Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice/Archive 1

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

Album artwork by

I saw this edit and it doesn't seem to be the correct place for this mention, well it's not (it's not a caption). The infobox template does not show a parameter for the cover artist, is this normally handled in prose ? Just not sure of the MOS on this issue. Thought this would be the correct venue for this query. Also posted here: Talk:Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)#Album artwork by. Thanx Mlpearc (powwow) 16:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Right I agree that this is not an appropriate use of Caption--this has been discussed on WT:ALBUM and the talk page of the template itself as well but never accepted. I'd recommend posting to WT:ALBUM in the future, by the way. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe this is the last discussion dealing with this. No one thought it was a bad idea, but it kind of died on the vine. J04n(talk page) 20:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks J04n, I really don't think it's a bad idea, I guess the avenue I was looking down is, it would be really nice to add the parameter to {{infobox album}}, was my first (maybe second) thought. P.S. you changed the size of your sig, :P didn't reconize you at first . Thank you Justin for the links. Mlpearc (powwow) 22:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds this silly?

That you have to wikilink all musical instruments, including common ones like piano, vocals and guitar. Are these instruments usually wikilinked in article prose? Even if they are, it still seems like a classic case of WP:OVERLINK to me. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Linking To what should one link or not link? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Title stylization

Should album titles that are legitimately stylized (by the label, catalogue, etc.) have their stylization noted in the lead and/or be written in bold, as an editor did here here? Another example would be Channel Orange. Dan56 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitely If an album has unique, non-standard, or otherwise out-of-MOS style (which could, of course be legitimate English), it's worth noting in the lede. E.g. Illinois (album). As far as I'm aware, this is standard practice on other types of articles, so I don't see why albums should be any different. For what it's worth, although this is the perfect venue, WT:ALBUM will have more eyes on any questions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Personnel column divider

The column divider specified in Personnel is Template:Div col, which isnt supported by browsers like Internet Explorer. Could this be rewritten to "If the number of participants is longer than 20, the list should be divided with a column template such as Div col or col-begin." ? Dan56 (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Good thinking Of course. Go for it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS and headers

I have changed the personnel section per WP:ACCESS, which says "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings. If you want to reduce the size of the table of contents (TOC), use {{TOC limit}} instead." We could add a note either pointing to WP:ACCESS or copy the line about using TOC limit and paste it here. Either works for me. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Plot Summaries for Concept Albums

I am not a regular wiki user, so apologies if this is the wrong place/format etc. However, I posted on the page for 'Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of War of the Worlds' suggesting that a plot summary should be added, and a user called Flax5 responded, saying that it was a good idea (which has since been implemented), and highlighting that this page doesn't mention anything about plot summaries for concept albums. I appreciate that this could imply changes to many articles, but I think it makes sense to allow for specialist rules regarding concept and/or experimentational albums. In this instance, plot summaries in concept albums. If it's not a good idea, then that's OK. But I can see how changing things for the better here is addictive. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.96.255 (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely If the album has a strong narrative, then it's entirely appropriate to add a section about its lyrical themes and possibly how they relate to the artwork, genre of the instrumentation, presentation of the material in live performances, etc. Just make sure that it's all sourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to require mention of initial release format in lead section

Like the release date and record label, I think it would be equally as beneficial to the article to also include what format the record was originally released on in the lead section; e.g., if it's an early-'80s album it would most likely have been released on vinyl (most notable albums from this era are likely to have been re-issued on CD or released digitally on the internet, but I argue that this information isn't as important to display here, just like it isn't as important to state subsequent release dates or record labels of said album). I'd also suggest having an infobox parameter (which I've discussed here).

Does anyone else agree? Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Format Your proposal itself seems somewhat self-defeating: as you point out, knowing the release date implies the release format(s). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment – I think it would be good for the Album Article Style Guide to suggest or encourage that the initial release format(s) be mentioned in the lead section. Requiring that it be mentioned is probably not a good idea, for several reasons. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think it's necessary to require such information in the lead. In some cases it may be useful information for the lead (for example, for an album released today, if its initial release was cassette-only, that would be notable and worth mentioning in the lead), so on a article-by-article basis, if consensus agrees that it should be in the lead, that seems reasonable. But for the most part this doesn't seem to be information important enough that it needs to be at the top of the article. I think the infobox entry is completely unnecessary; you have the potential for three (or more!) formats at one time (if an album was simultaneously released on CD/vinyl/iTunes, or on CD/cassette/vinyl, for examples), which would just clutter up the infobox (we just finished removing all reviews from the infobox to reduce its clutter). But I think the best place for this sort of information is a Release history section within the main article. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Number 1 or No. 1?

This page doesn't clarify which use is more accepted in terms of chart position for an album. I remember discussions on this somewhere, but now I can't find them. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Singles chart tables

I don't know if this has been discussed before or not, but lately I've seen album articles with additional chart tables for an album's singles, which already have their own articles, such as with this revision. The tables are often copy-pasted from the artist's discography article. Should this be avoided? It seems like undue weight and content forking, especially when the singles have their own articles and the information is found again at the discography articles. MOS:ALBUM#Charts doesn't directly address this. Dan56 (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Number 1 or #1 - Discussion

Pursuant to the discussion here, a question has been brought up that I think we should establish some policy on. I know pound signs (the # character) are used as a formatting tool on Wikipedia, but they also represent the word "number". In articles where you can refer to a ranking of some sort (i.e. number 1 or #1, or even something like "No. 1"), what would be the proper way to place it in the article? I do not believe the current guideline mentions this. In fact, Keraunoscopia brought this up over a month ago, with no discussion. Let's have one now. CycloneGU (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As an addendum, I finally located this in the Manual of Style. This discussion is to determine whether this should generally be the case on music articles. I'm not objective to either stance. CycloneGU (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree with the current MOS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars[[User talk:|Talk to me]] 18:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • MOS:NUMBERSIGN is clear: "number" or the abbreviation "No", # should be avoided. J04n(talk page) 19:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You'll have to forgive me because I don't remember my previous post regarding this. But if it was as recent as a month ago, then it was most likely in regards to the consistency of "charting at number 1" versus "charting at No. 1". Featured articles seem to prefer "number" for ease of reading ("flow" is a big word over there); it seems "number" and "No." are both perfectly acceptable options for any article rated GA or lower. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, since my discussion is apparently directly above, then it just goes to show, I was looking for a guideline that was actually answered by J04n above. The # symbol was never involved. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "number" seems like a good way to go, if FA's prefer that. Nothing wrong with getting the article looking good as early as possible. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Like any other optional format on an article, it may come down to reaching a consensus if it bothers some people, but I prefer "number" over "no.", mainly influenced by the FA process. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
In answer to that, I am watching this discussion and will close it in a week's time or so (or a little later if more opinion is needed), and then determine a consensus for the policy for music articles. For instance, many agree so far with the MOS regarding the pound sign, so if that majority ends up staying unchanged, the policy here will indicate that a pound sign is not to be used. CycloneGU (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No. or Number, not #, per current MoS. KillerChihuahua 14:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary topics for albums?

Lately, I've noticed that there isn't a clear consensus whether or not to follow this guideline. There have been numerous discussions that have failed to reach a consensus (ie. Femme Fatale (Britney Spears album) to Femme Fatale (album); Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) to Teenage Dream (album)) due to not enforcing that policy. Personally, I feel that if there is an album that is clearly primary over the others, it should be disambiguated by simply (album). However, others feel that primary topics for albums (and songs, for that matter) shouldn't apply to these topics due to the possibility of fading popularity over the years. As Status (talk · contribs) suggested, it would be best to have a discussion whether or not to keep and follow this guideline before engaging in other discussions that would rely on this policy. Please note if you support giving a primary album the (album) disambiguator, or oppose if you feel albums that fall under the situation should have the additional disambiguation of the artist's name. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I was always of the opinion that the earliest release gets the main title. However, I found myself being overruled on that at one point in the past. I do agree consensus is required. I'd accept not having a primary entry or having an entry that achieved fame through large record sales (i.e. popularity). There's always space for a redirect at the top of the page for the 20% looking for another version of "Teenage Dream". The problem is that consensus at a talk page can overrule guidelines here. Guidelines here should rule over all. CycloneGU (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If a guideline isn't going to be enforced, and cause more confusion than ease, it should be withdrawn or rewritten, via consensus, in a way that people are willing to enforce. --I dream of horses (T) @ 15:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I would be interested to know if apart from Thriller (album) there are any examples of articles which already follow this idea of a "primary (album)"? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Also "others feel that primary topics for albums (and songs, for that matter) shouldn't apply to these topics due to the possibility of fading popularity over the years" - I don't know if that's the reason. In my case I'd expect Femme Fatale (Britney Spears album) to remain ahead in popularity, the issue is that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says "one" article, there is no "primary (footballer)" "primary (plant)" "primary (insect)" etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Thriller (album) needs to be moved. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no "fading popularity over the years" problem. The only problem that may happen is the "increased popularity of something(s) with the same name".
There are 2 ways to prevent/alleviate the problem:
  1. (the obvious one) Make all albums (also songs) uniquely named by including the name of the artist and the name of the album, like Femme Fatale (Britney Spears album).
  2. Give the "primary" name to the most popular at the time. When something else becomes more popular, it can be "promoted" and/or the primary "demoted" or nothing changed.
Aisteco (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove wikilinking to common instruments

Instruments like guitar, piano, vocals, bass guitar and drums are commonly linked in articles in the 'Personnel' section (guitar is linked in this style guideline) and I feel this is unnecessary, because these are common instruments which most people would know, and, if other people agree, I think there should be a guideline reflecting this stance. We don't link these instruments in article prose, so I don't see why it should be any different in the 'Personnel' section. Lachlan Foley 03:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: I'm ok with them being linked, but if other editors think they should not be linked, I'm ok with that too. FYI, WP:POLL explains why polls are not a good way to achieve consensus. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Support: The guideline is WP:OVERLINK, which says not to link everyday terms understood by most readers, although "bass guitar" is often referred to as "bass", a term that has a separate article (bass (instrument)), so linking that may avoid any possible ambiguity. Apart from the more specific instruments, guitar and piano should be understood by most readers. I do have a question about "Drums" redirecting to "drum kit"; there is a separate article for "drum". Dan56 (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Question If we implemented this, wouldn't pages like guitar be orphaned? There are times when it's appropriate to link to common terms: lists, templates, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
maybe so, such as in an article on musical instruments or the article on the inventor of the guitar, but not in cases like this, I don't believe. Lachlan Foley 03:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:PDAB no longer a guideline

WP:PDAB is removed due to lack of consensus, defaulting to being removed. You can either boldly revert changes or... leave as is. Or make a proposal. --George Ho (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Example

I think this article would be helped tremendously by an example article. For now, it's just a long article with lots of convention but no clear example, or something to copy-paste into a new article. Husky (talk page) 00:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Listing album b-sides?

Is there an appropriate way to list all b-sides that go with an album? As in, any unreleased songs that were released on singles from the album. -Joltman (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I would include them in a section in the article (reliably sourced, of course). Perhaps part of a "Recording" section, or if no appropriate section exists, a "B-sides" section would not be unreasonable. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically?

MAIN PROPOSAL FAILS, PROPOSAL (C) PASSES
This was a long discussion, with points on both sides, but on the main proposal that the personnel section should be ordered alphabetically, the consensus leans towards opposing. Proposal (c) which inserts language to favor following original sources, and allows for local consensus to override that, passes instead. --Jayron32 12:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There've been a few times at album articles when other editors have argued for intuitive order for listing the names in the credits, such as basing it on perceived importance of the musician/artist and their role, or basing it on the way they line up in an ensemble, rather than the alphabetical order that's shown at MOS:ALBUM#Personnel and I'm assuming is the guideline. Can we write this in MOS:ALBUM#Personnel, that names should be ordered alphabetically by the participants' last names, or is this still up for debate and not implied in the guideline? Thoughts, Koavf, MrMoustacheMM, Mlpearc, Rothorpe. Dan56 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm used to seeing personnels that end in e.g. piano, bass, drums (typical jazz), or organ, bass guitar, drums (typical rock), so the alphabetical ones look rather soulless, as if they have been designed to avoid arguments, which unfortunately is probably the case. Rothorpe (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, it's something that rarely crops up, and usually I'm not too concerned about it. (Regarding rock and metal articles) The order is usually either alphabetical or vocalist-guitarist(s)-bass-drums-other instruments, and both seem fine. I don't have a problem with making alphabetical the guideline, but if it stays how it is now, I'm fine with that too. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a question Rothorpe. Are the orders you're referring to (like in jazz or rock) reflected in sources that deal with personnel/credits, such as liner notes or discography books? In other words, is this a common practice in listing credits? To try an example, one of jazz's most famous albums, Kind of Blue has the musicians listed in alphabetical order on the front cover ([1]). Dan56 (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say it's common practice. I grew up with it, getting my records second-hand at Dobells in the 60s! That link also shows the back of the LP cover, where the order is: Davis, trumpet and leader; Adderley, alto; Coltrane, tenor; Kelly/Evans, piano; Chambers, bass, and Cobb, drums. That's pretty typical, and I'm sure there'll be many more such examples online (including on Wikipedia). Rothorpe (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)]
Yes, that's how it's generally done. Most jazz album credits are not done alphabetically; Davis deliberately asked them to do it alphabetically for Kind of Blue on the front cover, even though the Columbia art department misspelled some of the names originally. Look at the credit listing for his other albums, for instance Round About Midnight or Miles Smiles, and they are done in the standard method: bandleader and/or horns first, then rhythm. Kind of Blue tends to be the only jazz album a lot of non-jazz fans know, but don't use it as a standard for this sort of thing. PJtP (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My two cents Alphabetical order was chosen for precisely this reason: not to pick and choose which members are more "important" or matter most or whatever. (What about a keyboardist who does harmony? A lyricist who doesn't perform instruments? Etc. etc.) Instead of encouraging edit wars over "percussionist is just as important as drummer", just use alphabetical order. It's simple. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The keyboardist can go in the usual place, after the guitars and before the bass. Put the lyricist last, after the percussion (as on Grateful Dead sleeves, if I recall). Percussion after drums is usual. Etc. Ad hoc consensus, no need for rigid rules. Rothorpe (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
@Rothorpe: "The usual place"? I would have thought keyboards would go after bass. It's all arbitrary and made up on the fly anyway. As pointed out by @Fezmar9: below, this is just marketing. Think of Motley Crue, where the guitarist is the least famous member of the band: does Tommy Lee get mentioned before Mick Mars but only for this band? And where do you put multi-instrumentalists? It's just inviting an endless stream of bickering over triviality. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Koavf. Wikipedia's sources generally list band members by order of importance because its in their best interest to put the most recognizable member first to capture the attention of more people and get more people to read their articles. Wikipedia does't share the same motivations. It should do its best to remain unbiased an neutral, and listing members alphabetically it the best way to achieve this goal. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
So personnels are political? All animals are equal? Rothorpe (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry everyone, but this argument was settled a long time ago, as in decades ago. In general, classical credits are conductor first, then orchestra members if they are even listed at all; jazz credits are bandleader, then horns, then rhythm section, then production; rock and pop are band/artist by instrument with rhythm section last, then production. This is the way personnel credits on the records themselves have been listed since records started being sold. Look at early Beatles albums - the order of the credits listing on Please Please Me and With the Beatles is Harrison, Lennon, McCartney, Starr. Why? Because Harrison plays lead guitar, Lennon rhythm, and McCartney and Starr bass and drums, even though the argument would be that Lennon and McCartney should be ahead of Harrison in the Beatles pecking order. If an individual record lists its credits in a non-conventional way, then copy that. This is the way it has been done for decades, and to do it any other way is goes against what has been long established by convention. Use what already exists. Things existed before Wikipedia came along; we're not here to reinvent the wheel in every case. PJtP (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't conform to the silly conventions or styles of the sources it uses; should the credits at Please Please Me and With the Beatles have the roles placed in parenthesis as well, as done on their LP sleeves? ([2], [3]) Is this "trend" even documented or written about in sources? Articles are supposed to be easier and more intuitive, and there's nothing intuitive about an arbitrary order that most readers are not familiar with; they are familiar, on the other hand, with names in alphabetical order. Dan56 (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Poll

A support !vote here indicates that a user agrees that language should be added to this project page that recommends listing personnel alphabetically only. An oppose indicates a user's disagreement with explicitly suggesting that alphabetically is the only appropriate way to list personnel. For additional context, please see the above discussion.

  • Support - because of what I said in the preceding bits. Dan56 (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I'm opposed to having a guideline of listing the musicians in alphabetical order. In most cases it's best to list the musicians in the same order that they're credited on the physical album itself. For a rock album, this will usually be either "most important" first, or the traditional guitars, keyboards, bass, and drums. Whatever's listed on the album will usually be the most appropriate and the most informative for our readers. And in fact plenty of rock albums do list the musicians in alphabetical order anyway. In that case, by this same line of reasoning, the article should list them alphabetically too. But, listing them in the same order as the album should only be a general suggestion or guideline. For individual albums, editors might have legitimate reasons to list the musicians in a different order, and this can be discussed and agreed upon in the talk page for that article. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – I support sorting personnel sections alphabetically, and I don't think this has been brought up yet (maybe it was obvious), but also subdividing personnel sections into subsections (group members, production, etc). Editing this way adheres to a neutral point of view and can be applied universally. "Importance," in many cases will be subjective, and thus presents a bias. Record labels and music journalists organize by order of importance to capture the attention of people reading their materials — if the most important person is listed very first at the top, people are more likely to be interested in it. Wikipedia doesn't (or shouldn't) have the same agenda. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the record label and/or the band thought that Jim Morrison was the most important member of the Doors, and so listed him first instead of fourth in the album credits, they really may have been on to something there. This is an example of how it serves the album article better to follow the same credit order as on the album, at least most of the time. Being informative, and more reflective of the album itself, is more important than imposing a type of neutrality that can be artificial or arbitrary, at least for purposes of this discussion. "P.S." I do strongly agree that the Personnel section should be divided as it usually is -- band members, guest musicians, production, that type of thing. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Fezmar9, from what you've said here and in above discussion, you seem to be focusing only on the more market-driven sources. That is, record companies and music journalists who to varying degrees exude the message: "Buy/listen to/read this!" But there are no end of other (more?) reliable sources – features in music magazines such as Mojo or Record Collector on reissues and "classic" releases, books dedicated to discussion of one artist, one genre or musical phenomenon, or even one specific work. In those cases, no one's trying to make an album more interesting to people by highlighting "name" performers over lesser-known musicians (opening paragraphs aside perhaps). If the feature/book is at all authoritative, the author will not only present a realistic picture, but often deflate the sort of record-label hype you mention, by pointing out that, say, a star guitarist or other soloist only contributed to one song. I realise that this distinction regarding sources is relevant to articles for albums of a certain vintage or level of notability, and not to many others. But that's the point: one approach to listing personnel just won't work in all articles. JG66 (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I completely agree that absolutely nothing can be universal. For example, no matter what's decided here, the personnel listing on Iowa (album) will probably always be arranged by each band member's "number". I would also like to point out a significant flaw in your argument, namely that you seem to think music magazines and music books aren't written by music journalists, which like I said and you seemed to acknowledge, it is their job to put the most well-known musicians first in a list. This is coming from a freelance journalist myself: if anything is listed in print, it's listed in the order in which the writer thinks the audience will be most familiar. I completely agree that books about a specific artist will detail who the more significant contributors to a group were across hundreds of pages. They should be doing that, and we should be doing that too in the body of Wikipedia pages. However, we're not talking about a body section, we're talking about a simple list at the bottom of a page for reference. To me, your argument is like suggesting the index at the back of a book should be ordered by importance rather than alphabetical. AllMusic is a perfect example here. It's another place that collects and presents information about musical artists like we do here at Wikipedia. In the biography section of each artist, they absolutely highlight who the more important performers are, as they should. However, in the sidebar of the bio off to the right, group members are listed alphabetically (oddly, by first name), in each album's song credits members are listed alphabetically and on each album's credits section all personnel are listed alphabetically as well. Like I said, I really don't care how much each article goes into detail about who is the most important contributor, so long as section for reference at the bottom of the page is arranged in a neutral manner. Fezmar9 (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also, per MOS:LIST#Organization, when presenting the reader with a non-obvious organization style, it needs to be clear to the reader how the items are organized and consistent throughout the section. So, if the outcome of this discussion is more in favor of ordering by importance, then there needs to be a subsequent discussion on whether or not the order of importance is clear to the average reader, which might mean explicitly stating this in each personnel section if it's not. It also needs to be consistent throughout the section, meaning other subsections (production, guests, artwork, etc) would have to be organized by importance as well. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my original comments. Standard practice is front-to-back, not alphabetical. Musicians go before other credits. Rothorpe (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I don't see a reason to force this, and really, how many articles is this an issue at anyway? Seems to me that whatever style arises from editors editing will work fine, and in the rare cases where there's a conflict, this can be sorted out on the talk page of the article in question. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A dreadful idea, imho. As has been pointed out above, what might work in one musical discipline doesn't correspond at all with another – and why on earth should it? Indian classical music, for instance, has a recognised hierarchy of players, but that's not to say that this tradition is adhered to in all recordings available in the West, by any means. (As a recording artist and performer, Ravi Shankar was revolutionary in bringing tabla to prominence, as a lead instrument; there are albums by Shankar and others where the tablist is the second featured performer, ahead of traditionally more senior instruments, such as 2nd and 3rd sitar.) So even within one very wide genre/discipline, different situations call for a different approach.
Rather than trying to come up with new, more restrictive parameters, the important thing is that a Wikipedia album (or song) article serves its subject well and accurately. Sometimes that might mean following the traditional order of players (as outlined above for rock and jazz); other times – say, where a major point of notability might be the huge number of participants on an album, such that reliable sources have felt the need to separate major contributors from drop-ins – the list should be based on the level of contribution. If users here are experiencing any problems with this issue of personnel, then it's something that belongs on the relevant album talk page. The last thing that's needed is a blanket rule for all albums, or even all albums within one musical discipline or genre; it shows very little awareness of just how wide in scope the project is. God forbid, but should any such proposal go ahead, consider the number of talk pages where discussions would erupt, even aside from disruptive edit warring over the issue. (The mention of Please Please Me and With the Beatles above: so McCartney would appear third on every Beatles album's Personnel list? That'll go down a treat … And Linda McCartney before Paul in Wings?) Because, chances are, the people supporting a rigid, alphabetical list would then impose it at a variety of articles, with a reference to a change in style guide wording that no one even knew about. JG66 (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – It was my idea. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, although I still like the division of musicians and other personnel when lists are long, as supported in the guideline. And I see no issue with doing this where lists are not that long - although it'll look silly if we only know one or two technical personnel. If personnel are particularly important to an album, odds are they already receive prominence in the sources discussing it and will be talked about in the body of the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't mind using it occasionally, if people can't agree on importance, but most of the time, this is largely a non-issue. Also, I think it can be a poor representation of actual creative control. It would look silly to, for example, have someone like Trent Reznor listed 4 or 5 people down in the credits of a Nine Inch Nails album credits just because his name starts with an "R", when he essentially is Nine Inch Nails. Same with Billy Corgan and Smashing Pumpkins, Roger Waters and Pink Floyd, etc Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment How so? What does that have anything to do with perceived importance? Any reader with decent eyesight will realize it's in alphabetical order, and Moonriddengirl made a great point--importance is already established by how often or how the musician's name is mentioned in the actual article. The example you pointed out seems like a false dilemma; apart from Reznor "being" Nine Inch Nails, this list at With Teeth looks like a mess with the rest of the names placed arbitrarily or at least what the editor at that article felt in their mind was order by importance. There's nothing organizational, logical, or objective about listing by perceived importance, because it relies on whose perception it is. Per MOS:LIST, "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. When using a more complex form of organization, (by origin, by use, by type, etc.), the criteria for categorization must be clear and consistent." How is importance or instrumentalist's place in a line-up clear or consistent for readers, most of whom aren't familiar them since at the very least the line-up thing seems esoteric; I'm a music geek and didn't even realize it till recently. Dan56 (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at The Fragile (Nine Inch Nails album) just kind of confirms my point - Trent Reznor is called out in the second sentence of the article. He's individually discussed in all five text sections of the article - every one. Is he important? Obviously. Is that obscured by his placement in the personnel section, currently 38th by my quick count? I don't think so. He's namechecked all over that article. Pink Floyd's The Final Cut (album) is currently fashioned as the guideline recommends - the band has a separate section (and they are organized alphabetically, notwithstanding that Waters was widely regarded as the front), with additional musical personnel and technical personnel in two additional sections. I think this works without our having to determine if Waters should be first in the lineup. Or whether, for example, David Lee Roth or Eddie Van Halen are the most important creative members of Van Halen. Or whether Neil Peart as the primary lyricist and arguably best drummer in rock or Geddy Lee deserve top billing in Rush. Alphabetical presentation not only conforms, as User:Dan56 notes, to MOS, it avoids neutrality violations and original opinion in individual articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying it doesn't make sense to list off people obviously most important to a project farther down the list. As stated by some if the other opposers, like it or not, there is a perceived "most important comes first" in credits, so it's going to look strange to the reader to list Billy Corgan, the man who wrote an entire concept album and played 80% of the instruments, after Jimmy Chamberlin, the guy who just came in and threw down some drum tracks. Beyond that, there's the practicality problem. A vast majority of rock albums do not list by alphabetical order, and a vast majority of them have zero issues with that. It's going to be a massive undertaking to fix a problem that no one had. It'd be a huge waste of time. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no "perceived 'most important comes first' in credits" on Wikipedia, Sergecross73, but if other articles exist that happen to have such nonsense, then there's no "massive undertaking" to worry about. Anyone who actually wants to improve those articles to GA or FA quality should be reminded of this personnel guideline during the review process. That's where mistakes are usually pointed out, and it happens often. This discussion isn't intended to start some undertaking (another false dilemma), but to explicitly state in MOS:ALBUM#Personnel that credits should be listed alphabetically, which is what the examples in that section already suggest. Dan56 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Look, if it's not broke, don't fix it. The "vocalist-lead guitarist-rhythym guitarist-bass-drums" layout is used most of the time when it comes to credits (not just Wikipedia, but most places). It looks awkward, and the proposal is solving a problem that largely isn't occurring. You can throw all the alphabet-soup links you want at me, the end game here is to best present the information to the reader. The mechanical "lets just alphabetize it" doesn't help with that, and isn't necessary to fix anything. (MOS guidelines don't just affect GA/FA articles, they affect everything, because its what dedicated editors go by, whether they're bringing it to GA or not.) I also agree with the above concerns that this is just going to be leading extra time wasting arguments on talk page due to it being removed from the normal way of being presented. (Hey, one could argue it already is, here.) Now please, stop badgering just me on this. (Or don't. Its up to you, but extensive tangents like are not conducive to bringing new interest in discussing topics, and considering no consensus = no change for a proposed change, and we're in a 50/50 stalemate...) Sergecross73 msg me 23:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion is not bad, it's not "badgering" - it's the whole point. Why, you yourself came back about 90 minutes after you left your note to say more. :) We reach consensus through persuasion, and persuasion doesn't happen unless people express their views. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm just saying, at a certain point, it becomes clear that people aren't going to be persuaded, and it's better to just let other join and give their two cents. But new participants become less and less likely the more heated and extended the tangents get. Happens all the time. I used the word badgering since I'm taking all the heat but my stance is more or less the same as the other 3 opposes. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, this didn't feel like a heated conversation to me. Just talking. I put my note here because Dan did, but it seems quite possible that he did just because you're on the bottom. :) The point isn't really to persuade you necessarily (although always lovely when that happens), but people who have not yet responded will read your points, my points, his points, other people's points and form their own. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
MOS guidelines will be cited in a GA review of an article more likely than at a B-class articles, regardless of whether a "dedicated editor" is editing the article. And I don't understand what you mean by "if it ain't broke..."; most articles have the credits alphabetized, probably because they use AllMusic as a source (which also has them alphabetized). Btw, "vocalist-lead guitarist-rhythym guitarist-bass-drums" is the silliest, most arbitrary-sounding thing ever, IMO, and no common reader would ever recognize it as the organizing principle in an article's personnel section. Dan56 (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I have no idea how we've both managed to have such different experiences in working on the same subject matter... Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The lead of this page says, "This is the Album article style guide, which documents recommendations by the members of Wikiproject Albums. It is intended only as a guide, to assist in writing well-developed articles."(emphasis added) The intended purpose of this page is being overstated and misconstrued by some so as to act as a formal requirement of all music articles, which it absolutely is not. This page does not dictate content at any articles. This is an issue for local consensus, not global requirements. This page is here for people who are seeking guidance, not as a collection of set-in-stone rules that all must follow. JG66 said it best when they pointed out that if this is to be enforced across all music articles, some really ridiculous listings will result. I suggest that we add some language that makes it clear that there is more than one acceptable way to list personnel, such as a) alphabetically, b) by perceived importance as determined by local consensus, and/or c) as listed on the corresponding album release, or other reliable source. All three of these ways are equally valid, and we ought not attempt to force everyone into one cookie cutter solution for an issue that is not yet a problem for most editors. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Alphabetic listing creates some of the worst systemic bias. I would much rather endorse a guideline against it. Samsara (FA • FP) 01:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please clarify what you mean by "systemic bias", Samsara? You do realize the MOS for lists says "The most basic form of organization is alphabetical...", so how could you endorse a guideline against it? Dan56 (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
You left out the introductory sentence, which says, "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized", which unequivocally suggests that there is more than one appropriate way to organize a list, not that alphabetically is the only appropriate way. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an essay on systemic bias, and systemic bias is a contravention of WP:NEUTRAL. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 08:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Systemic bias is about the imbalance of coverage of subjects related to underrepresented cultures and topics. This bias is caused by the fact that our editors tend to cluster around a certain demographic themselves. (Men from western societies.) It's an ongoing concern of my own and something I try to help address in article creation. But It's hard for me to imagine how using alphabetical lists within articles can create an imbalance related specifically to underrepresented cultures and topics. It would help to understand specifically where you see this as a concern. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Study, study. This effect exists for other fields and has been demonstrated for the billboard charts. If countering systemic bias is something you care about, I believe you should oppose this proposal. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
You have yet to explain how an alphabetical listing of personnel who contributed to an album is an issue under WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS - you refer to the essay on Wikipedia. How do either of your current external links relate to a tendency of Wikipedia to provide less coverage for topics of interest to groups other than the dominant editing demographic? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Per Template:Infobox musical artist#current_members: "Current members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names." It goes on to say that when multiple members join concurrently, "list them according to alphabetical order". This at least demonstrates that there is more than one appropriate way to list members. I would also point out that alphabetical order is not preferred when listing music genres, occupations, instruments, associated acts, or labels, so why would we want to require that format for personnel only? Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Format, "The consensus format for specifying which instruments or voices a work uses follows the precedents established by professional writers on music, for example in program notes written for concerts. These generally employ a simple paragraph style, listing the instruments in the normal order in which they appear in the full score." This supports the notion that alphabetically is not always the most appropriate format for lists pertaining to music topics. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@Rationalobserver:"This supports the notion that alphabetically is not always the most appropriate format for lists pertaining to music topics." Well, obviously. No one is arguing this. If this were true, then discographies would be listed alphabetically instead of the far more logical and useful chronologically (bearing in mind that discographies also break up albums by type as well). There are surely instances where lists shouldn't be alphabetical but your point is so overly broad that it isn't particularly relevant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal (a)

I propose that we add the following language to this page:

When listing an album's personnel, three formats are acceptable: a) alphabetical by last name, b) order of importance as determined by local consensus, and c) as presented in reliable sources or official material such as liner notes or album sleeves. These three methods are equally valid, and local consensus will determine which one should be used at any given article.

Support adding the proposed language

  1. As nominator. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC) I've stricken my support for this option per Moonriddengirl's comments in the discussion below. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. Support - As there's no real problem to be solved, it allows editors to organize as they see fit. Much better approach. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. We've identified three possible approaches, and one shouldn't be weighted over and above another. JG66 (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose adding the proposed language

Proposal (b)

I propose that we add the following language to this page:

When listing an album's personnel, two formats are acceptable: a) alphabetical by last name, and b) as presented in reliable secondary sources, or official material such as liner notes or album sleeves. Both of these methods are equally valid, and local consensus will determine which one should be used at any given article.

Support adding the proposed language

  1. As proposer. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose adding the proposed language

Proposal (c)

I propose that we add the following language to this page:

It's generally preferable to list the album's personnel in the same order that they are listed on the album packaging; however, local consensus may instead determine to list them in another order.

Support adding the proposed language

  1. Per Mudwater. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Most sane option so far. It sounds like this may also be favoured by @Rothorpe and PJtP:. Samsara (FA • FP) 11:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. Yes, both true to source and flexible. Rothorpe (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  4. Agreed, this addresses my concerns in the above discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  5. I support this, as co-submitter of the proposal, for the reasons explained in my previous posts in this discussion: [4], [5], [6], [7]. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose adding the proposed language

  1. There's no flexibility in slavishly conforming to a primary source's style or presentation of its information; Wikipedia is not obligated to ever do this, as it has its own MOS, and album packaging is not based on or isn't required to be based on logical or encyclopedic values; it's a product, designed by people with different things in mind. This sounds like something @Moonriddengirl, Fezmar9, and Koavf: would oppose ;) Dan56 (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    You're misrepresenting the proposal. The proposal doesn't obligate you to do anything. Samsara (FA • FP) 13:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
If the only way for anything other than packaging-based lists to be used is by "local consensus", then you're making it so impractical that you might as well change "generally preferable" to "ought to". And you still haven't responded to what Moonriddengirl asked about your claim that "an alphabetical listing of personnel who contributed to an album is an issue under WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS - you refer to the essay on Wikipedia. How do either of your current external links relate to a tendency of Wikipedia to provide less coverage for topics of interest to groups other than the dominant editing demographic?" Dan56 (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose We shouldn't open the door to what are such small and petty changes to hundreds of thousands of articles. Pick a style and impose it: that's why a style guide exists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment

  • What about reliable secondary sources? Just wondering if that wording was deliberately omitted on (c) vs. (b). Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The idea is for the style guide to suggest listing the personnel in the same order as on the album -- that is, to state that it's generally preferable -- and to also say that a different order may be used if editors of that particular article agree. The different order can be based on secondary sources, and/or be "most important" first, or alphabetical, or something else. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal (d)

I propose that we add the following language to this page:

It's generally preferable to list the album's personnel in alphabetical order; if local consensus finds an alternative order more suitable, it may be used instead.

Support adding the proposed language

  1. Alphabetical order should be the default, because it is an actual order, something @Moonriddengirl, Fezmar9, and Koavf: would agree with. Dan56 (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose adding the proposed language

  1. We should default to official liner notes, then discuss the advantages of alphabetizing, not the other way around. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. I don't believe alphabetical should be the default. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose as per my previous comments in this section. The album liner notes should be the generally preferred or suggested order, but a different order may be used if editors of a particular article agree that there is a reason not to follow the order on listed on that album. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose alphabetical per my original comments; yes, let's use liner notes. Rothorpe (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per my previous comments. Samsara (FA • FP) 03:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment: My opposition aside, doesn't it stand to reason that if one section across all album articles is going to be structured in wildly different ways, that each personnel section should explicitly state which way it is structured as to not confuse the readers who might view more than one album article? Explicitly stating which method is being used is compliant with MOS:LIST. So, if implemented, where should this label go? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That would seem to be a job for hidden text, though a brief front-facing parenthetical would also work. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That would absolutely not be a job for hidden text. This is a concern that readers might be confused. Readers don't read hidden text. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Why are readers going to concern themselves with the order of a personnel list? Do they wonder why all lists are ordered the way they are? Anyone who wants to edit the list will see the hidden text, was my point about that. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

FTR, an alphabetical only requirement would result in the following list for the fictional group, Johnny Zee and the Zydecos:

  • Tom Adams - Glockenspiel
  • Jim Becker - Tambourine, triangle, backing vocals
  • Amy Carthage - Keyboards, backing vocals
  • Susan Davidson - Drums, percussion, backing vocals
  • Richard Erickson - Rhythm guitar, vocals
  • Johnny Zee - Lead guitar, vocals

Whereas, if ordered by importance, it might look like this:

  • Johnny Zee - Lead guitar, vocals
  • Richard Erickson - Rhythm guitar, vocals
  • Susan Davidson - Drums, percussion, backing vocals
  • Amy Carthage - Keyboards, backing vocals
  • Jim Becker - Tambourine, triangle, backing vocals
  • Tom Adams - Glockenspiel

Rationalobserver (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The key word there, of course, is might. The question is what reliable sources designate Johnny Zee the most important and Tom Adams the least. Without sources, an attempt by editors to determine rank would be against policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
"Order of importance as determined by local consensus, or as presented in reliable sources or official material such as liner notes or album sleeves" would operate in the same way that we currently determine which music genre to list first in an infobox, or the order of the associated acts, labels, or members. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Local consensus violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. It's inherently WP:SUBJECTIVE. Just as people might not all agree on who the greatest opera singer is, we can't assume agreement on who the most important member is of Band X, even if the 2 editors who work on the article think the Glockenspiel player is awesome. :) As presented in reliable sources works - if the liner notes use a certain order, for instance. But "by importance" without sources just doesn't meet our core content policies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am quite familiar with how an alphabetized list looks. I've been alphabetizing personnel sections on album articles for many years now. I feel as if you're suggesting that it's some sort of travesty to list the glockenspiel player before the lead singer. I can assure you, it is not a travesty to list a glockenspiel player before a lead singer. By asserting that one instrumentalist has more value than another, you are inserting your own personal views and editing this section (which should only be for reference, for most articles) in a biased way. Wikipedia editors should not be writing or presenting information in a biased way. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Moonriddengirl and Fezmar9, that's a particularly slavish interpretation of WP:NOR, since every time an editor adds or removes something from an article lead they are exercising a degree of editorial judgment regarding the material's relative importance. This is very much a slippery slope argument, but you are essentially arguing that every list on Wikipedia should be organized alphabetically, but according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Organization, "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized." If you were correct, this guideline would not be open. Like I said above, we routinely organize music genres in perceived order of importance, so should they also be alphabetical? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If by "particularly slavish" you mean "true to the intent", then I plead guilty as charged. :/ Leads are supposed to reflect in due weight what reliable sources say about their subjects as included in the body of an article. That's how we achieve neutrality It is not remotely arguing that every list should be organized alphabetically - there are many ways to organize lists that are neutral and comply with reliable sources. (The first one that pops into my head is the one we use for discographies: chronologically.) If reliable sources justify the ordering of elements differently, then that's well and good. As far as genres and their structure, they should also reflect the due prominence given them in sources. If ten sources describe Album X as rock and one thinks it's folk music, you wouldn't put folk music first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • According to your interpretation of NOR, to list rock before folk because you perceive the former to be more prevalent in the sources that you have seen is indeed OR, since you are not citing an RS that explicitly states that the album is more rock than folk, right? Also, the discussion of order takes place at the talk page, where WP:OR does not apply. It would be OR if we stated in the article body that the lead singer is more important that the tambourine player, but we aren't suggesting that we do that. The list might imply OR, but it's not explicitly stating that one is more important than another, so it's not OR because the personnel is verifiable, and the order is determined at talk, where OR does not apply. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What about associated acts, occupations, instruments, and labels? Should these also be alphabetical, because it looks to me that they rarely are? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No. According to my interpretation of NOR, it is OR to say "I think John Smith is the most important thing ever to hit this band" or "We should list John Smith first because the five of us agree that he's the most important person on this album." The minute our speculation hits the article, OR does apply, and saying, "Well, we agree that the list is by degree of importance but won't tell the readers that" doesn't make implying our conclusions under OR okay. It is not an issue under WP:NOR to give WP:DUE weight to sources - that's what we're supposed to do. As to everything else, it should all be orderly and reflect what other people think, not what we do. We aren't here to tell people what we think. There are other websites that do that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess I hear you, but there is a fine line between editorial judgment and OR in some cases. At any rate, do you think that proposal b is a step in the right direction? I looked at about a dozen liner notes, and none of them listed personnel alphabetically. For example, John Lennon is always listed first, as is David Lee Roth on early Van Halen albums. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Moonriddengirl, I'm curious what your position is on the infobox fields, particularly associated acts, occupations, instruments, and labels. Currently at John Lennon, we list musician before singer and songwriter, but I seriously doubt that any RSs explicitly state that Lennon was a musician first, a singer second, and a songwriter third. If anything, he was a songwriter first, then singer, and then musician. What do you think of this? By your above logic, aren't these also unsourced OR? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this is wandering a bit but will indulge :) - on the general topic of presentation of "list" and list-like" facts, alphabetical order is a sensible arrangement that is less likely to convey an implied bias. Sometimes, the organization of information may be more apparent in conjunction with the text of an article - for instance, if Grammy winning Musician X cameod in a single episode of a television show, the organization of the biography about him should make it apparent why "actor" is not his first occupation. :) Other times, as with chronological lists, other methods of arrangement are obvious. Any organization of facts that implies our own subjective opinion is either going to be an issue under WP:NPOV or WP:NOR or both. In response to your above note, I don't have any issue myself with listing personnel in the manner of the liner notes. That's according to a reliable source, and it works for me. Anything that encourages us to exercise our own subjective opinions is a problem, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Moonriddengirl, I think I understand your position, and thanks for explaining it, but that doesn't answer why Wikipedia editors can list musician before singer and songwriter at John Lennon. There isn't any sourced commentary in the article that explicitly states that Lennon was first and foremost a musician, then a singer and songwriter, and I would go so far as to predict that you won't find that delineated in any RSs. If listing an album's personnel by importance is OR, then why is not also OR to list a subject's occupations by local consensus? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I answered you in my first sentence. :) Alphabetical order seems like a sensible arrangement to me, unless there are obvious reasons to deviate. "Musician, singer, songwriter." Alphabetical. Works for me, except when there are obvious reasons to deviate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I guess you did; maybe that was a bad example, but does that mean you think that the current order of Lennon's instruments: Vocals, guitar, keyboards, harmonica, bass guitar, is wrong? Because if we go with alphabetical, we would list bass guitar first, and vocals last. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, unless the reason for that order is obvious in the article. I don't really know that much about Lennon and haven't read the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would favor what might be called Proposal (c): The style guide should be updated to say that it's generally preferable to list the personnel in the same order that they're listed on the album itself, but that a different order may be used if editors agree to one on the article's talk page. Following the order on the album is the best reflection of the album, and therefore best and most informative for our readers. It also eliminates any objections based on Original Research, or for that matter Neutral Point of View since it neutrally just presents what's written on the album. And I would also say that there does not need to be any notice in the article about how the order was chosen. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That's really better articulated than anything I've said so far, Moonriddengirl and Fezmar9. I've added a "proposal (d)" above. Dan56 (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I forgot to comment on that one. I'm happy with any of A through C, if that helps us come to agreement. I just can't get behind defaulting to alphabetical. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm warming to a) and/or b) the most. But I'll have to come back and have a proper look when I've got a bit more time ... JG66 (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
FTR, I think prop A is not doable. Moonriddengirl has made a decent argument that local consensus cannot determine the order without running afoul of WP:NOR. While I think this might be an overly ridged application of policy, I think it's far better to err on the side of caution. What do you think about prop C? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think A should be doable, you know? That allows for the scenario I seem to come across most often: whereby official musician credits are incorrect or incomplete, for a variety of reasons, and biographers offer a more informed list after new information has come to light. I'm not opposed to prop C, by any means; I just want to see wording that allows the maximum amount of flexibility across those three formats. JG66 (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
After much thought and discussion, I now agree with Moonriddengirl's compelling argument against the implied OR that would be inherent in a local consensus determining the order by perceived importance, thus rendering "proposal a" inappropriate in terms of the core content policies. Because we must leave that to the sources or the alphabet, I see both b and c as good options. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I agreee with JG66 - local consensus may deem one source or set of sources as more reliable than another. This would be an application of WP:RS rather than a violation of WP:NOR. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Samsara, "proposal a" includes what you are talking about under the third option: "as presented in reliable sources or official material such as liner notes or album sleeves", but the second option: "order of importance as determined by local consensus", is essentially OR as described by Moonriddengirl. I think that she is correct here. Only two of the options under "Proposal a" are acceptable; therefore, even if we did have a consensus in favor of "proposal a", which we currently do not, the closer of this RfC cannot endorse that option as it contradicts WP:CONLIMITED, which states: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Moonriddengirl, it might be helpful if you weighed-in here, as I am left to defend your logic, and I don't want to misrepresent your position. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
My issue is that we should not misrepresent how Wikipedia works. If you had a set of liner notes that were designed in such a way that an *order* of musicians is not discernable (e.g. listed in a swirly vortex typographic pattern, say) then it would be permissible to apply a general convention found on liner notes for that genre of music to listing the musicians in the article. Several previous posters have alluded to such widely used conventions, so I need not repeat them here. In my opinion, alphabetic listing should be an absolute last resort if no other meaningful ordering can be found after taking into account (1) packaging materials (usually album liner notes), (2) reliable secondary sources, and (3) general well-documented conventions for the genre. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
In essence, we need not repeat WP:RS and WP:NOR as part of this proposal, as they are already Wikipedia policies and "local consensus" must always adhere to them. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
If you have a set of liner notes designed in such a way that an *order* of musicians is not discernible, there are listings of personnel for which an order is - the most commonly used source for music articles on Wikipedia is AllMusic, for instance, which lists them alphabetically. "General well-documented conventions for the genre" seems risky for WP:SYNTHESIS. That said, the purpose of advice pages such as this is to "collect some advice about how to apply Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and essays to their specific subject area." Referencing those policies, guidelines, and essays to ensure that those working on album articles understand how they apply to specific features is perfectly valid and even the point. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Track listings for film soundtracks in standalone articles

MOS:FILM#Soundtrack indicates, "Track listings for film scores are generally discouraged since the score is usually composed by one person and the score's tracks are generic descriptions of scenes from the film. Noteworthy tracks from the film score can be identified and discussed in prose."

Is a similar guideline in effect for track listings for standalone film soundtrack articles? If not, should one be? DonIago (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There is not a similar guideline in effect for standalone film soundtrack articles, nor should there be, in my view. That is, such articles generally should include a track listing. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Can I ask what your reasoning is? The tracks remain generic descriptions... DonIago (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
If the soundtrack is somehow notable enough to warrant its own article, then I think including the track listing is warranted. If the article is little more than a track listing of generic names and not much else, then it should probably be merged into the film article, at which point the track listing probably shouldn't be shown, per the guideline given above. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's it. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't really agree, but for better or worse I don't feel very strongly about it either. Thank you for your input. DonIago (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

I have always strongly disagreed with this part of the guideline, which seems to have stuck over the years: "Also to be mentioned are the artist's nationality". Why must a band or musician's nationality be mentioned on an album article? Of what relevance is it? An article about an album should pertain primarily to its music, not where the artist(s) is from—that stuff should be for bio articles. All it does is lend itself to cruft, wordiness, and petty squabbles over things like English/British, etc. What if each member of a band is from a different country? What if the bassist is American, but holds dual Canadian citizenship, whilst the drummer is Czech or something? What if a solo musician is born in Jamaica but identifies as a 'world citizen'? Get rid of it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And while we're about it, get rid of the genre-requirement bit that follows. Nationalities and genres both lead to wars! Rothorpe (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
F'nar f'nar. At least genres (whether in the form of an infobox field or prose—at this point I don't care much anymore) are entirely relevant to an article about a music album. The nationalit(ies) contained within are not. Might as well add their date of birth, gender, eye colour and height while we're at it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
With that said (not sure if you were being sarcastic or serious), I do entirely agree with also leaving out the artist's genre description from the lead. I prefer to just state if the album performer is a guitarist, drummer, singer, or band. A longtime artist can often switch genres from album to album. Again, it's something that can be found in better detail on their bio page. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, genre-warring is very boring, no sarcasm from me, I completely agree with everything you've said there. Rothorpe (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that we should remove the bits about genre and nationality as wastes of time that people like to argue about, especially genre, which as MacDream said fluctuates throughout an artist's career. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. I think that the nationality must be included in an album description, because it gives the reader a taste of where the band is from.-Teh Thrasher (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
But that taste can be found out on the band's bio article. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Still, there needs to be at least a little bit of a band's description in an album article.-Teh Thrasher (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Track list numbering

There's currently a discussion about how to number track listings for albums, including LPs and CDs, and the album article style guide will probably be updated based on the outcome. Interested editors are encouraged to comment there (and not here, to keep the discussion in one place). It's at Template talk:Track listing#Track numbers for vinyl albums. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

Can cited quotes come from articles (from reliable sources) that are not on an album, but do give a brief review of the album? And does a review need to be contemporary to be cited? --Lpdte77 (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, cited quotes can come from articles that are not specifically about the album but that discuss or review the album in some way. No, the review does not need to be contemporary, it's okay to include retrospective reviews. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that anyone interested in this question comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive_49#Reviews instead of here, to keep the discussion all in one place. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice/Archive_1&oldid=1137395725"