumsy to me. How about just music video compilation and live video? I like music video box set, but I think it should be used for the audio+video packages.
Cover art at 250x500 seems particularly huge, considering album covers are only 200².
What do you mean by template? A new infobox? I think Infobox Album will be fine. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking perhaps since there are so many formats we could use simply Video Release as a new heading for DVD, VHS, laserdisc, music video comps, straight-to-video live recordings, bootleg videos, etc. for these things. But I think certain things like Concert films such as Stop Making Sense or The Last Waltz should probably use the infobox for films instead. I guess we should make a new colour for these things as well perhaps?Andrzejbanas 05:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Andrzej after all. Adding three or four new types is silly. So:
Use Infobox Album
Use Type = Video release, with color TBD
Some concert films with wide release (e.g., Stop Making Sense or The Last Waltz) will use the Infobox Film) and if they have a soundtrack it uses Infobox Album as Type = Soundtrack
Concert straight-to-video - (If applicable) Infobox Album as Type = Live album ANDInfobox Album as Type = Video release
Fantailfan 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deluxe Edition vs deluxe edition

It's my understanding that, in the context of albums, the words Deluxe Edition are proper nouns, as if part of the title, and therefore should be capitalised. This is supported by Category:Universal Deluxe Editions and the official site universaldeluxeedition.com, wherein if you click on any of the album covers the blurb that follows always has Deluxe Edition in capitals.

My beef is that an admin is currently using AWB to change all instances he finds to deluxe edition, which I have reverted (those on my watchlist) explaining that they are proper nouns, and back and forth until at one point he compromised by changing it to deluxe edition (Universal Deluxe Editions), which to me seems pointless. I'm just asking to see what the consensus is before exploring the matter any further, and maybe looking for a guideline to be added to the project page either way. Thanks. I apologise for my grammar at this point. :) MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 23:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, in looking at one of those record articles, I see the line Bonus tracks (2003 30th Anniversary Deluxe Edition) in the track listing. I think this is wrong. In that case, the words are simply a descriptor. But I think that your question is whether the words "deluxe edition" are part of the record's title or not. I can't answer that, but I think only the publisher can answer that. Technically, they'd be retitling the record, by adding the phrase to the title. But since it's not technically the same record (having bonus tracks and whatnot), that might be the intention. -Freekee 05:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the usage. So, 'Universal Deluxe Editions published a deluxe edition of "XYZ" called "XYZ Deluxe Edition".' See special edition. Interestingly these albums are actually labelled "DELUXE Edition" (The Cure refer to (dlx) (dig), and "Three Imaginary Boys" is labelled "three imaginary boys", and the track notes are done lower case, so perhaps there's stuff to be corrected there (someone has fixed nottingham->Nottingham but there are studio names etc.). Sorry for causing grief with the "10:15..." track. Rich Farmbrough, 22:49 20 September 2006 (GMT).
DELUXE Edition is really just a stylistic thing, similar to Faux Cyrillic, but if you check out universaldeluxeedition.com you'll see that they use Deluxe Edition every time regardless of whether it's anywhere near the albums' titles. Examples...
  • "Now, more than 30 years after its original release, The Who’s Live At Leeds returns in a special Deluxe Edition that includes for the first time their entire February 14, 1970 concert at Leeds University."
  • "One of the landmark albums in rock history, Cream’s 1967 classic Disraeli Gears, has been set to receive Deluxe Edition treatment featuring a digitally remastered two-CD package that debuts a previously unreleased track."
  • "In celebration of the 30th anniversary of Eric Clapton’s first solo gold album, first solo gold single, first solo #1 album and first solo #1 single, the two-CD Deluxe Edition of 461 Ocean Boulevard (Polydor/UMe), will be released on October 26, 2004."
  • "The American and commercial breakthrough album for Bob Marley & The Wailers, 1976’s Rastaman Vibration, becomes the latest to be reissued in a Deluxe Edition as the most comprehensive and ambitious catalog program for Marley’s recordings continues."
So from this I gather Deluxe Edition to be proper nouns and should therefore be capitalised wherever the term appears. (And don't worry about "10:15...", I gather it's an easy mistake to make with the way AWB works.) MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 23:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting bit of research. Since Universal capitalizes the words in every instance (which is definitely wrong), we still can't be certain whether they include "Deluxe Edition" in the title, or if it's just a descriptor. -Freekee 04:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's completely reasonable to refer to the "Disraeli Gears Deluxe Edition" or the Deluxe Editions version of "Disraeli Gears", but it is still the deluxe edition of Disraeli Gears. We have the same situation with, for example, universities, Warwick University for example should be referred to in the article or headlines as "the university". See WP:MOS#Institutions. Rich Farmbrough, 12:45 8 October 2006 (GMT).

Which category is right?

Category:Jazz Fusion albums or Category:Jazz fusion albums? One should be deleted, I guess the former, but I am not sure. -- ReyBrujo 17:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the former. I've corrected the one page in Category:Jazz Fusion albums and added this handy template. -Acjelen 18:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks! -- ReyBrujo 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joining

I just thought I'd point out a few things, for whomever's interested, but hadn't noticed.

-Freekee 02:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB plugin

I've just added support for this WikiProject to my AWB plugin for adding templates to talk pages and assessing articles. Please see User:Kingbotk/Plugin for more information. --kingboyk 16:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review ratings again

Just though I'd note here, that I've created a new template, {{Rating-10}} works the same as {{Rating-5}} by User:RedHotHeat

Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 19:36 22 September 2006 (GMT).
I don't see this as an improvement over using plain text such as "(X/10)". I doubt that'll fit in one line with the source and link in most of the infoboxes... And I think users can read plain text much fast than count all those stars. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it too for the reasons given by Fritz Saalfeld. Jogers (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really against it. I believe the two templates could be merged in one, though. -- ReyBrujo 17:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, It kinda muddies the userboxes up by being so long. Perhaps if it could be improved so 2 rows of 5 are stacked on another or something, something to shorten it. -- Reaper X 17:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just the text is pretty short, isn't it? ;) --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 10 thing sort of streches the info box. Most albums that are out of 10 can be converted to the 5 star rating anyhow. It's the same value, just a different way of showing it. Although I do find it ugly with the pitchfork reviews when they say "(6.1/10)" on a page. I've been writing 61% instead. Same value, looks nicer. Also, RedHotHeat, are you going to make those +/- ratings anytime soon? :) Andrzejbanas 23:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel converting ratings to other scales (ten-point to five-point, ten-point to percent, etc.) is misquoting the source and should be discouraged. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agreed. In my opinion, the rating should be expressed in whatever format the reviewer uses.--NPswimdude500 23:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly didn't expect it to be used except where some form of stars are already in use, or used by the original. And certainly it was the lazy man's solution, if someone can make a better one that is consistent with rating-5 (which itself can be changed, of course) then please do so. Rich Farmbrough, 20:09 24 September 2006 (GMT).

Redirects from album tracks to albums

I feel like some people are taking this too far. Some users (particulary User:Hraefen) are even adding non-notable album tracks to disambiguation pages. His/her goal seems to be for every single album track from every album to be linked to the album's page through a redirect or dab page. If this is followed, disambiguation pages will be filled with hundreds of non-notable tracks. I think it's fine to redirect singles or notable tracks which do not have separate articles to their respective album articles (or to add them to dab pages), but I really cannot imagine somebody coming to Wikipedia and entering random non-notable album tracks into the search field. They would surely have the sense to search for the album. Also, this is mostly being done with albums that are not even very notable themselves. For example, see Rhythm and blues (disambiguation). This dab page was created solely to dab the genre from some non-notable track from an album that didn't even chart in any country by an artist that also seems not be too notable. I discussed this with the user, but she/he disagreed and reverted me when I redirected the dab page back to Rhythm and blues. In my opinion, adding non-notable tracks to dab pages is just unnecessary clutter. The probability of somebody searching for a track this way is near to zero. If anything, this just creates confusion for somebody searching a dab page for a topic with actual notablity. And it is ridiculous for "For other uses, see Rhythm and blues (disambiguation)" to appear at the top of the Rhythm and blues article because of one non-notable track. --musicpvm 08:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings about that. First, I say "ugh." Non-notable, delete, blahblahblah. But then I think that if soneone's heard that song, and wants to find out who did it, how can they? This is the only way I can think of. If anyone has any other suggestions, maybe this editor should be made aware. But back to the first hand, non-notability. Which means that people shouldn't be able to search for it here. *shrug* -Freekee 04:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they search for it, as long as it is in the body of the text for the album, shouldn't the album show up? I definitely think that this is unnecessary. Joltman 12:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would think so. I personally just can't imagine users searching for random tracks. If they are aware of the non-single track, they surely would be aware of the album too. And if not, I don't think this extremely small or probably nonexistent number of searches should be a reason to clutter and create excess dab pages. These users are just wasting their time with all these redirects/dab additions. They're more clutter than they are useful. --musicpvm 06:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting ever more tiresome trying to clear out Category:Needs album infobox and seeing dozens of "This album is connected!"s on articles that don't even have basics like an infobox. -W guice 00:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. Certain users' time would be much better spent actually trying to improve the articles of these albums rather than unnecessarily cluttering disambig pages. --musicpvm 21:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. First off, I'm a he. Secondly, I can no longer defend Rhythm and blues (disambiguation). I was over-zealous when I made that and it can be deleted for all I care. But please don't take that to be a represntative example of what I've been doing. While you guys seem to care mostly about albums, songs, music etc., the following disambigs that I've started show that what I've been doing doesn't just lie within the scope of albums, songs, music etc. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were all created because a song title needed to be disambiguated and they now contain entries from a variety of topics. And these are not even the best examples; they're just a few that I could think of off the top of my head. There are many topics on Wikipedia (songs and otherwise) in need of disambiguation and using song titles is one way to find them. And no one has adequately answered my question from above: why would a reader look "for album tracks via the search box" just because it happened to be a single? Wouldn't these readers "be sure to search for the album title first" as well? I think that argument is either true for both types of songs or true for neither. And for all the talk of "cluttering up disambiguation pages," no one has shown me one that I made that is indeed cluttered (Wake Up, IMHO, clearly is not). There's an old saying: when you're looking for something lost, it's always in the last place you look. The same logic applies to disambig pages. If users really are interested, as some contend, only in those songs that are full-article, blue links (Wake Up (Rage Against the Machine song), Wake Up (Hilary Duff song), Wake Up (The Living End song) etc.), then why would they continue to look below these links (full-article, blue links are always on top) to all the links that you guys seem to consider "clutter". Either they do look below them or they don't, but I don't think you guys are the ones to decide whether or not they should even have the option.--Hraefen Talk 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Positions

I can't seem to find a resource to get chart positions for an album, does anyone know of one? Weatherman90 15:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for U.S. chart positions http://www.billboard.com lists the current charts as well as peak positions for older stuff. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip - it would probably work well in most cases except that I am looking for Pablo Cruise album & single chart positions - and they havent had any charting albums since the early 80s. Billboard only gives you 20 years back unless you pay to subscribe. Any one else? Weatherman90 16:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All Music has older Billboard chart listings available... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology error

Im noticing in the chronology of many album infoboxes, the text in the "this album" field makes ''' show up. It is normal to have this text bold and italisized, but the template already bolds it, with no need for 3 of the 5 ticks that are normally put. For example, if you put '''''Siamese Dream''''', it will show up as '''Siamese Dream instead of Siamese Dream. I know for a fact this never used to happen, and now many infoboxes are getting screwed up, so what went wrong? -- Reaper X 20:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody bolded "this album" in the template. I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing this out. Jogers (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, but I think it still exists in the "extra chronology" part. Could you fix that too? Cheers. -- Reaper X 21:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jogers (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Chronology color error

This was pointed out elsewhere, but album infoboxes with an extra chronology sections are still using the color that is designated in the infobox. In other words, many infoboxes have an extra chronology section that is orange instead of lightsteelblue, such as Goodbye (album). This issue was previously brought up with Blind Faith (album) (but I can't find that discussion). The solution offered was to change the chronology to 'Extra chronology 2', but this too results in the manually inputed color showing up (or no color if none is chosen). There has to be a way to fix this, but I don't have the skills. Thanks. --Alcuin 14:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misc section infobox

It seems that now the background parameter is removed from the infobox, the Misc for extra chronology and extra cover art also needs an update. It still has a background parameter and if left unset, it defaults to piss-yellow. It however should take the colour of the infobox. E.g. A_Dangerous_Meeting Spearhead 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Demos

Lot's of demos get articles as well now. E.g. Hatred Surge. And having an album infobox, they used to use different kind of colours (salmon and orange mostly). Now it defaults to grey. What colour should we use? Shouldn't there be a colour for demo recordings? Spearhead 20:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think this was important (and still don't ) but, for some reason there a lot of demos on WikiProject Albums. Are they notable in any way shape or form? Fantailfan 20:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some are notable... Metallica's No Life Till Leather springs to mind. Anyway, either demos should be removed or have a proper infobox w/ a settled colour. Spearhead 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Demos are essentially the same as studio albums, except for the form of their release. They contain original songs. At this point, if a demo record is notable enough to get an article and an info box, call it an original studio album. Unless, of course, it's a demo of cover songs or a demo of a soundtrack. I think it's up for debate if we want to start a new type for demos, but until then, just use studio. -Freekee 03:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there should be a type for demos. To me, studio album is a more official term that indicates it was distributed, whereas demos were (mostly) undistributed and is usually not an official part of a band's discography. Joltman 12:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing the number of demos I've been running into with my AWB-non-standard infobox cleaning. They seem to be chiefly of the metal genre and its various subgenres. I would agree with Spearhead that nearly every demo should be removed as non-notable. Since anyone can create a page here, notability is not indicated by having "an article and an info box."
Fantailfan 14:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1st I didn't say that demoes should be removed per se. But that at least there should be a general concensus on how to handle them, which I think is either delete or agree on how to treat the infobox and such, even if only *very* notable demoes are kept there should be consistency how they are handled.
And yeah, lots of them are metal, I guess that has a lot to do with tape trading that got lots of metal bands into "fame", particularly in the 80s and early 90s. Spearhead 20:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support a separate colour for demos per Joltman and the fact, that many demos/promos, at least in black metal, were recorded on cassette tapes during a quick rehearsal session. These shouldn't be grouped in together with distributed studio albums. As for notability, I've ran into quite a few and all have been at least by notable bands, if not notable for their own merits, such as being one of the first recordings on a certain genre. Prolog 14:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support a recognition of Demo as an album type and using lightsteelblue as the colour, as is done for Studio album, since demos are quite similar (and one step down the ladder, really) to them, and feel like different creatures from EPs. Using an entirely different colour for Demos seems unneccessary. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Infobox musical artist?

See Joseph Byrd...this infobox doesn't seem to be rendering properly...looked at history...all prior versions are also not working. Help? Thank you. Tvccs 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see any problem. What is failing? -- ReyBrujo 16:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for an FYI long after the fact: on 25 September, {{Infobox musical artist 2/color selector}}, an internal template used by {{Infobox musical artist}}, was damaged by a bot which mistook the color codes for Unicode charaacter definitions and "corrected" them. This caused an ugly failure of the infobox. Fortunately, I'd recently been working with the infobox code, and was able to track down and revert the change fairly quickly. So, Tvccs is not crazy; there was a real problem. It just didn't last long.  :) Xtifr tälk 08:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kittie Discography

i am trying to write an article for the discography of the band, Kittie, but i can't find the RIAA Certification of their debut album, nor any other album. i also can't find sales of the "Sex Is Hell demo", "Kittie EP", or the "Sampler Demo". i'm not sure if they even exist. their discography on their page is aslo need in organizing. could somebody please help me clean this up (even though it is not the the to-do list)?

WereWolf 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be certified only if (a) their label requests it and (b) they supply RIAA with documentation that they have sold at least 500,000 copies of it in the United States. Some bands and labels (especially the indies) do not do this either out of underestimating their sales, bad accounting, or because they do not wish to be certified by the RIAA on principle. Fantailfan 00:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That answers one question . . . WereWolf 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus they're Canadian. The Canadian Recording Industry Association site no longer has search-by-artist. This would help if their sales are higher (relatively considering population) in Canada.
While I do have a weakness for Canadian musicians, alt-metal is at the end of my likes-dislikes spectrum. You might check with Artemis Records, the CRIA or band members themselves. They might even be on Myspace. –Fantailfan 11:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Record Collector price guides

Anybody have any old Record Collector price guide books? I think I've thrown mine out in favour of a year 2000 Penguin Price Guide for Record & CD Collectors. Basically, I'd like to "chart" the change in value of a mint condition copy of 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) over the years (£60 in Y2K). --kingboyk 14:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox color stuff

Couple things I wanted to point out about the new infobox color template thing

  1. I think 'Split album' should be an appropriate term for an album (lightsteelblue).
  2. I really think an unknown album type should NOT be the same as a known album type. Right now, an unknown type gets gainsboro, which is the same as soundtracks. Unknown types should be some other arbitrary color like lightbrown or something.

Joltman 16:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should discuss valid types and colors at the same type, otherwise we will be discussing the color of the new types later again. I suggested pink for unknown types, but never really caught on. -- ReyBrujo 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the current color proposal above, they include non-standard as silver. Fantailfan 17:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misc Fields

Using a Misc field results in a different color than what is specified by the Type field. Would it be possible to simply have the same color used for entries in the Misc section as what's in the main template? Issue arose when adding an alternate cover and having to manually specify the background color. If a 'Cover2' or 'CoverAlt' field were added into the main template that could resolve it as well. Sparkhead 17:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing you were using {{Extra album cover}}. Try using {{Extra album cover 2}}, specifying a type there. That should work. We could not merge the changes of Extra album cover 2 into the other because the original is being used by singles as well. -- ReyBrujo 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the example box in {{Extra album cover 2}} wrong? It shows {{Extra album cover as the start, I'm guessing it should be {{Extra album cover 2, but I'm not about to change that myself. I switched to {{Extra album cover 2}}, and now when I don't set it manually, I get no background color, even if I set type to "Studio Album". If you could, review Under The Blade. If you go in and remove my background color for the extra section, it goes white. I think I'm doing everything correctly, but any pointers appreciated. Sparkhead 18:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the 2 is just a copy from the extra album cover, with a small modifications to work with the type. However, when we completely removed the background color from the main infobox album, we forgot to update it. It should be working now, thanks for noticing the error. -- ReyBrujo 19:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of help. Thanks for the update. Sparkhead 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on spectrum for infoboxes.

Below is a pair of spectra. The spectrum on the left is the current convention; the one on the right is the proposed replacement spectrum:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/color chart

Please voice your support for which spectrum you prefer below. (Support implies supporting the change; signal Oppose to maintain the status quo. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 23:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • post-voting notes: burlywood came in as a good non-excrement-colored brown and darker than wheat, beige and different than khaki, which is used for singles. lightpink, I don't know how that one popped up. I would like to change it but the rest are acceptable, at the very least, being better than the current set. --Fantailfan 11:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we need a change. those colors were kind of old. WereWolf 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Alcuin 00:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, voting is evil, but this will at least provide a forum for anyone with concerns with the new colors. --Alcuin 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do we need this poll? The {{Infobox Album/color}} has already been updated with the new colors... -- ReyBrujo 01:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither AzaToth may be out of line, but the colors he posted at 21:39, 21 September 2006 and the ones posted by BalthCat at 04:22, 12 September 2006, above, are both better than the alternatives here. How was it narrowed down to these two? Sparkhead 02:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am unhappy with this nomination. It is my least favorite of any of the ones discussed above. I was busy editing articles last night, and didn't see you were discussing it. Salmon is still ugly. Why burlywood instead of a blue? Pink seems out of place. I thought grey was fine for soundtracks. The thistle and the green look really good, though. -Freekee 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the new colors are much more pleasing to the eye. --musicpvm 06:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is it that the unknown should be grey? I would rather the soundtracks still be grey and use pink for unknowns. Especially if we are using the same shade of grey, that seems like it would be confusing to use it on something else now.Joltman 11:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why didn't you say something earlier??? I had altered the spectrum to include your remarks! --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I didn't check this page between the time I posted up there and the time I posted here. I don't get to check this page all the time, I usually only do at work actually. 17:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as prior please, thanks. -W guice 11:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support . -Acjelen 12:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I prefer the old colours, especially the orange. However, if there is a genuine case that the old colours were bad for persons with sight issues and the new ones overcome that we don't need a poll and should go with whatever helps these folks out best. --kingboyk 16:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - This is satisfactory to me, but I wouldn't mind seeing pink replaced. ~Gertlex 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I take a preference for the old colours as well. -- Reaper X 18:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. —MC Snowy (Talk | contribs) 01:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This palette is much better compared to the old one; more harmonic (interaction between the colors) and usable; text in the infobox is easier and faster to read, neutral colors avoid confusing or distracting the reader. The old colors could be interpreted as warning the reader for something or suggesting that the infobox is the thing to read first, whereas the new ones are calm and light and don't interrupt the user's normal process. This also improves the overall design and is more encyclopedic. I'm pretty sure these colours will react better to different monitors and color depths too. I don't like the pink though, but that doesn't make me vote against the change. Prolog 14:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I'm just curious why most people are voting support. I do want the colours changed but not to this, a lot of people seem to vote for Support even though they prefer other suggested colour schmes or they don't like the pink. Andrzejbanas 18:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A vote in support of the new spectrum does not negate the expressed concerns; if there are enough participants willing to deep-six the offensive hue, it will eventually happen. After all, a similar approach worked for Studio albums. (FWIW, as you mentioned earlier, it may actually be an incentive to specify which category such recordings belong in.) --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 18:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be in favor of switching the pink and the grey, as suggested, but I think salmon and lightsalmon are much worse than the pink. -Freekee 21:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just out of curiosity, is there anything in particular which will assuage your predisposition to perpetual protesting? :/ If so, pray tell. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was disappointed that the nomination process wasn't set up in a very visible manner. It was more of a discussion between a few people. I was waiting to see what would happen, and in the span of less than 48 hours, a "consensus" between about three people was put forward for a vote. This whole thing seems like such a big deal, in that it's going to be around for a while, but a lot of people don't seem happy with the choice given. I would like to have seen a more formal nomination process. Short answer to your question: nothing, since it's too late. I'm sorry about my protesting. I had intended at least some of my comments to be constructive. Thanks for asking. I'll shut up now. -Freekee 00:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understand your point, but as far as I know there is no process. Between programming (ReyBrujo and AzaToth, I think) and color choice (me, Azatoth, Andrzebjanas, Folajimi, Joltman (yes, you contributed), Reaper X), that's a bunch of people. What has occurred can only be called a process by abuse of the language on the Bush Administration level. A bunch of people made a significant change very quickly, via a short back-and-forth discussion in which basic criteria for color choice and reasoning for making changes were assumed and not stated. A unilateral palette change occurred; only then was it put it to a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so what constitutes a proper method of changing standards is different within each realm. Rather, Wikipedia appears to be Leninist - be bold! --Fantailfan 01:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Freekee, constructive feedback is needed; your last response provides useful information. I agree that the nomination process for the spectrum was inadequate; the unfortunate appearance of running roughshod on you (and Joltman) was absolutely unintentional. With that said, it seems only fair to allow a sufficient time window for discussion from here on in. How does 48 hours [as you mentioned] sound? As for dissatisfaction with the selected spectrum, there is very little I can do about that. You may recall that W. guice decided to terminate an earlier conversation than work with other participants at attaining a satisfactory solution. I had hoped for a better outcome, but that was out of my control.
              • You have been involved with this effort from the very beginning. Your input — along with everyone else who has taken the time to participate in this discussion — is greatly appreciated; having you "shut up" is definitely an undesirable solution. Remember, constructive feedback is always appreciated. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 01:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks to you and Faintail for your comments. I only said I'd shut up, since I'd said all I needed to say about the subject. :-) I think 48 hours was too short a time. From my best estimate, that final part of the discussion started just after I logged off, and I'd missed seeing it the next night (and not everyone even comes here very day). Then it was put up for vote just before I logged in the next day. So 48 hours didn't really work for me, and I come here every day. If it were up to me, I would have made a new post at the bottom of the page, and explained that this was the group's consensus (and, importantly, why), and ask if anyone had any comments before a vote. I prefer to see a week for big decisions, but I'm not sure how big this is. -Freekee 02:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditch the pink - Make it palegoldenrod or khaki and I think you'll have a much better selection. Sparkhead 22:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only if the participants whose input was used in creating the spectrum (Fantailfan, AzaToth, Joltman, and ReyBrujo) agree to withdraw this nomination... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As previously noted, khaki is already being used by WikiProject Songs as the color for singles (changed from yellow) and palegoldenrod is too close to khaki. This would not matter if they were used for infoboxes for, say, WikiProject Songbirds, but the two projects are closely related to each other and use a very similar infobox style (they probably came from the same source.) I, too, would like to change lightpink to something else. However. My point is that I am willing to compromise on one particular color to arrive at the larger goal of presenting a full and less garishIMHO palette of colors. --Fantailfan 23:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Put Soundtracks back to gainsboro, and make other peachpuff or paleturquoise. If there is a large color scheme that the selections in this list need to avoid, perhaps you can point to a list of all of them? Sparkhead 01:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like I say above, the color criteria and basic principles are assumed and have never been agreed upon. I think (1) choose colors in different color categories, (2) pick pleasing (or at least tolerable) colors, (3) don't use khaki or anything close to it in the yellow categories, (4) um... be bold? --Fantailfan 01:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I disappeared for a while, bad me, since I helped stir this up. As per User:Sparkhead, put Soundtracks back to Grainsboro and I suggest antiquewhite for Other rather than peachpuff. As I mentioned above ( a while ago ) an override field for colour would be nice. The rationale being that, aside from the chance something needs to be overridden (assuming it never will is folly!) is the ability to test colours. Right now, it appears I can't. (I find the colours look quite different in the infoboxes compared to the spectrum view. But I'm pretty sure I liked the look of antiquewhite.) Though, if it wasn't for my desire to see Gainsboro switched back, I would vote Support. The other issue is secondary, and the colour could be changed again later. (I still find all forms of salmon hideous, but one takes what one can get.) - BalthCat 03:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate cover

As I've noticed the colours have changed, especially since the light steelblue was implemented a lot of album infobox's have mismatching colours when it comes to to the addition of "Alternative Colour" is there any way to figure out which albums pages don't have matching alternative album cover colours? Andrzejbanas 01:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief that any album using the {{Extra album cover}} template has wrong colors, as this template does not support the type parameter. To fix this, remove the background color, add the type, and change the {{Extra album cover}} with the {{Extra album cover 2}} template. -- ReyBrujo 01:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See up here. -- ReyBrujo 01:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't it support the type field? It's an optional field, so adding it won't break existing usage (would it?). How does inclusion into the {{Extra album cover}} cause an issue? Is type used for something else on singles? Sparkhead 02:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that this problem exists for Extra Chronology too; switching to Extra Chronology 2 does not fix it. --Alcuin 02:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a professional programmer, please give me an example so that I can fix it :) -- ReyBrujo 03:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An example using {{Extra album cover}} with Getting Away with Murder (album), and and an example using {{Extra album cover 2}} with The Art of Self-Defense. (extra album cover 2 seems to work. Why isn't this on the albums page then? :S Andrzejbanas 04:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, also things like this too it seems. AngelComa Andrzejbanas 04:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Getting Away with Murder (album) was fixed by removing the background parameter, using {{Extra album cover 2}}, and adding the type to the template. The problem with AngelComa was another: the {{Extra chronology 2}} template was pointing to an auxiliar function in my userspace. I fixed the redirect, and it is now working. Thanks for spotting those errors! I will need a weekend to examine both sets (chronology and extra cover) and determine the best way of merging both. For now, though, it is better to fix the problems as they appear, instead of modifying a template that is being used not only in albums but in singles. -- ReyBrujo 04:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extra Chronology examples: American Recordings (album), Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs. Both 'Extra chronology' and 'Extra chronology 2' respond to whatever color is manually inputed, not the color specificied by the album type. Thanks. --Alcuin 13:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs shows correctly for me, maybe you need to purge the article or the template. In the other, replace the cover with the cover 2 template, and it should work. -- ReyBrujo 13:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, changed both to Extra Chronology 2, and both show gray --Alcuin 14:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, you need to specify the type in {{Extra chronology 2}} as in {{Extra album cover 2}} :-) Added the type, they now display correctly. -- ReyBrujo 02:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the {{Extra album cover}} has this line: {{{Background|khaki}}}. In other words, if no background color is present, use khaki (the single infobox color). If we replace the background color with {{Template:Infobox Album/color|{{{Type|}}}}} (which transform the type in a color), we will break the single infoboxes (since a single has no type, it will return gainsboro, so the single infoboxes will have the extra album cover section in gainsboro instead of khaki. -- ReyBrujo 12:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you put a conditional check in there? Does the template have no knowledge of the context it is in? Can it check to see whether it is placed inside a single or not, and respect or ignore the type field appropriately? I'm thinking you could possibly set something in the album or single template than can be tested in the 'child' templates to determine context. I'm not familiar with creating/editing templates, but would be glad to investigate if pointed in the proper direction for some information on writing them. Sparkhead 14:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is my intention, but my lack of time is big right now. I will see if I can merge both templates on this weekend, however you must understand the best time for doing these modifications are on week days at night, as there are fewer users in Wikipedia than on a weekend, thus I do not really feel comfortable with testing with the live templates. I will have to recreate them in my userspace, and that will take time (switching references from one template to my userspace, testing, trying, etc). I will try, but I can't promise. Help is welcomed :-) -- ReyBrujo 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you need help with? Are there any specific actions which need to be carried out (akin to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Steps to implement the new template)? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 13:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was thinking that it might be better to inline the problem then to call an auxillary templte, so as for testing, I have added some inline code to the infobox, the parameters is as follow: 

| extra cover1 = Extra cover1.png
| extra cover1 upper = Upper caption (optional, default=Alternate Cover)
| extra cover1 lower = Lower caption (optional)
| extra cover2 = Extra cover2.png
| extra cover2 upper = Upper caption (optional)
| extra cover2 lower = Lower caption (optional)

As I can't see any album to have more than two alternate covers, and if so, it's too much for the infobox anyway, and deserves an own section. →AzaToth 15:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. The Man Who Sold the World also has three covers, but we used a gallery instead. --Fantailfan 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to see an example of an article using extra chronology and extra album cover, here is one: 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?). The colours are broken so if you find a fix for this - reusing the correct colour from the parent infobox, or taking an optional argument, whatever - please fix that page too. I've left it at default settings now, as an example of how great these addin templates are but how broken they are in regards to colours :) --kingboyk 16:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To fix that, just use {{Extra chronology 2}} instead of {{Extra chronology}}, and {{Extra album cover 2}} instead of {{Extra album cover}}, removing the background parameter and adding the type. As I said, merging the templates would solve that, but we need to be careful not to break the single infobox at the same time. -- ReyBrujo 17:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so simple Batman :) I already have a type=Single so that it says "single chronology", but I need "album" colours. (This was an album released in an edited form as a single you see.)
An easy way to do it would be put the colour codes into mini-templates and they can be transcluded where needed? --kingboyk 17:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is already done at {{Infobox Album/color}}, while {{Infobox Album/link}} returns the wikified text to use in the infobox. -- ReyBrujo 17:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color code abused?

In the preceding discussion, User:Andrzejbanas stated: "the colour code isn't being used anymore due it being abused.". Can someone tell me exactly how you abuse a color code? Sparkhead 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found shouting obscenities at it to be quite effective. When that doesn't work, I hit the colour code with a big stick. --kingboyk 12:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehehe. I believe the only change that has consensus was orange to lightsteelblue, per this discussion. We could be protecting {{Infobox Album/color}} and {{Infobox Album/link}} once we have settled everything (I am guessing four months of work still). -- ReyBrujo 13:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Leaks

I've noticed that some articles have been noting the date that albums were leaked online. It seems that that might be against some type of wiki policy. A lot of the times it's not real notable to the article. It's just added on at the end. The Lupe Fiasco leak was notable. It pusehed back and changed the album significantly. So I can see that. But the others seem a bit thrown in. Just curious as to the policy on this. --Jaysscholar 06:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably put some examples of this. Here's some I remembered.

Still Searching - Senses Fail
Shine On - Jet
  • I think the second leak via iTunes is definitely worth a mention. If a leak made big news for some reason (like pushing back the true release date), it's notable. If the artist/label deliberately "leaked" a track or three, again, notable. Suppose it's all a question of referencing the statement. If Joe Public discovered the album on torrent, then no, there's no reliable source for that and it shouldn't be mentioned. IMO. Sparkhead 14:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See "This album was leaked" discussion above. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Street date 10/31 but iTunes date 10/14, which one is the Release date?

I was just about to update Burden Brothers' Mercy because the band just announced that 2 weeks before the street date, the album is going to be released on iTunes. So, at first I was just going to put a note that it will be released early on iTunes. But then I thought, would the release date change to 10/14, or would it stay 10/31 since that's the wide distribution date? What do others think? Joltman 12:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with the later date and say (Regular release) or something along those lines... I also thing those guys are crazy for doing Itunes before the actual CD is sold. But that's just an opinion :) ~Gertlex 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that it will be available at iTunes and other download sites on that date, so I don't know if that changes anything. As for why they are doing it, I think it's so the die-hards will pay for the downloaded songs early and then still buy the actual CD when it comes out. 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I would think that the earliest date that the album is available to the general public counts as the release date. We're talking about the published work, not the CD, specifically. -Freekee 01:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that iTunes qualifies as "street" release, since it's still public. It makes sense to observe it in a medium-independant way. Perhaps a list of release dates for various media would be in order—with the first being the primary (ok that's redundant language). —StationaryTraveller 04:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum Vote Continued

10 days for a vote seems a bit excessive. 5 days, which will conclude within approximately 3 hours should be plenty. If an AfD can be done in 5 days, so can a template change.

A number of votes for Support mentioned the pink as the one disliked color. If there's not major disagreement, it would seem straightforward to put gainsboro back to "Soundtracks" that pink now occupies and making the "Other" category peachfuzz or some other color.

"Soundtracks (etc.)" was gainsboro before and I cannot see a valid reason for moving that color to another category. Does anyone who likes the pink think it's a color they simple cannot live without? Sparkhead 20:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to come up with a kŭl'ər other than lightpink first. Fantailfan 20:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for putting gray as the color of undefined is that people usually link gray to undefined/other. →AzaToth 20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should start assigning meaning to any color. Soundtracks were gainsboro and that seemed to be fine. Peachfuzz was invalidated due to its close nature to lightpink. But if lightpink is gone, peachfuzz can be brought back into the spectrum and put in the other category. Which, if used properly, should rarely been seen. I believe this should be done ASAP. (5 days is now passed) Sparkhead 01:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final tally and call for amendments.

The vote to replace the spectrum passed with a supermajority. However, in light of concerns raised by the vote, I would like to invite those who expressed concern about certain hues to propose replacements for lightpink (and burlywood.)

Please provide input within the next 96 hours. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 02:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest leaving a note in the talk page of those who voted oppose to let them know about this. -- ReyBrujo 02:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I liked lightskyblue. It's blue and light. It's dissimilar to any of the other colors chosen. Is it too close to the blue of the band infobox, and does that matter? What about a lighter shade of blue, like cyan? -Freekee 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you getting a supermajority? I see 6 straight support, 2 support with "hate the pink", 4 oppose, 2 neither - which I interpret as "I question this vote as valid in the first place" (especially since one of those neithers is mine), and 2 comments questioning the vote outright, and a bit of other general commentary questioning the steps to this point.
    However you look at it, it's far from a supermajority. I see why Azatoth took action. Now, if he would only go back and change Soundtracks to gainsboro, I doubt there would be much dissent over what color 'Other' was, even if it stays pink. When someone sees in on an album page they like, they'll be motivated to categorize it. *Sparkhead 11:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supermajority, meaning two-thirds of the vote. Which would have been tallied as 8 for, 4 against. He included the accept but with color issues as "For", and has opened the floor for further discussion on color. Which sounds to me like if there's consensus, we can change one of the colors, or maybe switch a couple. -Freekee 02:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the change now, as I see that with the changes, there is consensus, no need to process it till end of days. →AzaToth 11:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as far as changing the gainsboro to soundtracks. The pink isn't really an issue to me, but the peachpuff seems fine. Joltman 12:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the current spectrum layout is displayed below:

Types Color Codes
EPs #F4BF92 ep
Original studio albums lightsteelblue studio
Live albums and live EPs burlywood live
Greatest hits #BFE0BF greatest
Remixes #BFE0BF remix
Box sets #BFE0BF box
Other Compilations #BFE0BF compilation
Cover albums lightsteelblue cover
Tribute albums lightsteelblue tribute
Soundtracks gainsboro soundtrack
Television themes gainsboro television
Film Scores gainsboro film
Unknown type peachpuff N/A

Thanks again to all who participated. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 22:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks for getting it done. -Freekee 00:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks to all who helped on this infobox project! -Freekee 03:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video releases

I've been reading the discussions here (see above), looking for answers about videos. Let me see if I can sum up the discussion and see what questions still need to be answered.

There are music videos, which are analogous to singles. There are also longform videos, including concert videos and compilation videos. It was suggested that if a video was a theatrical release, it should use the film infobox, but if it was straight-to-video, it should use the album infobox. When using the album infobox, the type should be either live or compilation. Either that or create a new type: video. There was a suggestion to use both categories, where applicable, but I'm not sure how that works. There is already a {{DVD infobox}};

Here's the reason I was drawn to this topic: categories. I found several video releases that were uncategorized. I thought that Category:Videos by artist made sense, but I want to make sure people agree on naming. Could videos by artist refer to both short and long form releases? Would this be a problem? Should we have both Music videos by artists and Videos by artist? There's already Category:Music videos and DVDs. I hate to see the format in the title, but so far, the song videos have been kept out.

Discuss. -Freekee 03:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no infobox, or people choose either Album or Film. I argue it should be under Album (as the types I listed above) or Film (when it is an actual pay-yer-ten-bucks movie). --Fantailfan 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't argue with that. I was more interested in opinions about naming, for categories. I'd like to categorize some of those uncategorized videos. -Freekee 00:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distinct color for mixtapes

I had brought up this topic many times but since noone bothered to reform the infobox now I felt like it's time put the question into discussion again while the revision of the new infobox still goes. I also like to inform the people in this project that the Category:Mixtape albums has reached the total of 211 pages (with the subsequent pages) at the moment. I don't care about the type of the color just choose one if we all agree to have one. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 12:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support having an additional color for mixtapes, they serve a different role than compilations. --Alcuin 17:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that it is said that compilations such as greatest hits albums, are generally not notable, I have to ask why these mixtapes are so notable. -Freekee 00:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My thought too, but then I'm old and used to make mix tapes on reel-to-reel and didn't distribute them--how would you copy them? --Fantailfan 01:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This section wasn't started to solve the notability problem. As said above there are compilations that aren't notable, but still a distinct color exists for them in the infobox. Notability should be considered before creating the article or after by nominating it for deletion. But still we can have a color for them just to inform readers (who aren't editors) that these are mixtapes. And BTW there ARE mixtapes that reached gold status or were listed on prominent music charts. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 22:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will but please let's get back to the color question. The category has grown with 9 more pages in the past 3 days (when I started the discussion)...Is it only me who wants to take the mixtape-phaenomena seriously? Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Side note: Can you please fix your sig? A 200+ character sig multiple times while editing this is a bit over the top, as is a 30+ character sig in the display window. Is a link to Snoop Dogg truly required in your sig? Can you just put "talk"? Since you didn't respond to the request in your talk page, I'm asking here. Just a matter of common courtesy. Thanks. *Sparkhead 01:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • On the topic at hand. It doesn't need its own color. Compilations have a color, remixes have the same color, and this lies somewhere in a similar realm, per Mixtapes#Mix_tapes_in_hip_hop. You seem to be using that definition, which is a genre specific one, unlike every category that exists today. If you can show that there are substantial releases in this category that span genres beyond hip hop and rap, I could see giving it a category label that would still match the compilation/remix color. But I see zero reason to give such a specific category of release its own color. *Sparkhead 01:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, except that I don't think it has anything to do with genre. Mixtapes are compilations of songs. Someone thought the songs would sound good together, or would sell record, so they collected them and put them out. To be fair, there are newly created songs on them, but they're still collected from various sources. The "compilation" color fits well. I don't think the "compilation" label fits well, however. Until someone adds "mixtape" to the list of types, I suggest using "other compilations". -Freekee 02:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox album types idea

I had an idea for the type in the infobox. What if they type was used just for the general kind of album it is, such as Album, Compilation album or Live album, but that was only used to determine the color, and the Longtype was displayed so it could be more specific, such as Double album, Greatest Hits, or Split album. Here's an example of how it would work: 


{{User:Joltman/Test
| Name        = The Wall 
| Type        = Album 
| Longtype = [[Double album]] 
| Artist      = [[Pink Floyd]] 
| Cover       = PinkfloydThewallcover.jpg
}}

This way, we wouldn't have to have a whole bunch of possibilities for the color chooser, only certain ones, and then the longtype would be used to be more specific. And if the longtype isn't assigned, have it default to the type given, like this: 


{{User:Joltman/Test <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
| Name        = The Wall 
| Type        = Album 
| Artist      = [[Pink Floyd]] 
| Cover       = PinkfloydThewallcover.jpg
}}

Opinions? Joltman 13:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC) A couple more things I wanted to note about it, one, the longtype would be optional, and would be listed under 'advanced usage' on the project page here. Also, if this were to go through, we might want to change the name from Longtype to something else so it doesn't break what's out there now, and leave it like that until we go through the articles. Joltman 13:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe, but I don't like the idea of reducing the categories in the type field. For example, you could have a live double album, a studio double album, a soundtrack double album, etc. So type would still be the base type. Longtype could be things like "double album", "rerelease", "picturedisc", "concept album", etc. but would not be a freeform field. *Sparkhead 15:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto. We're in the business of carving data into manageable slices. They should be limited (LP no, Vinyl no; but Live/Studio yes), that is really be thought out for Album type and longtype. Now if we could only do the same for Genres.... --Fantailfan 16:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I'm following you Sparkhead. I understand there could be a live, studio, or soundtrack double album, but in those cases the type would be live album, album, or soundtrack respectivly and longtype would be live double album, double album, or soundtrack double album. Is there something I'm not understanding? Joltman 16:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the three examples I gave, type field would be "Live Album", "Studio Album" and "Soundtrack" respectively. But the longtype field (which I think could be named 'subtype') would be "Double" or "Double Album" in all three cases. I believe that's the original proposal, and if not, that's my take on it. *Sparkhead 20:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see what you mean now. In my proposal, I meant that longtype could be specifically what kind of album it is. So type would be Album or Live album, but longtype could be Double album or Live double album or Split live double album. Basically, it would be open to whatever you would want to put in there. Joltman 22:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, what I was thinking, is if done carefully, longtype could be used as a prefix and displayed in the infobox. I think it would be good to come up with a list of what values longtype could hold, then work that into how the relationship between it and type would work. *Sparkhead 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like, interesting idea! -- Reaper X 23:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea as well. One thing to note is that there definitely should be a set list of longtypes, especially if we want the longtypes to all link to existing articles. On a random thought, this seems a lot like how it was a month ago... only now we're using type names instead of background colors, and longtype instead of type. o_O ~Gertlex 00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... well, I would like to have the type parameter as a "combo box", with a set of predefined types. I don't like too much freedom, because we end, as Gertlex said, with the problems we tried to solve with the new implementation. -- ReyBrujo 02:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Can we limit it to a set of prefixes? Such as "double" or "picture disc" for studio or live albums, and "live" or compilation" for EPs, or something like that? And "mixtape" for compilations. Or even just an expanded list of types, that stick to the basic colors we already decided upon. -Freekee 02:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could "mixtape" just be a type, not a longtype? For that matter, could "DJ mix"? –Unint 05:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm very confused "longtype" is already displayed as you suggest. I've used it to fix some of the "bad infobox" members without losing data. Rich Farmbrough, 12:30 8 October 2006 (GMT).
Incidentally, there are some overall orthogonal types which may be of interest to a reader, which have become conflated in the past. I would list as possibilities:
  • Genre (rock, pop, classic,...)
  • Length (single, E.P., album,...)
  • Multiplicity (single, double, ...)
  • Presentation (unlabelled, standard, boxed, de-luxe, special....)
  • Issue method (commercial, demo, promo, coverdisk, special offer, prize...)
  • Media (Wax cylinder, record, 8-track ....)
for starters. Rich Farmbrough, 12:37 8 October 2006 (GMT).
Longtype has been added as a suffix (not prefix) to Type. Not sure what you mean by orthogonality as it pertains to Type as we already have Genre and Length (and most of Presentation) as separate fields. Not sure if I agree that this extra information cannot be part of the article itself. --Fantailfan 13:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of don't much mind whhich bits are ruled in and out of the infobox, I just know that there is currently some confusion in the data. I would leave it to you experts to decide what is in and out. Rich Farmbrough, 16:50 9 October 2006 (GMT).
Restricting genres to a modest list of predefined genres would be marvellous. The subdivision of genres in current music is just ridiculous and has the net result of informing nobody who isn't up to date on the latest romo-metal-grindcore or whatever the current name for "heavy metal" is :) Keep the genres simple would be my stance. --kingboyk 13:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've flailed at this particular pet peeve before. In my book (for the period I cover), there is
  • Rock
  • Rhythm & Blues
  • Rockabilly
  • Soul
  • Progressive (probably)
  • Metal
  • Glam (maybe)
  • Funk
  • Disco
  • Punk
  • Electronic
  • Rap
  • New Wave
  • Alternative (maybe)
but I get nowhere when I try to remove genres that aren't here - they just get reverted.
My what is it list:
  • Proto-punk
  • Post-punk
  • Alternative (before 1989)
  • Anything -core (except Hardcore Punk)
  • Indie
  • Christian Death Metal (I'm kidding)
--Fantailfan 01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, All Music Guide has a list of genres which can be found on single page; each link has an extensive list of subgenres. Perhaps that will help. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially, I just noticed that Smackbot is going around linking the "Album" in the Type field. I thought the implementation had de-necessitated wikifying the Type text? (Every other argument for Type seems to automatically wikify... except for "Album" itself.) –Unint 05:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this run is complete. However if the project wants changes made across the album article space (e.g. delinking tpye=album, let me know, and I (or SmackBot) will do my best to oblige. Rich Farmbrough, 16:50 9 October 2006 (GMT).

Greatest Hits

How much can albums on the Greatest Hits page vary from the exact title Greatest Hits? I am wondering about adding albums such as Greatest Hits: My Prerogative by Britney Spears and Greatest Hits: 30 Years of Rock by George Thorogood & The Destroyers — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 15:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No variation at all preferably. It's a disambiguation page, not a list... meaning it's there only to aid navigation not to be comprehensive. --kingboyk 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are against these additions. It also seems that several bands have Greatest Hits albums followed by Greatest Hits, Volume 2 or Volume II. I think volume appendages should be O.K. Also, a few bands have Greatest Hits: year1-year2. I think these are O.K. to include. However, other than volume or year I think anything else other than the band's name should cause it to be excluded. Do you agree?TonyTheTiger 18:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily against it, just use your discretion based on what I've told you about the purpose of dab pages :) If you think that an editor would accidentally link to the Greatest Hits page, when they meant to link to the album pages you're working on, or a reader is likely to type in "Greatest Hits" when they actually want your article, that's a perfect dab candidate and should be on the dab page. All other entries should not be on the dab page, as it's there for navigational help not to serve as a list. --kingboyk 19:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a set of rules on the discussion page for Greatest Hits. I await feedback and direction.TonyTheTiger 15:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acts in Need of Discographication

I was wondering if there is a list of acts who have web pages in need of being wikified? I was looking at the Gap Band and thinking that for a band with 4 consecutive platinum albums their web page could use some discographication work. We should start such a list if it does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're gonna add discography sections to band articles, I recommend checking out that artist's pages on the other wikipedias, often they already have discographies, and they're easy to translate to English. Cheers. --Alcuin 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about creating Category:Band articles in need of discographies, for the talk pages? -Freekee 04:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i like this idea. it seems a neat way of targetting a fairly crucial area of bands' pages that can often be lacking. -W guice 10:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I was thinking. I think we should start such a category.TonyTheTiger 18:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I just created Category:Band articles in need of discographies and Category:Singer articles in need of discographies. TonyTheTiger 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to categorise the talk pages really, not the articles. It also needs a template - either a standalone template or perhaps as a parameter in {{WPBiography}} (which now applies to all musicians including musical groups, under the remit of WP Musicians). --kingboyk 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: talk pages only. The category is an aid to editors, not readers. And I wonder if it should be "performers", or "artists", instead of "singers". -Freekee 23:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could combine singers and bands to Category:Musician articles in need of discographies, but using "performers" or "artists" only welcomes confusion and encourages acceptance of corporate-speak. -Acjelen 00:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa, i added one to an artist's article page by mistake. Put it down to a brain bubble or something. -W guice 11:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a category is empty (in this case, all articles discographized), doesn't the category get deleted? Can this be avoided? -Freekee 03:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just created Category:Musician articles in need of discographies. This will have to do until someone creates a template. How do you delete categories Category:Band articles in need of discographies and Category:Singer articles in need of discographies? TonyTheTiger 19:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am not sure I agree with the discussion of adding this category to talk pages only. Also, I don't know how to add categories to disccussion pages. They have all been added to the article pages so far.TonyTheTiger 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, these categories are intended to help editors find the articles and expand them. That's not something that readers need to see, and shouldn't be cluttering up the articlespace. To add the cats to the discussion pages, simply go to them, edit them, and put in the category just like you did on the article pages. -Freekee 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I have created pages, I have always had people come by and put big obnoxious templates at the top saying to reedit for NPOV, notability, or Quality on the main article page. This seems to be a similar instruction that a page is in need of improvements.TonyTheTiger 14:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those templates alert the reader that some part of he article may not be up to proper standards. I don't think that missing information is a problem that needs a warning label, nor do I think that readers need to find more of such articles. -Freekee 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I was confused because most talk page categories appear without using the standard category syntax. It seems they come from the biography templates or something. By the way, is there a way to incorporate this in with the Musicians work group articles category? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) .

Update: someone just created the Category:Musicians work group articles needing discographies. I changed all my links to direct there. I will be following the WikiProject Musicians procedures going forward on this topic. Thanks for your help and suggestions though guys and gals. TonyTheTiger 19:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gramophone record

Gramophone record is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Box Sets

Just wrote up the Tortoise box set. It seem that if (in the infobox "Album type" field) you try to bypass the redirect page at Box set by piping it to Boxed set (where the article is) it misses the darkseagreen and defaults to an "Unknown album" peachpuff. It's a minor quibble, obviously, but i'm always on a bit of a hunt to avoid redirecting excessively. Is there a way round this? Cheers -W guice 11:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in the request for move. Couldn't do it direct due to edits in the redir's talk page. *Sparkhead 12:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, that's what i thought might happen. "Box set" seems to be the more common/obvious term to me, too, and it's the one that triggers the correct infobox colour which is obviously a bonus, but i didn't know what the history was or whether there was a specific reason for it to be under "Boxed". Cheers -W guice 12:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artist templates

Has anyone ever proposed adding 3 lines to artist templates: 1. Grammy (wins/noms) 2. Singles (#1's/top 10/charting) 3. Albums (#1's/top 10/charting)TonyTheTiger 19:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there should be some symbol denoting Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame Membership. TonyTheTiger 19:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different Project - this is Albums. --Fantailfan 03:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as for albums, is there a version of the template which supports these fields:

  • Location (mixing)
  • Engineer
  • Mixer
  • Mastering
  • Sleeve designer

The infobox has fields for recorded (which I use for "recording studio") and producer, but there's a lot of personnel and venue data on the sleeve of The White Room which doesn't currently fix into the standard box. --kingboyk 12:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we already have the candidate for the "most likely to run off the first screen" infobox on our hands. What use has an infobox if not to condense information? –Unint 05:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get Back

Get Back is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Layla

Layla is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with !!! (album)

Could someone please have a look at it? !!! (album)... The infobox is messed up as the ! is a table separator and the chronology part uses the article name. In the infobox, I've changed !!! to <nowiki>!!!</nowiki>, but still broken. NCurse work 08:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also happens with all albums by !!!, because of the "!!! chronology" section. 80.41.197.117 08:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! :) Just had to replace the artist variable with the html special characters for it, and ! is '&#33;'. So instead of [[!!!]] put [[&#33;&#33;&#33;]] Joltman 12:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good skillz! -W guice 13:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with the earlier part of the infobox, though. "Album by !!!" has no problems, so there must be (may be) a simpler solution. Rich Farmbrough, 16:43 9 October 2006 (GMT).

Confused about Categories

When adding a category for album artists, i.e. Category:Anita Baker albums to a specific genre i.e. Category:Smooth jazz albums, I'm confused on whether to pipe link the names or not, like last-name-first/first-name-last, or just add the genre without pipelinking? Would she go under 'A' for Anita or 'B' for Baker? I've noticed there is not really any continuity here for all genres.... Cricket02 13:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major label debut - does a re-release count?

I was cleaning up CKY's album articles, and came to a question. Their first album was originally released on an independent label, and later re-released on a major label. Their second album was the first to be intially released on a major label. So would their second album count as a major label debut, or would their be no major label debut since the first album was already re-released on a major label? Joltman 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the album that they release with the new label is the MLD. With Sonic Youth I believe DGC bought the whole back catalog because they had been on so many labels prior to their MLD. --Fantailfan 15:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Patrol is an interesting comparison to this. Their major-label debut was Final Straw, but A&M recently reissued Songs for Polarbears and their second album. Their major label debut is most certainly Final Straw, I think it would be wrong to consider their reissued album a "major label debut." --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since the re-release of the catalog will be at least partially based on the success of the group's initial release with the major label. -Acjelen 16:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me (I could be mistaken) that in those two cases, the re-issue of the earlier album was released after the 'major label debut'. But with CKY, their first album was re-issed by the Island Records before their second album came out. Just wanted to mention that, didn't know if it would change any opinions. Joltman 16:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tough one. Volume 1 was released by Island prior to their release of Infiltrate•Destroy•Rebuild. However, IDR was released when the band was under contract, while Vol 1 was a reissue. My opinion is that you have three choices, none of which are invalid. If it were my choice, I wouldn't mention it. -Freekee 03:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ratings

We have a discussion on a Peter Hammill album talk page Talk:PH7 (Peter Hammill album) and I'd like to take it here.

As a minimal consense I can second the opinion expressed above: "It's to report what the verifiable, reputable sources say - and that is indeed the likes of Rolling Stone and NME".

I don't insist in keeping the Progarchives links, but I highly doubt AMG belongs to these "verifiable sources". Many of the reviews I read there are short and they express very personal opinions. Amazon.co.uk and Progarchives have personal opinions too but they have more and often longer reviews.

I concede the look of AMG is more serious and it has useful information on single songs of an album. On the other hand it is an obviously commercial site as the many shopping cards show.--Peter Eisenburger 18:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep the AMG's, as there are on nearly all infoboxes for albums[citation needed]. hehe. They are biased at times, but no more then Rolling Stone magazine. I usually frown upon some questionable review sites, but I think it's good to have more then AMG on all pages. There should always be more then one review to keep it vaguely unbiased. Andrzejbanas 18:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews are supposed to express personal opinions. If they dealt only in facts they'd be utterly pointless. W guice 20:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course reviews are personal opinions. But the point was raised here and on the quoted Talk page by several posters that "AMG has it all" and "they are professional" and music press is "verifiable", "repuntable" while "user" reviews are "inconsistant" and so on.
It is even said, "Amazon stars don't meet our criteria" (maybe Progarchives stars neither), though they may derive from dozens of reviews in some cases, but the one rating in stars from AMG from one reviewer w/o any proven qualifikation does meet criteria. Come on. --Peter Eisenburger 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

other album types not in infobox

It appears to me, by going through the albums that are showing up as peachpuff, that there are a few remaining distinct types unaccounted for by the infobox. These probably deserve their own color due to being conceptually different than the other types (indeed, though they typically use the album infobox, all but one technically aren't albums). They are:

  • Christmas album
  • Mixtape (these are usually rap/hiphop)
  • Music video (usually shows up in infobox as DVD or VHS)
  • Demo/Demo tape (usually recorded by a band to secure a record deal; are typically unreleased)
  • Bootleg

I'll go ahead and add these to the infobox soon pending feedback from others. --Alcuin 22:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


X-mas albums seem like a special case of compilation or studio album to me. Strong agree on music videos. I don't bootlegs and demos belong on WP, generally speaking, except in some special cases; in such case bootlegs can be put under live album or studio album or whatever is appropriate, with possibly a longtype set to "(bootleg)". Demos are just studio albums or EPs. Nota that also many singles use the album infobox Spearhead 22:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(double edit conflict) The idea is to minimize the amount of types. Personally, I see no difference between a Christmas album and an album. I am not sure if Bootlegs are shown in Wikipedia, I remember at least three Nightwish bootlegs that were sent to AFD because they were non notable. The same could be said about demos. -- ReyBrujo 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck picking colours! - 156.34.223.67 22:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about bootlegs, I like the idea of putting (bootleg) in the longtype field. Another type I didn't mention above that I've come across is split albums. I guess longtype can be used for those, too. --Alcuin 00:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm repeating myself from further up the page, but I've been suggesting that DJ mix be added as an argument for darkseagreen.
As for videos, I should note that {{Infobox music DVD}} is still kicking around. It has some specialized fields and a different "No cover" image as well. –Unint 02:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I think Music Videos usually are made into a single page arent they? (In other words, it would be the concern of Wikiproject Songs, and {{Infobox single}} would be used) But I think mixtapes, demos and possibly bootlegs should fall under another category eh? The public just doesnt have the same kind of access (bootlegs are just damn near impossible to find in alot of cases, mixtapes and demos are generally not for sale). I would like to see these three under a new category with a new colour. -- Reaper X 02:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Videos, in this context, refer to longform videos, and are almost always either collections of music videos (compilations) or are concert films (live). If it is a single song video, then it should be considered as a single. Mix tapes are compilations. I wouldn't be opposed to a new type for them, but they should show as green. Most Christmas albums should be called cover albums (except for the ones that are mostly original material). I don't think they need an infobox type - explain it in the text. Bootlegs are almost always live recordings. I don't have an opinion at this time about demos. -Freekee 04:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinions Christmas album - not necessary, can be either album or compilation; Mixtape is a form of compilation, but you should see Mixtape in the infobox; Music video I'm not sure on, either incorporate it into album infobox or maybe its own would be better; Demo I think should have its own color/type; and bootleg should just be album or live album. Joltman 12:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live EPs

Where would Live EPs fit, as EP or Live album. Spearhead 22:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on context, I think in most cases I would use EP --Alcuin 04:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the more interesting and pertinent fact is usually that a record is an EP. -Freekee 04:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always put it as live, seeing as how our project page says "Live albums and live EPs" for burlywood. Joltman 12:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there enough Live EP to justify inclusion in the infobox as type? -- ReyBrujo 12:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a thought about this, I'm sure others won't agree, but I'll put it out there anyway. Should there be a type specifically for live EP which is a different shade of brown? It just seems kind of weird for studio EP and studio album to have different colors, but then live EP and live album would be the same (or for the live EP to just have the EP color). Joltman 12:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have an article about Live EP, thus it is not noteworthy enough. I suggest merging it with Album or Live. -- ReyBrujo 12:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox conversions

I recently went through all the articles that link to album (music), found here and replaced any remaining instances of piped links to [album (music)] (there were lots). All except for category and image pages, and those pages that use a non-standard album or song infobox. Thus, if anyone's interested in replacing old album infoboxes with the template infobox, that's a good place to find them. I'll be going through and converting those over time, but I'd certainly welcome help. Cheers, Alcuin 04:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't a bot be setup to do that kind of stuff? Joltman 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm hoping --Alcuin 13:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official list of accepted types and how to handle non-standard types

From the discussion about, I thought it was time that we settled this. I think we should have a list of accepted types, and decide how we want to handle modifications of those accepted types. First, the types. I think this is what we should have:

Accepted type Color Link
Album lightsteelblue Album
EP burlywood EP
Live album burlywood Live album
Compilation album darkseagreen Compilation album
Cover album thistle Cover album
Tribute album thistle Tribute album
Soundtrack gainsboro Soundtrack
Film score gainsboro Film score

I think that should be it, only the basics. And for other types, I like the idea of what Spearhead said above, about putting (Bootleg) in the longtype. So we could have stuff like type=Album longtype=(Split) which would appear as Album (Split) in the infobox. The same would be for Compilation album (Greatest hits) and others. Feel free to tell me how right or wrong I am :) Joltman 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how many Live EP we have? I believe they are not that many to justify its own type. -- ReyBrujo 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Live EP one. As said somewhere above, the idea is to remove, not add. Show me at least 10-15 albums that are Live EP and we can begin looking for consensus. Adding them without verifying first will make others add their own types without looking for consensus. -- ReyBrujo 15:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's not a big deal. I just thought that since it was listed in the project page it was enough to go here. It could just get listed as type=EP and longtype=(Live), that would be fine with me. So, with that out of the way, what are your thoughts on my proposal? Joltman 16:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few off the top of my head: Pete Yorn's Live at the Roxy, R.E.M.'s Not Bad for No Tour, Turin Brakes' NapsterLive, Toad the Wet Sprocket's Acoustic Dance Party and Five Live, Ann McCue's Live: Ballad of an Outlaw Woman. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have already suggested that we need to review every album in Category:Non-standard album infoboxes, to see which types are being used, and if some is used a lot, we may consider it as an extra parameter. The same way there is a limited amout of fair use template to tag an image with, we should keep the types with as few as possible. I would like to write a small tool to generate albums (much like the Requests for adminship or Editor Review one, where you specify the RFA or ER page and get a generated page with the template). However, I don't think it can be flexible enough to allow combo selection. I have no problem with adding a type that is often used, but we need to discover them first.
As for the longtype, that parameter was thought to be an "expanded description", not a type complement. In example, it was thought for "Soundtrack to ZZZ movie by Madonna", where Soundtrack is the standard type, to ZZZ movie was the longtype, and Madonna the artist. Now, let's suppose you are right, and Live EP is pretty well used, but we don't know that because we haven't yet surveyed the category. So, we begin tagging these live ep as EP, with longtype optional. When we discover the Live EP is needed, we will have to review all the EP's in order to determine which ones should be categorized anew.
I don't program bots, but I can create one running from my home computer with a delay (which should not even be necessary as my internet connection is pretty slow), to retrieve the export information from every album in that category, and then process it with some magic like perl or grep/sed/awk) to get a list of types. Or it can be done with AWB (I think) but I am not a user myself of that program. -- ReyBrujo 16:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: it would not be technically a bot, as it would not edit, just retrieve the less than 1,000 articles in the category. -- ReyBrujo 16:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the main change here is changing all subtypes of "compilation album" into longtypes. My only concern with that is that it would probably cause the field to overflow to two lines or more for every compilation album with a subtype, since "compilation album" is already the longest string in the table. Example:
Untitled
So even before artist name is displayed, the first line is already filled.
One other thing: the current configuration for soundtracks doesn't allow linking to the more specific article film soundtrack. There's also computer and video game music, and there are quite a number of such articles out there as well. Finally, there are cast recordings, but that would probably only deserve a longtype since Category:Cast recordings has exactly three articles right now (not counting any albums merged with their musical's main articles). –Unint 16:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about the compilation longtype thing, running over too, but is that necesarrily a bad thing to go to a second line? And as for the different soundtracks, couldn't the longtype just be, for example, [[computer and video game music|Video game]] so it would look like Soundtrack (Video game).
For the record, I was just throwing this out there because this is stuff we really need to figure out. I'm not saying what I'm suggesting is the best, I'm just putting it out there as a possiblity. If anyone has different ideas on how to handle them, please let us know. Joltman 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longtype

What is Longtype? Thank you so much for anyone's kind help! – Alakey2010 12 October 2006, 04:55pm (CDT)

It is a special parameter that is inserted between the album name and the artist name in the infobox description. In example, a type of Soundtrack and an artist of Madonna will show Soundtrack by Madonna in the infobox just below the image. If you add a longtype of for XYZ film, it will show Soundtrack for XYZ film by Madonna. It is optional, and was originally thought for soundtracks only. -- ReyBrujo 22:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox instructions

I just updated/clarified the instructions and guidelines for infoboxes on the project page. Feel free to take a look and make sure everything still makes sense. -Freekee 05:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template flag.

Is there a tag which can be applied to articles using the old album infobox template? There are several songs from Trey Anastasio's Shine which need tending to. Examples include Shine, Spin, and Air Said to Me. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 23:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is because people substituted the templates. I am trying to find a way of not allowing substitution (in example, when you use subst:infobox album, it will also add a warning that you should not substitute it. Unluckily, I don't know of any tag (unless a deprecated one, but we can't use it as the templates have been substituted. The only way to fix those is by doing it by hand. -- ReyBrujo 00:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you absolutely sure that a bot will be inappropriate for such a task? Me surmises that it could take a while to manually implement such a change. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that. I meant that, if you find an article with the substituted infobox, you should replace it with an infobox. A bot may get confused as people may have substituted different versions of infoboxes. I guess it would be useful for a bot to check every album and add the ones that do not have a reference to the template into a list. However, I don't know about bots, don't want to begin programming them, and don't know anyone willing to write one. -- ReyBrujo 01:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As always, thanks for the feedback. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 03:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There does exist a tag, {needsinfoboxconv}. Maybe I should go through and tag all the albums i've found that need conversion. There's a bunch here. Also, most Loverboy, Kool and the Gang, KC and the Sunshine Band and Huey Lewis and the News albums need conversion. I've been slowly going through and converting some. Personally, I find it less tedious to just replace the infobox than to tag the albums. Cheers. --Alcuin 03:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the tag could be used as a flag for a bot who would implement the changes? Just a thought. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 05:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine with me, know anyone who runs a bot? --Alcuin 05:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'll take a look. Rich Farmbrough, 15:38 29 October 2006 (GMT).

Issue with album cover template

I've raised an issue on the album cover template used on images of album covers. The tag is currently in use for many things that aren't music, and I'm wondering whether it'd be better to change the current template to suit all audio covers, or get together a new one for the non-musical stuff. I'd like to get a discussion going and see what people think before requesting an admin to edit the existing template, so please join the discussion here on the template's talk page, and add your thoughts! Rob T Firefly 10:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see why the album cover template should be reserved for musical albums? The template should be able to cover any type of album cover. -Acjelen 20:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me, album=33 1/3rpm, 7" or 12" record album, OR digital 5" compact audio disc. What else could it be? --Puzzled in Boston (aka Fantailfan 21:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The template has now been changed by an admin to read "audio recording," rather than "music album." Now it fits all the non-musical albums out there. Thanks for your input! Rob T Firefly 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some help?

I'm not apart of your WikiProject, but I'm currently working on the Big Shiny Tunes article. I only own two albums in this series, and if anybody has any more info on it that they could share, that would be great. ---SilentRAGE! 03:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm a member now. Just spreadin' awareness of this article. Tell me what you think. ---SilentRAGE! 06:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Needs album infobox conversion

Title says it all, there are a fair few of these, if anyone's looking for sonething useful to do. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52 16 October 2006 (GMT).

I will try to fix some. A pity there is no such category for songs or singles. I will focus on album infoboxes. By the way, I could not yet find a way of making the infobox insert something when you substitute it. -- ReyBrujo 00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been putting songs and singles needing conversion there too, as well as entire categories. Hope that doesn't bother anyone. --Alcuin 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed maybe 20 albums yesterday, may work another 10-15 today (not as much free time). I just skip the singles and songs for now. -- ReyBrujo 16:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extra album cover 2

Is there any chance of adding support for type=single in Template:Extra album cover 2? There is at least one article for a single ("Windowlicker") using the EAC template. --taestell 02:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the default color is the single color. So, as I did in that article, just don't include the type argument and you'll get the right color. Joltman 12:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albums released under multiple labels?

If an album has been released under multiple labels (as is the case with Astral Projection albums), what should Label in the infobox say? Each of the labels, the first one only or something else?

I put in all labels, separated by newlines, on Another World (Astral Projection album) since the releases differ slightly, and now I'm pondering whether I should do the same on the other Astral Projection album pages. Shurique 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The project page officially says that only the label the album was originall released on should be in the infobox. Joltman 12:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I seem to have missed that. Sorry :) Shurique 08:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although, if you want a suggestion for how to do it if you're going to list multiple labels, I'd say list them in order of release. ~Gertlex 20:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Additional terms for Advanced Usage

I propose additional terms such as, "Copyright" and "Release #". Copyright comes into play when the release date and record date are not the same as the copyright that is held, and release # is used often by solo artists as well as OST albums for authentication purposes. Anyone else have any others that should be proposed? (By the way, can someone tell me who is able and how they add these to the template? Is it programmed or a simple Wiki edit?) --Notmyhandle 06:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're proposing here. Are you saying the Copyright would be the year of copyright on the album since it may be different than the release date? And would release number be the label's catalog number, or something else?
You are right about both, though catalog number might be a better title.--Notmyhandle 01:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an album's copyright date be important? -W guice 02:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is of course an optional term. Second, the copyright date of a product determines when it can be re-released. Third, copyright determines who actually owns the product and when they took claim of it, creating a historical record. In relation to release date and recorded date, copyright can be redundant but should be important to the general public, unless we want to deny or withold information regarding the rights and claims of individuals and organizations. Somewhat unrelated, copyright in terms of "cassette tapes, CDs, LPs, 45 r.p.m. disks, as well as other formats" under U.S. law is referred to as phonorecords, and should be accounted for in the manner as stated by the U.S. government at copyright.gov; we should, if implemented, try and follow this guide where (P) is concerned. --Notmyhandle 07:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow why it's so important to show the copyright date. I think it's important to give the recording date, because that gives the music a historical context for the music itself, and the release date establishes an albums entry into the public's awareness. What would the situation be, where a differing the copyright date was notable? And I don't think catalog number is terribly important, either. -Freekee 14:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the real question then is of importance. I feel that they aren't necessary, but complimentary to Wikipedia in allowing more information to be collected in one place. Placing them in the advanced term category allows people to add the information, without being forced to apply it. --Notmyhandle 18:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see any point at all in including the copyright date. To me, that's a formalty of the publishing business. All I care about is when it was recorded and when it was released. But please tell me why *you* find it interesting. Oh, I see where you said, copyright determines who actually owns the product and when they took claim of it, creating a historical record. Hmm. I think if that were intersting or important, it would best belong in the text. Like explaining who owns the Beach Boys catalog, or something like that. -Freekee 02:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album types

I tried above to figure out how we are going to do this, but nothing came out of it. So, since we are still using the same thing, I wanted to propose Split album as an official type, with lightsteelblue color. There was also talk above about adding Mixtape as darkseagreen.

Additionally, I've been thinking, is Double album really appropriate? I mean, Double album doesn't apply to the album in general, just to one or more specific media that it was released on. For example, if an album was released as a double on vinyl, but a single CD, Double album only applies to the vinyl release, so I don't think it's really appropriate to list it in the infobox.

Anyway, just my thoughts, feel free to say what you think of my proposals or add your own. Joltman 16:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I still think greater differentiation between the various types of compilation albums would be more practical. I do wish I weren't the only one voicing opinions on this, though. –Unint 02:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Double Album" is necessary. I also think "Live EP" should be a type, since it's important to list EP as the form, and live EPs are supposed to be listed using the live category. And they should probably have a "Compilation EP" type as well. I'd support a "Mixtape" type.
The Split as an type makes sense, since on those records, both artists are shown, but it could be interpreted as a collaboration (both artists performing in the same songs). Unfortunately, that would lock the color. It seems to me that studio, live, or EP are more pertinent informations to determine color by, but I don't think three different types are necessary. So how about adding a longtype kind of field before the type, where you could fill in the word "split"? Would this open the infobox up to too many abuses? -Freekee 14:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was suggested above, that the Live EP isn't notable enough to have its own type. I don't think that calling it a Live Album seems appropriate, and it seems important to me to call it a live EP in the infobox. In this case, the longtype kind of field before the album category would work to include the word "live" before "EP".
Or (as was suggested above) we can use the longtype field for all these things, by filling in the word in parentheses. Like Live album (EP), compiilation album (mixtape), Original studio album (split), EP (split). -Freekee 15:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think a prefix longtype field would be useful. --Alcuin 03:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I want my contributions peer-reviewed...

If I want album pages peer-reviewed by people such as yourselves, where should I post them? Is there somewhere specific, do I just do it going by standard peer-review protocol, or is this the place to do it? By the way - the albums are Somewhere Along the Highway and Oceanic. Seegoon 19:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All peer reviews are done at the peer review page, but you can direct people to it by posting a note here. –Unint 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debut. Sophomore.

I am getting increasingly irritated by seeing these words when there are perfectly usable and understandable alternatives - first and second. It seems to me to show a lack of originality - using in-words for the cognoscenti that wouldn't be tolerated in another field. Imagine the Sophomore World War, or Roosevelt's debut administration. Can we leave these words where they belong and not use them as an oh-so-clever bit of jargon? Emeraude 21:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think i will be continuing to use "debut" as it is completely appropriate within the context. Personally i don't use "sophomore" because i'm not American and it feels slightly false, but that's obviously more a cultural thing. Fortunately we don't write about political administrations or conflicts at the albums project, and therefore don't have to worry that the terms sound jarring when applied to those things. Originality doesn't come into it - there is a small range of stock ways of including a detail like Album Number that would all ultimately reveal a "lack of originality" if subjected to that level of scrutiny. Fortunately we aren't having a neologism contest but just presenting the information clearly, and i think this goal is served by either way. And how on earth can "debut" be jargon, by any stretch of the imagination? W guice 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Debut" within the context is used as jargon. I confess, it is 'sophomore' that really gets my goat. Emeraude 11:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un(der)categorised albums

I notice there's quite a few album stubs lacking by-genre and/or by-year categories, whether or not they have other categories (besides the stub cat, obviously). Would this project find it useful to have a list of these uploaded somewhere? Alternatively, I could use the same data to populate "year of release missing" and "genre missing" categories (subcats of Category:Uncategorised albums, perhaps), though that would require some coding, bot approval, and numerous additional edits. There's also the issue of the use of very broad genre categories like "rock", but one step at a time, perhaps... Alai 03:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most album articles will not have by-genre categories. The project's intention is to have albums-by-artist categories be subcat's of by-genre categories instead of having the album article itself be a page of that category. -Acjelen 18:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most artists aren't going to have their own categories, realistically, so I'm not at all sure the above is true -- or at any rate, it shouldn't be true, in the long run; it may be true by omission at present. In any case, I could produce the "genre" list on the basis of album articles having neither an "artist" category, nor a (if the artist cats are themselves consistently categorised, that is). My real thrust is: is anyone working on album categorisation, or interested in doing so, and if they are, in what form would the above information be of use? Alai 21:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all artists are supposed to have their own category. This is the course of action for even artists with only one release. To me it seems entirely sensible to stick with that system and putting by-genre cats in the by-artist cat as per Acjelen and current practice. W guice 08:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll believe it when I see it, to be frank, and certainly to describe it as "current practice" is not in line with facts on the ground. However, this is all by the by: the point is, is anyone the least bit interested in addressing the numerous stubby articles lacking either? Alai 01:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone find it useful to have a list of albums that are missing any of the three recommended categories? I'm sure someone would find that useful. But can it be done automatically somehow? Adding by artist and by year categories is almost as easy as adding a stub tag. I'd rather people just added the cats than added a categorization tag. -Freekee 05:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template trouble

I just set up an infobox for a new article, and the Chronology wouldn't show up. It was an artist with only one record, so I left the last and next fields blank, but the chron didn't show. I put an ellipsis in one of the fields and it was fine. Does anyone know why that is, and can it be fixed, or do we always have to put something in the fields? -Freekee 23:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To show the information, either the Next or Previous release must be present I think. You could bypass that by adding "n/a" to the previous chronology link, at least until he/she releases a new record. -- ReyBrujo 23:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put in an & nbsp. *shrug* Thanks. -Freekee 04:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an intentional behaviour of the template. I don't see a point of displaying the chronology in case of an artist with only one record. Jogers (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. That's different. -Freekee 16:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology for artist with only one record

What does everybody think about including the chronology box in the infobox, if an artist only has one album? What if they only have one album so far? Should the chronology always be shown? Only shown if the artist has more than one album? Only shown if the artist has only one album and could possibly release another (meaning still living)? -Freekee 16:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always put it, just so it's clear. doesn't hurt anything and doesn't look awkward. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is only one album released by an artist the chronology serves no useful purpose. I find repeating the information which is already available in the infobox superfluous. Jogers (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean repeating the name and date of the album? I think that showing that there is no previous or following album is useful. That something that may or may not be mentioned int he text of the article. -Freekee 16:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really our job to anticipate the possibility of follow-up releases by anyone. Takes the burden of proof off our shoulders, which is always good. –Unint 16:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, trying to look too far ahead means you get articles with titles like Tori Amos' 2007 studio album. I try to not encourage anything like that. –Unint 16:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Freekee above that it is good to indicate in the infobox that there is no previous and following album. The capability is there, it allows album articles to have a standard appearance, and every musician or band will have a first album (Little Earthquakes) and a last album (Anodyne (album)), even if it's the same one. -Acjelen 22:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having no chronology at all can indicate that there is no previous or following album as well. I think that saying that an album is the only one by a particular artist in the body of an article is far more straightforward. Jogers (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the infobox is to show all the main facts at a glance. Showing that an artist has no other albums by having a nearly blank chronology is very straightforward. But what's the drawback to showing it like that? Too many column inches used? You mentioned superfluousness. The only information in the infobox that is never given elsewhere in the article is the album cover . Just about everthing else is usually given in the text - especially, title, artist, producer. Even genre, length, recorded and label are sometimes given. I don't think we should avoid mentioning items in the text, just because they've been shown in the infobox. -Freekee 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the single or album infobox for a non-radio single

Some bands, particularly indie/punk, release 7" singles without any plan for it to get on the radio. For example, "Cough/Cool" by The Misfits. Would the appropriate infobox for this be the single or album one? Because the single infobox to me seems to be about singles that are released to radio and such, vs a single that is released just as a way to put out a couple of songs. My opinion is that the album infobox is the way to go, but what would it get listed as? An EP would seem closest. Joltman 00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded music pre-dates the overwhelming control radio has on popular music, and Wikipedia needs to be able to reflect this. Perhaps the single infobox needs to be altered to be able to handle all kinds of singles, not just those intended for radio play. -Acjelen 01:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how Infobox Single is radio-play specific. It has fields for release formats, and record charts are generally sales-based. –Unint 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improved Template:Infobox Album

Well, nothing serious actually, just:

  • Changing cover size from 200x200 to 250x250px. The reason: gaining more of the template's space, making covers larger, and thus - clearer, for us, the Wikipedians.
  • Changing the existent and pretty obsolete No Cover Available image: (Image:Nocover.png) to: (Image:Nocover.jpg), designed by me.

Example of that done!

I believe it's a pretty necessary improvement for Wikipedia's album-related articles (mostly the 250px expansion). --Aston 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Image:Nocover.png and don't see any reason to change it. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see a reason to remove the "No Cover Available" image completely. It adds nothing to the presentation, it isn't consistent with other infoboxes (which don't include an image if, for example in a person infobox, an image of the person isn't entered), and it isn't consistent with other missing entries in the template. If the Artist or Release field is left blank, there isn't text that states "Unavailable", it just doesn't show up. *Sparkhead 16:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums&oldid=84820147"