Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Proposal for reviews

Proposed positive image

Proposed negative image

Proposed neutral image

After seeing how popular my images for the ratings were, I thought that the way "(favourable)" and "(unfavourable)" are presented, is kind of, well clunky, especially when viewed in a list with loads of star ratings. Therefore, I am proposing, that we switch to use single stars to represent those. The colour in this case would indicate whether it's positive, negative or neutral. What do people think? Obviously the images shown are just an idea (they're hue shifted versions of the rating ones, except the black one) - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 02:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Time for Ian's soapbox, raised this before but no consensus to change as yet so I'll have another go... For me, coloured stars taking the place of "favourable", "unfavourable" and "neutral" is a moot point, as I'm against the use of Wikipedia editors interpreting professional reviews and coming up with one-word (or one-star) ratings in any case. When we link to reviews that use some sort of rating, we report those ratings. However IMO it is not appropriate for us to produce our own one-word/star interpretation of a review. If there's no shorthand rating provided by the original professional review source, I see no justification for us to invent one, particluarly when many of the reviews are external links that can easily be accessed by readers, who can make up their own minds. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The colors are problematic. It's not obvious that a red star means a negative review when shown next to a bunch of yellow stars. (There are also red-green color blindness issues.) Converting non-star ratings to star ratings is discouraged in our guideline. Converting non-ratings to star ratings seems inappropriate for the same reasons. --PEJL (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I'm going to harp on my idea of having a collapsible box to list the finer details, which PEJL and I tried to get working about 3-6 months back. I still think it's a good idea, as it means we can be objective with indicating their position, rather than simply having "positive", "negative", "mixed" or whatever, since that's often a subjective interpretation, when the reviewer isn't clear on whether they like or didn't like the album (song, movie etc). So with an expanding box, we can include a line from their review, the star value, the author as well as a link. Right now, I'm still not sure of how we'd get it done, as PEJL and I both sort of lost interest in improving it, since there didn't seem a consensus to get it off the ground, but I'm keen to get it right. Sorry "I'm here", but the other guys are right, both on the symbol, colour-blindness issues, as well as the possibility of misinterpretation. --lincalinca 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just put all that in the article. Flowerparty^☀ 14:52, 25 November 2007 ;(UTC)

Ian Rose is correct unless the review specifies "favourable", "unfavourable" and "neutral" then it's OR and cannot be used. --Neon white (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, guys, can we take the plunge and eliminate the subjective "positive", "negative", "neutral", etc, interpretations currently permitted in the Professional Reviews section by the project guidelines? I propose we change "If no rating is given in the review you should use the word (favorable) or (unfavorable) to describe the review, possibly allowing for (ambivalent), (mixed), (extremely favorable) and more, but keep it short and simple. If you cannot summarize the review, just leave this second bit blank." to "If no rating is given in the review you should leave this second bit blank." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left this for a while and nobody's come up with a response as to why we should continue with the subjective, OR interpretations of "favourable", etc, whereas I read Lincalinca's and Neon white's comments above as support for their removal - have I read that right because I'd like to move on the proposed change to the policy page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think one-word summaries of reviews are very OR, but I wouldn't object to their prohibition. I would raise the question, though, of whether we should be including reviews for which we cannot include a review summary - in other words when a review is link only, and no stars. -Freekee (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see hoe they could be considered anything else but original research? Someone has looked at a primary source and made an original interpretation of it based on their particular view of the article potentionally leading to edit wars over how it was interpreted. In my opinion to do away with it, stops any such controversy. It doesnt give that much info to a reader anyway and if they really want to know they can read the review and form their own opinion. I don't see why a review summary is necessary at all. In my opinion they should be treated no differently to other external links, they just happened to be place differently on the page. --neonwhite user page talk 05:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR?

Whenever reviews are indexed whether by newspapers within their own websites or within something like the International Index to Music Periodicals it is common for an abstract to include a description such as "favorable recording review" or "mixed recording review". I've also seen "comparative recording review" in cases where two albums were compared/contrasted. If we use these existing summaries we are almost certainly not doing original research. In most cases I think wikipedia editors can come to an agreement on whether a review is or is not favorable even without having some newpaper editor tell them it is so. In most cases this is a fairly unambiguous fact. It is silly to claim that there is the potential for edit wars and a need for a rule to prevent them when there is little or no evidence to indicate that this happens. I don't like the idea of adding our own color code. However, I do find the one word descriptive summaries helpful, they are commonly found in other sources, and I think we would really be limiting ourselves if we restrict our sources to reviews that include a "grade" and/or are freely and easily available on-line. -MrFizyx (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to move this discussion to the bottom. I mean, I understand it's a continuation of the previous discussion, but it's been a couple months. Anyway, to answer: even if it seems obvious to us, we can't have editors reducing reviews to "favorable/unfavorable". If a professional organization has reduced the review to that, I think we can safely use it; however, I think that there are enough other quantified reviews out there that no album is going to be so desperate for reviews that we have to use a non-standardized review. At best, if there's something really insightful in the review, quote it in the article itself. Torc2 (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider introducing a disambiguation template specific to albums and/or songs

See Retrospective (album) and If (song) for examples of where it would be useful. Bonus points and Wikipedia:Barnstars if you introduce one that uses Media:Musical notes.svg or some other image to give such pages some distinction, as I did in the my version of "If" and my version of Retrospective... :-) —68.167.191.6 (talk · contribs) 05:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguating split albums?

What should be done if an album needs to be disambiguated when it's a split album? Obviously, using '(artist album)' wouldn't work since there's more than one artist. Should we use '(split album)'?-Joltman (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

People tend to use (___ & ___ album), such as Hush (Yo-Yo Ma and Bobby McFerrin album). -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 01:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this is unless you mean, say, an album by an artist with another featuring, in which case it'd be the primary artist. --lincalinca 11:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I know what split album means :) Sometimes split albums can have more than two artists, like there's one called Four on the Floor which has four artists each doing 4 songs. Would all four artists be listed then? -Joltman (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just looked at that Hush entry, and that's not really a split album. A split album is an album featuring songs by different artists, not artists collaborating together. For example, BYO Split Series, Vol. 3 features NOFX doing 6 songs and Rancid doing 6 songs. Don't know if that changes anything. -Joltman (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it was different, but i was saying the name style. a split is usually done by listing both artists. When there's three or more, i'd say use (split album), i guess. Never really thought of it for 3+ artists. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 20:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

An album with more than two artists could be called a compilation. But if the songs were recorded specifically for the split album, that would not be the case. I suspect that some of these split albums are really compilations. -Freekee (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Primary format cutoff date

I'm wondering if we can define a cutoff date for the primary album format (which is important for track listings and some album covers). Currently, we have this:

If the album was released primarily on CD and spans multiple discs, these should be listed separately under sub-headings named "Disc one", "Disc two" and so on. Albums originally released primarily on vinyl or cassette should similarly list the tracks of each side separately under sub-headings named "Side one" and "Side two".

This article states that CDs began outselling vinyl in 1988, so I think vinyl should take precedence until then. Exceptions would be made for albums that weren't (first) released in the primary format. Comments? —Zeagler (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That almost sounds fair to me, except that that article is talking generally. Many specific cases of albums would have sold innumerably more on vinyl than cd for another five years, and vice versa for the five years preceding also, as is the case in all transitional periods. I suggest we take it by a case-to-case basis, as it kind of presently is, as that doesn't make such a swooping statement and generalise based on a particular year —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincalinca (talk • contribs) 11:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How do we determine which format constituted a plurality of early sales for albums released in that ten-year window? Maybe we can just define it for cases where the primary format isn't clear. That would only add a sentence to the guidelines. (I'm trying to avoid edit wars where each side's argument boils down to "I prefer ____ format.") —Zeagler (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Have there been any edit wars? I can't imagine caring enough to change someone's work. -Freekee (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but I'm holding off on editing albums from the '87-'88 time period until this discussion runs its course. —Zeagler (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just write it up however I saw fit. If someone changes it, let them. If you feel strongly enough that their edit bothers you, discuss it with them. I think the rule was set up because in the olden days, the fact that it was an LP had some bearing on how the songs were ordered on an album, and listeners grew accustomed to having that separation of the sides. So if some punk kid who only knew the album from its single-sided CD, came along and changed it, the old-timers would get annoyed. As far as I'm concerned, that's the only basis for having the rule in the first place, and I don't think this is a big enough factor to cause any problems in the crossover period. -Old fart (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)00:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thirty Footer in your Face

Thirty Footer in your Face is an article about an album of that name. It has been tagged with {{notability}} since Feb 07. Seems to be the album quite a few frequently sampled tracks were originally released on (at least, if you believe its' wikipedia article ;) ). Does that make it notable? TAI,Garrie 04:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

PS if it helps - I think the performer doesn't have their own article.Garrie 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Has anyone ever heard of it? Has it charted? If anyone can find a chart listing for it and include it in the article, that would make it notable. -Freekee (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Albums to be

I've seen some pages around about albums that are not yet recorded and only scheduled to be recorded. Surely if the album doesnt exist it can't be notable? Should it have multiple independent sources? --Neon white (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

All articles should be properly sourced. As for notability, it is certainly possible that a highly anticipated album makes it notable enough that people would come here looking for it. Even without a high amount of buzz, there could be enough reliable sources to write a decent article. -Freekee (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

License of the album in the infobox

The infobox should say what license the album is released under. Proprietary, free art license etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.27.48 (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the album cover image should say what the license is? The image page says that. -Freekee (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean the license of the album. All the tracks and so. Like if you type in some software, it says the license. It should be so at albums also. --212.247.27.48 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)--212.247.27.48 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand you. Software is licensed. That means that it is (theoretically) protected from copying, while still allowing you to use it, by its license. Record albums are protected only by their copyrights. They have no license. Certain albums with included software may have licenses for the software, but AFAIK, if albums have licenses, it's still rare enough not to earn a place in the infobox. -Freekee 19:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that I think it should say if it is okay to copy the music and so. --212.247.27.112 (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)--212.247.27.112 (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the answer will be "no" for the vast majority of albums on Wikipedia, I should think it's probably better to simply note exceptions within the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Template

I have noticed something wrong with the template for a while now, but never really felt it necessary to take action. Recently, however, the problem has become an annoyance: whenever a WikiProject nested banner is installed on a talk page, the WikiProject Album's template hides the class of the article when in the nested stage. Is anyone aware of this? Can any measures be taken to prevent or correct this? Thanks for your time, NSR77 ^T_C 16:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reissues

Do reissues of albums with supplemental material on a different label get their own articles, or should the article for the original release cover both? Specifically, Iwant to know if Nano-Nucleonic Cyborg Summoning and Nano-Nucleonic Cyborg Summoning (reissue) should be merged, and if so, how that should be accomplished (e.g. how the album chronology in the infobox should work). — Gwalla | Talk 22:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends how different the release is, but generally, i'd say they can be included in the same article. --Neon white (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There are exceptionally few times where separating the two would be appropriate. Examples of this would be where each bears its own identity distinct from one another, other than a few tracks here or there or a different cover. I, for one, can't think off hand of any album that has bipolar in this way, where the re-release has its own essence that wasn't on the original. I have News of the World by Queen as a re-released version, which has "We Will Rock You" remixed ("ruined by rick rubin"0 as it puts it) and the album as a whole is remixed and remastered, giving the album a different sound to the original, however this doesn't qualify it as having a separate article. Another matter with re-releases is that they often have little difference other than, say, the cover. Look at Continuum by John Mayer. Now, that album has had about 7 different covers, depending when you bought it, wherein the world you ought it, if you got the special edition or if you were a member of the fanclub, however all of these are discussed on the one album page. I really can't think of any albums that fit my criteria, but that EP certainly does not. --lincalinca 09:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm working on an article about an album that had a re-release, and I'd like to know if there's a cateogry for it, and whether or not I should add the second release date in the infobox. Check my sandbox for details. ----DanTD (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Double Double quotes

Probably been asked before, but what do we do if the title of a song has quotes around it, like "title", do we do this?:
1 - ""title"", (" x2)
or
2 - "'title'", (" and ')
or maybe just plain this?
3 - "title". (just a single ")
Thanx.happypal (Talk | contribs) 10:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The current convention is to use option 1. That's also the solution that follows from the guideline. --PEJL (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured it was that, and it does follow WP:ALBUMS guidlines. On the other hand, it goes against the nested quotes convention/guideline, which would've been option 2. Anywhoo, thx.happypal (Talk | contribs) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The way it appears as being most distinct is when it's first mentioned in the article, such as ""Gloomp" Went the Little Green Frog", because you make the title bold, which includes its encapsulated quotation marks, while you leave the quotations to indicate that it's a song unbolded, distinguishing the two, ad setting the precedence for throughout the rest of the article. --lincalinca 09:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but wouldn't that be against the guidlines (songs not bold)? I don't really care much anyways, I just needed an answer, but it is true that the bold solution does keep the quotes of the song title, while clearly setting the quotes around it appart.happypal (Talk | contribs) 11:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, quotations within quotations are enclosed within 'single quotes' (i.e. option 2), and it explicitly states that this guideline also includes song titles. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so you don't have to look through the article, taken from the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Quotation marks
    The term quotation(s) in the material below also includes other uses
of quotation marks such as those for titles of songs, chapters, and 
episodes; unattributable aphorisms; literal strings; "scare-quoted" 
passages and constructed examples.

Quotations within quotations
    When a quotation includes another quotation (and so on), start with 
double-quotes outermost and working inward, alternate single-quotes with 
double-quotes. For example, the following three-level quotation: "She 
disputed his statement that 'Voltaire never said "I disapprove of what 
you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ' " 
Adjacent quote marks, as at the end of this example, are separated by a 
non-breaking space ( ), though this may not work on some older 
browsers.

Does this mean the final answer would be option 2? Or do we keep option 1, as it preserves exact titles? In any case, maybe a mention about this should be made in the project page. happypal (Talk | contribs) 19:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that the "Quotation within quotations" guideline doesn't apply, because the inner quotes aren't really used for a quotation. These are track titles which happen to include quotation marks (which don't always enclose the entire title). We generally don't mess with punctuation in track titles or album titles. So I still favor option 1. --PEJL (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I also favored option 1, but was missing the words to justify this. I guess "Don't mess with punctuation in track titles" would be the guideline then?happypal (Talk | contribs) 03:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

obviously the MoS guideline quoted above applies. "don't mess with punctuation" is a mere arbitrary whim, after all we mess with capitalisation and even respell because the guidelines say we have to. why would punctuation be any different? not agreeing with a guideline is no reason to say it does not apply, i suggest you argue for a change of the guideline. -L!nus (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the guideline should be changed. While it doesn't explicitly say that quotation marks around song titles are included in the explanation regarding quotations within quotations, I think it is reasonable to assume that they are. Notice that adjacent quotation marks are separated by spaces. -Freekee (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Singles

Especially in the good old days, it was common for one or more singles to be released along with an album. In some album articles I'm working on, I would like to list the singles, describe what is on the back and front side (of vinyl singles), and, if necessary, describe how the version on the single is different from the version on the album. Does anyone have an idea how to do this? Griot (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, the single's own article, if it exists, is the more appropriate place to detail that information. The album article can summarise it, but shouldn't go into too much detail where an article dedicated to the subject matter exists. The details on the back of the album would be appropriate to list on the album page. --lincalinca 09:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If the singles aren't notable enough to warrant their own articles, you could make a Singles section in the album article. -Freekee (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Embeded Albums, Tracklists and Collapsibles

Hello, I come to you looking for help on several articles I have worked on. All of these are Soundtrack type albums, but a lot of them are not notable enough to stand alone, and are much better off embedded into the mother article, for example: Dexter (TV series) and it's Soundtrack.
Also, if you are familiar to WP:FF, they prefer to put into the same article severall albums related to the same game, like for Music of Final Fantasy VII
Now the general consensus at WP:FF was that putting in the entire tracklist would break the article continuity, and it was decided to use collapsible tracklists. This allows us to both include WP:ALBUMS conventions regarding tracklist layouts, yet keep continuity in the article. There have been other ways of doing this, for example, The double Coulumn:Music of Final Fantasy VIII#Final Fantasy VIII Original Soundtrack. Or what I see too often, the god-awful style="font-size:60%" or even </small>.
Now, I know it is not WP:ALBUMS policy to support multy-album pages (FF and ALBUMS had a discussion about this a few months back...), but I was wondering what you guys thought about the whole colapsible aproach to tracklisting in certain articles that need it. I think it makes the articles look really really good, without compromising pageflow, titleformating, or text-size/readability. Furtheremore, some pages can't do without: Music of Kingdom Hearts features 13 CDs over 3 albums (one of them is 9 CDs long, and would require collapsibles even if it was stand-alone)
If you guys would agree, I would like to propose a guideline that might look somthing like this:

Should in an article the tracklist be too long, disrupt the general flow of the artcile, 
or otherwise compromise its integrety, then it is recommend to use a collapsible tracklist. 
Inside the collapsible, should be the tracklist, as edited under general WP:ALBUMS guidelines, 
in list or table format, according to the situation. This should be done in such a way that 
the un-collapsed tracklist should look no different than if the tracklist was not collapsible 
at all.

This might come out of the blue for you guys, but I (and the people at WP:FF, amongst others) believe this would help a lot of articles, and especially, that having a standard guideline would put an end to edit waring in certain articles, and help maintain a standardized format through different pages. Thankyou for your input
happypal (Talk | contribs) 05:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was all discussed several months ago. Please check the archives. I thought the collapsed track listings looked good, but there were several good reasons brought up why that didn't really work very well. The foremost was accessibility. When it comes down to it, if it "disrupts" the article, it shouldn't be in there. If it's important info, it's probably not disrupting it. -Freekee (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the page with the track lists hidden, and then with them shown. I like it better with them shown. I imagine the songs on the soundtrack all kinda blend together, and the titles don't really help distinguish them. Maybe the better solution would be to write, All of the tracks have generic-sounding names like, "Beyond the Wasteland," "Encounter" and "Barrett's Theme." That would save even more space. (I've been rather sarcastic a lot lately.) Aside from that, the Dexter soundtrack is definitely big enough for its own article. It's a bit stubby at the moment, but there's room for expansion. -Freekee (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Record Label Wikiproject Proposal

If you are interested please add your name! Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Record_labels Izzy007 Talk 17:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Singles

I made a page for Peggy Zina's single, To Mystiko, and i have a problem. This is not about the single as in the song, but rather the cd, which includes more than one song. Should it be categorized with the albums then? Not all of her singles cds are included on later albums and are solely available on the single cd.Grk1011 (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This project covers full-length albums and EPs, while Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs covers songs and singles. Feel free to add their project banner to he article's talk page. -Freekee (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

okay, they told me that it would qualify as an EP because it is basically a "mini-album" where the songs are mostly only available from the cd and not from a later released album. So the question is now, should these EPs be included in the Peggy Zina albums category or an EP one, and should they be put with the chronology with the albums in the infobox or have their own.Grk1011 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope again. See my response there.I assume there's a reason you keep using the term single. Who calls it a single - the record company, the singles charts, the record store, online sources? Has anyone else ever called it an EP? There isn't an arbitrary determination as to whether a record qualifies as a single, an EP or an LP (album). It's not length or the number of songs. You need to go by official word. If you can't find that, you can ask around for opinions, but mine is that it's a single. I think you've got it right - singles infobox, singles chronology and singles category. Incidentally, if it were an EP, it would go in with teh album chronology and category. -Freekee (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Review Site

This review seems to be popping up.[1] My first opinion is that it's not verifiable and shouldnt be used. What's anyone's opinion?

Just looks like a random amateur review page to me, I certainly wouldn't put their reviews into articles. ---Stormie (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Personnel sections

I want that part of the main page changed immediately, namely the part which says "A personnel section should be included under a primary heading "Personnel" and should generally be formatted as an bulleted list of names and forms of participation, with en dashes between the two (see track listing section)." Why does it use the word "should"? This is a project, and cannot force its guidelines on others. The wording should be changed. On the top of the page, it even says "Below is a basic guide to writing an article on a specific album of music; this is only a guide and you should feel free to personalize an article as you see fit, though others may change it to fit our standards." If this is a guide, why is it using the word "should"? Due to the haphazard, awful way in which this guide is written, I have a sockpuppet editor who keeps adding personnel sections to FAs I have written. Why? Because as far as he is concerned, personnel sections are mandatory. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To me it reads something like "[If one exists,] a personnel section should be included under a primary heading..." It doesn't mean you must have a personnel section. ^anemone│_projectors 23:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The personnel section is very important. It's one that I often look for, to find who played on an album. It needs to be its own section, for reference purposes, so you don't have to sift through the article to find the producer, or whomever. It should be called a "Personnel" section, for the sake of uniformity. If an editor doesn't want to call it that, that's fine. It won't keep the article from making FA. But for uniformity's sake, it should. Not "must," but "should."

This entire guideline is done under the guideline of should. There are no musts, but we've been discussing for a few years now, what makes a good article. While there is always room for improvement, we think things are looking good. Thanks for adding your input. Are there any more specific issues, or exam,ples you'd like to show us? -Freekee (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, LuciferMorgan doesn't like Personnel sections period. He posted here because Rock Soldier added a Personnel section to Christ Illusion, an article that LuciferMorgan helped elevate to FA status, and justified it by referencing this WikiProject. LuciferMorgan removed it, and his various explanations suggest he has ownership issues. But the section definitely should be there - read through the article and see how long it takes to find out who played bass. (Actually, the first time this person is mentioned, his first name is omitted.) —Zeagler (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, that was good fun, reading those talk pages. Thanks for the tip. I'll be interested if LuciferMorgan ever explains exactly what his problem with personnel sections is. More to the point, those articles are not Lucifer's very own Featured Articles which can never be improved, by anyone else, at the very least. They are everyone's and if another editor sees fit to add information, regardless of this very active project's opinions, that editor is well within his rights.

But anyway... Lucifer, why do you feel that the personnel section should be stricken from the guidelines? -Freekee (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning: AMG initiates "Malware" scans

We work a lot with AMG references. But lately there are problems "anti-malware scans" the AMG site infects. I came across these kind of "ads" today. See also Google reseach: http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=All+Music+Guide+Malware&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

If you see the scan don't hit any button on the popup-window. Cancel the task with the task manager. That's my advice.

I sent them an e-mail and will let you know their answer.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Another review site

[2] it looks professional but i'd like opinions on it. --neonwhite user page talk 06:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Compilation track listing formats

For albums that simply compile entire previous releases chronologically, is it acceptable to format the track list to indicate the original source? Here's an example with two possible formats: diff, diff. Personally, I think the latter is far more useful and informative. I could see some minor changes such as not bolding the headers or indenting them further than the tracks, but I see no advantage of the plain style. Opinions? Torc2 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the guy who removed the subheaders in the track listing. The main reason I removed them was that I'm going to rewrite the article soon, along with the EPs which make up most of the compilation, Slay Tracks (1933-1969) (which I'm nearly finished with), Demolition Plot J-7, and Perfect Sound Forever (EP). The prose of the page will explain where each song originated from. I perfectly understand the purpose of the subheadings, but I believe that they will soon be unneeded. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The question still stands as there are a ton of albums that would benefit from this format. In any case, you should probably do the rewrite first before changing the formatting. Torc2 (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:MOS#Section headings: "Unspaced multiple equal signs are the style markup for headings. The triple apostrophes ( ''' ) that make words appear in boldface are not used in headings." The track listing currently distinguishes the origins of these songs with bold subheadings, which is incorrect. Other album articles use equal sign subheadings in track listings for bonus tracks or for alternate track listings on different formats (see Christ Illusion, Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)). I believe that the use of multiple subheadings in the track listing of a compilation to show the source of one or more track (in this case there would be six, though of course it would vary for other compilations) would clutter the page's Table of Contents. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't know if I'd consider the different sources as being subheadings or just pieces of information that break up the track list. I'm more concerned with the concept in general of albums like this one, and bonus material, etc. - whether it's worth it to include source information and how exactly it should be formatted, or if we want to leave track lists completely uninterrupted and mention the details elsewhere. Torc2 (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That should all be explained in prose in the opening paragraph. Simple. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO: More info is better. Format it however looks best - subheaders, bold text, explanations in text elsewhere. And keep in mind what the TOC looks like. There's enough of a variety in the kinds of information that needs to be added to the track listings, that I don't think we need to prescribe one way of doing it. -Freekee (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The way I usually handle it is by having the track listing just list the tracks, and have a separate section titled Song origins that lists which album the tracks originated on. -Joltman (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

AMG ratings and "Album Pick"

Do we note an All Music Guide "Album Pick" next to the review? I really think it's a useless designation, since it's not part of the objective review, but just an indicator of what album in an artist's repertoire is most representative or the best place to start or something like that (I'm not even really sure). The only article I've seen it added is The Dark Side of the Moon, where it keeps getting re-added after I delete it. I have also edited out the section saying the ratings are "given in context with the artist's entire works" since, as far as I know, they aren't. Plenty of bands have mostly 5-star reviews, and many have albums that never top 3- or 3.5-star reviews. Torc2 (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Anybody? If I don't hear any objections, I'll add this to the guideline in another week. Torc2 (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never paid any attention to the AMG Album Pick, and I don't even know what it means that the ratings might be "given in context with the artist's entire works". I don't see it in recent incarnations of the article, so I'm not sure how it's being used. Anyway, with regard to Album Pick, what specifically would you like to add? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically I'd like to formalize a statement that we ignore it and do not include it in reviews. Two reasons: One, the text saying (Album pick) is distracting when inserted between the stars and the link. Second: AMG's star ratings are absolute; they tell you how good the album is from 0.5-5.0 stars. The Album pick designation really isn't any kind of assessment of quality; all it tells the user that if they were looking for a representative album to hear the first time you were discovering that specific band, that would be the album to pick. It often is not given to the highest-rated album, but often goes to best-of compilations or the most accessible or most common album in an artist's catalog. For example, of the Vanilla Ice albums, AMG gave his first album a 3-star review (all others got 2-stars or less), and also designated it an Album Pick; meanwhile, for The Velvet Underground, AMG gave each of the first four albums perfect FIVE-star ratings, but gave the two "Album Pick" tags to...(get this)...two best-of compilations that each received only 4.5-stars. Is this the kind of information we want to tack on to our review listings without explanation, and expect users to understand why To the Extreme is an Album Pick, while White Light/White Heat, Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band, or Physical Graffiti aren't? Are we content to let editors add this essentially phony award that tells readers that The Dark Side of the Moon and All Killer No Filler have been deemed "equals" without any explanation to the user what it actually means? Torc2 (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your case seems reasonable to me. :) I'd agree with you that its inappropriate in the infobox. It might be appropriate with context in the body of the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Moonriddengirl. I will also ask that if you add such a guideline to the guidelines, please keep it as concise as possible. Avoid instruction creep. -Freekee (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Freekee. I'm not sure any additional text is needed, since the guideline is already quite detailed about what information should be included about a review (the three bits). A while back we concluded that Rolling Stone's "No rating" rating should not be included (because it isn't a rating, and for consistency with the guideline) but we don't include any special instructions about that, so I'm not sure we need any special instructions about this either. --PEJL (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, consensus seems pretty clear. I'll add something very short, like "do not use the 'Album Pick' designation". The only reason I brought it up is because it kept being added to certain articles by different users, so I just wanted to clarify it here before getting into a big(ger) edit war over it. Thanks everybody. Torc2 (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for posterity, here's the section from AMG's content FAQ that illustrates the problem:

When looking at an artist's discography, you may see a check mark next to the star rating of a release. That represents the AMG Pick for the release most representative of that artist's entire body of work. On specific release pages you may also see smaller checks next to two or three tracks on a recording. Those are AMG Song Picks. These are the songs on a recording that our experts feel are most representative of the entire release.

Torc2 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Various atrist track listing

The question of track listing for various artist albums was discussed some time ago (see here) but no conclusion was reached, and nothing placed on the project page to state a standard. I have been using Artist : "Title" - MM:SS. I only bring it up again because I see that someone has just changed something like 30 articles to be Artist - "Title" - MM:SS. -- Jbattersby (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Artist - "Title" - MM:SS looks better to me. I don't like the colon with spaces on both sides. Torc2 (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally use "Title" – Artist – MM:SS as it seems to me the song title should be first, since it is the track listing. -Joltman (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Three people, three different ideas! Personally, I really don't like the long dash and having two of them is just too much for me. I'm not overly fussed, the previous discussion half agreed on Artist : "Title" - MM:SS, which is why I used that. If some one would pick one of the three formats on offer, and stick it on the project page - I'll go with that. I don't really want to start changing things unless it is an agreed format. -- Jbattersby (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a track listing, so the song title should come first. After that, the artist, and then time. So very often, you can use the same punctuation as for songs on regular albums. "Song" (artist) endash time. But the artist seems like too important a detail to leave to parentheses, so in my articles, I do "song" endash artist (time). But that leaves out the question of author. If that becomes important, maybe do "song" (author) endash artist (time). The only other opinion I have to add is that colons look horrible. So the only thing I can clear up is that the song title comes first. Any more votes on the rest? -Freekee (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done "Title" (artist) endash time. However, I was pretty lucky there in that all songs were by the same composer. :) With a more complicated compilation, I went with a chart, using title/composer/performer/chart position/time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the argument that song title should come first just because it's called a "track listing." The artist performing the track is a much more critical piece of information than the song title; for standard albums, the artist doesn't have to be listed with each song title because the information is already known. For VA albums, that's not true. Put it this way: if you're searching the used CD bins through VA releases, are you looking primarily at song titles or artists? Torc2 (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I've been looking at examples of tribute album articles. On those, I find the song titles more important. Maybe only slightly. But I still think that since it's the track listing, the song titles should go first. -Freekee (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but tribute albums are the rare exception because the song title alone carries a lot of weight and people buying the album usually know the band being tributed...(wait, tributed? attribut...no, tribued? entribu...screw it)... the band being saluted. Still though, "track listing" is not "title listing", and the artist performing the track is usually a much more important piece of information that what the track happens to be titled. Torc2 (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. All those "Now That's What I Call Commercially Viable Music" compilations I see advertised on TV seem much more driven by titles. :) Technically, cast albums are "various artist", since performer information must be supplied for each track, and the titles are generally more significant there. I think it may be case based. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 04:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Album templates

I see there are a few album templates, such as {{Physical Graffiti}}. (You can see more here.) Are these useful? They appear on the album articles, where they are completely redundant, and on the songs articles, where they form links to the songs that aren't already linked. Personally, I'd like to see them deleted. I don't think it's hard to do one click to get back to the album article, to gain access to the full list of songs. What do you think? -Freekee (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

They seem a bit excessive. I don't have strong feelings about it, so I don't know that I'd go so far as nominating them for an MfD myself, but I can imagine that if folks start creating them for every album, we're going to be swimming in them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't much care for navboxes in the first place. All the info you need about a band is a click away. Why do you need a box at the bottom of every album page listing all the other albums by a band? There's already a category link on the page. And it's one click to the band's own page anyway. Why do you need a list of members, when that's already in the article? Why do you need a linked list of songs when there's already a linked list of songs in the article. It's just redundant information on the page. I was starting to decide that these navboxes weren't a big deal, but I think I just changed my mind. -Freekee (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about band navboxes, either. They mess up assessments. You get a gorgeous otherwise B article that does not have a list of personnel--just a band box that has a billion former members and no indication of which ones performed on THIS album. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

At first I thought band navboxes were pretty cool. It was an easy way to hit the high points. Then I realized that every single article relating to the band is in the box. They're sometimes bigger than the article they're in. -Freekee (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes for a band are useful, but for a single album? Even if every song had its own article, I don't really see the use.Torc2 (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a consequence of the running out of things to actually write about a band/album/topic, so enthusiastic/obsessive people start fiddling around with the navigational aspects or making unnecessary additions to info panels. They think they are adding "content" but it is often just clutter. If a book, it would be like trying to display the chapter contents list in a page's running head – an unnecessary amount of detail. Ricadus (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Album type category

What's up with this? Category:Album types. I was going to add a couple of articles to the cat, but the description wording implies that it has something to do with infobox usage. Then I decided the articles should just be moved to Category:Albums, but I'm still wondering if this project needs the cat for some reason. Can I empty it, or what? -Freekee (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how it might be used, but I am curious as to the need for the change. :) Album types seems like a good descriptor for the articles in that category. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Two reasons. First, I think they might as well go into Category:Albums. Second, if we dont' combine them, I'd like to add a couple more to this category. If it's connected to the infobox somehow, that might cause problems. -Freekee (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't help with that category, but I did some work with the infobox. Apparently that is a maintenance category (if it is indeed linked to the infobox). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The KLF discography

The KLF discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for it's second Featured List Candidacy. If you would like to review the nomination please see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The KLF discography. --kingboyk (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Album covers lacking fair use rationales

Hi WikiProject Albums! As some of you might be aware, a lot of non-free images were tagged for deletion last week because they lacked fair-use rationales (the relevant policy is here). If anybody would like to add a few rationales to album covers, there is a list of tagged covers here. There is a rationale specifically for album covers that are used in album articles here, and some more examples of fair-use rationales here. If an album image is used as part of a discography, please don't add a rationale to it because images in discographies are usually not allowed. If anybody needs help with their own image uploads, please let me know and I'll help out as best I can. Bláthnaid 15:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, has there been a discussion on the appropriateness of using a non-free album cover image in an article regarding a song from that album? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of album covers in articles about songs from that album does not meet fair use criteria, though the cover of a single, if one was released, would be appropriate. For example, this is appropriate, while this is not (note that both songs are from the same album, but the first example uses the cover of the single while the second uses the cover of the album). --IllaZilla (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I had guessed. Does it matter if the song was not released as a single? It still seems like a weak argument for fair use, but I suppose it would be more justifiable in that case. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, if the song wasn't released as a single then it shouldn't use the album cover image as a substitute. That wouldn't meet fair use criteria, at least to my understanding. I guess in that case the article wouldn't have an image, though I guess you might be able to make a case for a still image from a music video being able to qualify under fair use. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree - it's not really fair use of an album cover if the song wasn't released as a single. Papa November (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, to do so makes it mere decoration rather than information. Ricadus (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I'm back. 01:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantailfan (talk • contribs)

Theresa Sokyrka's Wrapped in Ribbon

I just thought I'd point out that, judging by the song "Last Day of the Year"'s lyrics on said album, it is in fact by Canadian singer-songwriter Reid Jamieson and not by Theresa herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.156.36 (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to point that out on the album article, or the artist's article. -Freekee (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Should Obi Strip be part of WP: ALBUM?

I think it should..what about others? -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a substantial part of the album. When you say "should be part", what do you mean? Should we mention it exists? Copy the information? I don't think so, unless there was something particularly notable about a specific release. Torc2 (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean, should it be considered part of the album project? Like, with the tag in the talk page and stuff?-^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 16:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you mean to put the Album Project template on the talk page, sure. As far as "and stuff" goes, I'm not sure what you mean. -Freekee (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. If i recall correctly i wasn't very awake at the time. Sorry. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 21:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Formatting suggestions for Track information section

Someone objected to my adding a Track information section in Nursery Cryme as having "made it look awful". The main differences I can see between this one and similar merges performed for Black Sabbath is:

• repeating titles in bold per WP:MOS#First sentences, and
• listing players

Does anyone have suggestions for how this could be better presented? / edg ☺ ☭ 12:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia:Albums#Article_body, the information should precede the track listing for start. I'm not sure that I would include performer information, since that information is included under Credits (according to the album style guide, it should be Personnel, and I note that it does not include technical personnel, which is required for an album article to reach B category.) If you removed performer info and formatted it more typically in order and in normal paragraphing (either without the bolding or with the use of subheaders), I think it would probably neaten up the presentation. As far as WP:MOS#First sentences goes, that does apply to the first sentence of the article, not of its sections. Now that these songs no longer have separate articles, their titles don't need bolding. My suggestions, anyway. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The performer credits for each song are unnecessary. If there is any particularly interesting reason to call them out, it would go nicely in the text. I suggest a section header, "Songs" or somesuch, with a paragraph for each. -Freekee (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Albums Project

I'm a writer for Lost At Sea Magazine and the moderator of the Alternative Music section of the music website Digital Dream Door, and I have worked for over a year on a list of the greatest alternative albums and artists. These pages are the first hits for the google search "greatest alternative artists" and "greatest alternative albums." I want to provide the rankings for the albums and artists listed on their respective wikipedia pages, as I think including these rankings gives a view into their standing and importance in the music community. These lists have been primarily edited and peiced together by me with input from other members of the community at Digital Dream Door. Hybridxdawn (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this information worth including? Is Digital Dream Door's top ten list more notable than any of the seemingly hundreds of other such rankings? / edg ☺ ☭ 00:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen many that focus on the alternative scene soley, especially considering the amount of time, research, and dedication put into this list, which is a top 100, not a top 10. The website itself is pretty popular and well known. Broken Social Scene's "You Forgot It In People" and Joy Division's "Closer" had their rankings on the list included on their respective pages independent of my action. Hybridxdawn (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on whether this is appropriate? Hybridxdawn (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not appropriate. It's a conflict of interest, and the list does not seem very notable. However, I would like to invite you to share your expertise with the world and to improve some album articles. Wikipedia will be better off with your writing than with the list. -- Pepve (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

FWD Trucks?

Why is The Four Wheel Drive Auto Company listed as part of WikiPriject Albums? ----DanTD (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there used to be an article about Four Wheel Drive (Bachman-Turner Overdrive album) under that title. That changed, but the project banner remained. I removed it for you. Feel free to be bold next time you encounter something like this, and fix it yourself. Happy editing. -- Pepve (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Album dedication in the infobox?

Just an idea. IDISLIKEcaugette (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, way too extraneous. If the album's dedication has some special significance to the album, like Resolve, it should say so right in the opening paragraph. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, maybe it should be in the criteria for WikiProject Albums that if an album has a dedication, it should be in the opening paragraph? For example,

Album is the debut album by Joe Bloggs, released on January 1, 2008. The album is dedicated to Joe Bloggs 'son, Joe Bloggs Junior.

IDISLIKEcaugette (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be left up to the discretion of the author/editor/s. In a fairly complete album article there will be much text and many sections. The dedication could very well fit nicely into any of them. The section about its recording, for example, if it's dedicated to the producer. In fact, if the subject of the dedication is important enough, there could be an entire section devoted to the subject. I wouldn't want to be redundant and mention it in both places. -Freekee (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yusuf Islam album chornology

Hi WikiProject Albums. I noticed that the album chronology for Yusuf Islam doesn't match the list in {{Cat Stevens}}. For example:

• Prayers of the Last Prophet lists no previous album (as opposed to The Life of the Last Prophet identified in the template) and An Other Cup as the next album (as opposed to A Is for Allah identified in the template)
• I Look I See lists "Bismillah" (which isn't listed in the template at all) as the previous album and An Other Cup as the next album (rather than "Indian Ocean" as identified in the template)
• An Other Cup lists I Look I See as the previous album (rather than "Footsteps in the Light" as identified in the template)

Also, someone may like to give consideration as to whether, in the Gold article, An Other Cup should be listed as the next album in the Cat Stevens chronolgy - elsewhere the Yusuf Islam and Cat Stevens chronologies seem to be considered separately. It's not my area of expertise, so I don't propose to try and fix it myself but I thought I'd mention it in case anyone here would like to have a go. DH85868993 (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I quoted your comment on Talk:Cat Stevens#Album chronology. I think that will yield better results. -- Pepve (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Report for Signpost

Hi everyone!

I've decided to continue the WikiProject Report for the Signpost, and I was wondering if this project would be interested in featuring? All I would need is an "interview" with a prominent member of the project on this page. Reply back if someone is interested in doing this. Thanks! Grover (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Disregard this now. But when I do have the opportunity to do one (when help is needed) i'll be back. :) Grover (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Template for track listing

User:Juhachi and I have been playing around with the idea of making a template for track listings similar to how Template:Episode list works. (User talk:Ned Scott#A proposition). See Template:Track list and Template:Japanese track list. The basic benefit of this is that it allows parts of the data to be meta tagged, which makes future maintenance easier, and would even allow for the data to be machine readable. I'm not aware of any track listings that contain a large amount of different fields, but if there are then the labeling would also make entering the data easier. The templates also use a hack from the episode list template that makes a table cell pop out if a field is listed, but blank. This is to encourage people to fill in incomplete lists without having to place a placeholder to keep the cell open. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like to see an example... But I must say I'm not immediately convinced by the idea, it seems like quite some overhead. I usually like to KISS. -- Pepve (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my first impression as well, but I think there might be situations where it is useful. The idea came up for a list like the one on User:Ned Scott/sandbox5, where it makes more sense given that there are basically three title fields. It likely wouldn't be needed for very basic track listings, but there could be times when one wants to include more information in-line with such a list (such as noting a writer and a performer for each track, etc). -- Ned Scott 01:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Help needed to add Esoteric Escape to album categories

Hi there, please can someone help me add Esoteric Escape by Keser to some album categories?

Thanks!

Whodis7 (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Catalog numbers in infobox?

I've noticed alot of album-related pages have increasingly taken into consideration catalog numbers. Many of the most-recently FL-promoted discographies include them (see Lightning Bolt discography and Feeder discography), as well as some label-discographies using them as their main criteria (see Dischord Records discography and Factory Records catalogue). Also, some album pages have included this info (see Year Zero (album) and Bazooka Tooth). So, my question is, should we encorouage the inclusion of these designations in the album infoboxes, and, perhaps most importantly, how should they preferably be displayed? In Wonderful Rainbow, for example, I included the catalog number with a link to the label's catalog (Load Records discography). In Year Zero (album) it includes a link to the Nine Inch Nails discography section concerning Halo Numbers (Nine Inch Nails discography#Halo numbers). Both examples differ a little bit, but I think it's easy to see how they help the reader. However, many of these examples are formatted slightly differently, and it might be good to iron a consistent style down. Any thoughts on this? Drewcifer (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. Catalog numbers change frequently without there being a substantial change in the album itself. See this for a good example why not. Torc2 (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if an album is originally released in one country then released in many different formats and many different countries and many rereleases by different labels, i would imagine that they would have different catalog numbers. The idea of a catalog number is that it points to a release, I.E "Black Sabbath's self-titled release on by x record label on CD". "Black Sabbath's self-titled release by X record label on vinyl" or "Black Sabbath's self-titled release on y record label on cassette", and it's "re-release", would have different catalog numbers. That's the whole point, to catalog the different releases.

To answer the question, i say that yes, it should be in the infobox in my opinion. Maybe as a smaller spot next to the record label, and should only be used for the original release. For newer stuff, this would be perfect because things are usually only released once here, and for older stuff you can just leave it blank if you can't find the first releases' catalog number. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 21:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The "original release" isn't clearly defined, especially for international releases or albums released simultaneously on CD and vinyl. The catalog number of different releases is generally irrelevant to the music on it, and Wikipedia is not a directory. There's really no compelling reason to include this information. Torc2 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

By that same view, the record label has little relevance to the music on it, they didn't write the songs or record them. But they're kept. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 23:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, I strongly disagree with that. Take a look at labels like Sub Pop, K Records, or SST Records to see what kind of an effect the label has. Labels are, in their own right, notable. Catalog numbers are not. We don't have an article for CK19320, but we have on for Columbia Records. Torc2 (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Different editions, yes. Catalog numbers, no. --Fantailfan (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think catalog numbers are important, they should not be in the infobox or the article (concerning album and single articles, I suppose it can be different for label articles). How does it benefit the reader? What is the encyclopedic value? (Note that Nine Inch Nail's halo numbers aren't catalog numbers.) -- Pepve (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In certain cases I would agree that the catalog number isn't particularly helpful: releases on Interscope Records for example wouldn't benefit from the additional info, since there's so many releases on that label ranging between so many different types of music and so many years. But for smaller, more local, more genre specific labels it is much more closely followed. Dischord Records is primarily punk rock from Washington D.C., Load Records is noise rock from Providence, RI, Def Jux is underground hip hop from NYC, Sub-Pop is grunge from Seattle, Factory is post-punk from the UK, and so on. In cases like this it is much more useful, and much more closely followed. So what I'm suggesting is that in cases where it might be relevant, for releases on any of the labels mentioned above, for instance, we should allow the editor the option to do so, and make a decision on how such information should be formated/displayed. And yes, I realize that the NIN Halo numbers aren't technically catalog numbers, but they function in practically the same way. Drewcifer (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Sub Pop or K Records influences their artists. They may stick to a certain brand, but they aren't like Atlantic Reords with Dream Theater (especially Falling Into Infinity). But anyway, the catalog number also provides clarity: This release was put out on X date in X format, not your Japanese re-issue special edition with bonus tracks.-^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 19:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We're going to have to start a Perennial proposals page for Album infobox suggestions. I'll give the same answer I give every time: Please no. Let's keep the infobox size to a minimum. Personally, I don't even like the reviews there. Just the basic and most important information. I see no point in generally having a catalog number in the article, let alone in the infobox.

Check out The Beatles' Second Album. What does that mean? Why might someone find these numbers useful? Nobody's ever answered this for me. Drewcifer, will you be the first? -Freekee (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best! There are definately more examples of albums where a catalog number wouldn't be all that helpful as opposed to those that would. For most major releases by major acts on major labels that info is fairly irrelevant. i.e. The Beatles album above, the Black Sabbath album mentioned earlier, etc. This is mainly due to the fact that there is very little association between the artist and their label. Who cares what label ACDC releases their next album on, right? But, for many other cases (smaller releases by lesser-known acts on smaller labels) this info is much more closely followed. Again, this is simply because of the artists' relationship/connection with the label. For example, stylistically, there is a hge distinct difference between the sound of RJD2's releases on Def Jux and on XL Recordings. Historically, Minor Threat is part-and-parcel with the history of Dischord Records, and a Minor Threat release on any other label would be unheard of. I could go on and on, but suffice to say that for these acts, the label is a much more important factor than what company happens to press and release the album. Going off of that, each release represents an important moment in time for that label, partly because they're so self-contained and "artist-centric", but mainly because the overall output of the labels is fairly small. Even the biggest release on Interscope Records is only a blip in the label's massive catalog. But when Lightning Bolt releases their next album on Load Records, the noise rock world stops in its tracks. I don't know if I was super articulate in my explanation, but hopefully I made some sense. Drewcifer (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but it sounds like you're talking about the kind of music a band makes when it's on one label, as compared to the music it makes on a different one. I agree that this is important, but the label is already listed right in the infobox. What does the catalog number have to do with it? -Freekee (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a possible solution: I kinda like the Dischord Records discography article, but I think adding catalogue #s to the infobox is kinda extraneous as far as being minute detail that really doesn't help the reader understand the subject any better. Plus if we're adding a field or criteria to the infobox then it's going to affect all album articles, irrespective of who the artist or record label are. You can't add a field or criteria to the infobox just for indie acts, for example. It'd lead to chaos. So why don't you just add a "See also" section to the album article and then link to the article about the label's discography? You could even mention the catalog # there. For example, for Repeater by Fugazi you could add "see also Dischord Records discography (DIS44)" Seems like a decent solution to me. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you in part: it's problematic to say that certain info applies to some acts, but not others. But the same problem exists whether it's in the infobox or a See Also section. And if we were to compare the two solutions: a mention in the infobox or a See Also section, the See also section seems to be more of a big deal than the infobox one. A whole new section is a much more drastic addition than a simple number in the infobox. If you look at the Beatles album you mentioned above, then I would say that adds more space. But if you look at Wonderful Rainbow, it does the job fairly efficiently, with no added space. The link to Load Records discography is basically hidden, while still allowing the user to find out more. The See also idea seems to give it undue weight, for such a minor fact about the album. Drewcifer (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)