Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 → Archive 45

Melodic.net

Melodic.net was founded by a musical industrialist. It is the European leading site for modern rock and it meet WP:NME. I thought I should ask whether or not its reviews are professional to be included in an album article. Is it a professional review site?--Strawberry Slugs (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Professional reviews

Excuse me, but why would you want to move the professional reviews box when many people have gotten use to looking at it from the top right hand corner box? It has caused a great INCONVENIENCE and I think something as big as this should be discussed with all the administrators in wikipedia, preferably a poll should be held. Moving the review box to another location is like moving somebody's pinky to the back of your palm. I think you should review this immediately before further complaints arise. I THINK WHAT WE NEED IS TO FIND SOME PROFESSIONAL REVIEWERS SUCH AS ALLMUSIC. BUT NOT INCLUDE ALL THE PROFESSIONAL REVIEWS. The reason people look at reviews is to make sure its a worthwhile album to buy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronpon (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been this way for a while, see archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 34#Professional reviews moved from infobox. I didn't see anything at the time, either, though evidently it was announced in a couple of places (again, see the archived discussion). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. There are additional archived discussions; see links (and add'l discussion) at Template talk:Infobox album#Removal of "reviews" field. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The purpose of Wikipedia, or any encyclopaedia, is to present information, it is not a repository for album reviews (see WP:NOTDIR). There was a very long discussion regarding removing reviews from the infobox - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 33#Reviews in infobox: scrap?. There was no need to involve all the admins of Wikipedia because this only falls under the scope of WikiProject Albums and doesn't affect other kinds of articles. --JD554 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this was thoroughly discussed, and I agree that the relocation is sound. To respond to your remark, "The reason people look at reviews is to make sure its a worthwhile album to buy": that may be so, but presenting a review is incidental to the purposes of an encyclopedia. It's entirely appropriate that the reviews no longer have such prominence in our articles. PL290 (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It was already mentioned, but requesting "all the administrators in wikipedia" to discuss review box placement isn't any different than requesting "all editors in wikipedia". Technically, when it comes to editing articles or discussing changes in templates and so forth, users with admin status are no different than editors without admin status. Admins hold no special privilege or "power" over any other editor in terms of article editing; they just have extra buttons so they can control article moves, deletions, and user abuses. I think it's explained at WP:ADMIN. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 16:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the concensus is that reviews should be in their own box rather than the infobox, though I can for the life of me understand why, it looks better and doesn't get in the way of the rest of the article! Even so, is there any way to stop the reviews box aligning right? For example in the Birds of Pray page, the box is supposed to be in the section "Reception", why can't I get it to appear there aligned left? Help would be appreciated. Iangurteen (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It aligns right by default, and if that would cause it to overlap with another template, it automatically goes below that template. Your problem there is that you've got all of 2 sentences' worth of article before the ratings template. You need to expand the lead and add more content, such as sections on the album's background and recording, in order to push the "Reception" section further down, below the infobox. In other words, generic article improvement will fix this problem. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Reply appreciated IllaZilla. At the moment I'm just trying to get the pages on Live's albums tidy, copy edited and with full chart stats before I really have a go at expansion. At least now I know. Regards, Ian. Iangurteen (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I know this is just more bitching, but I'd just to say that I really, really miss the professional reviews section of albums! (Where it's been removed; I still see it on most pages.) Why the change really? We can have articles like this but not a handy compendium of critical reviews for each album? I think some music-industry officials went undercover to push this change so people would just buy whatever gets advertised the most.
That is all.
Ulmanor (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is focused on prose, not lists. Some articles such as Homogenic and Madonna still have their review sections. So don't worry so much. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
A few things: (1) The infobox never actually had reviews in it. What it had were ratings. It often had links to reviews, but it did not contain the reviews themselves. (2) The reviews (or more accurately, ratings) were not removed, they were simply relocated to a more appropriate place, the "reception" section of the article. (3) Our goal isn't to provide a "handy compendium of critical reviews for each album"; we're not Metacritic. Reception sections should have a description of an album's overall critical reception, with specific opinions from the most notable sources available. The ratings accompany this prose, and the references act as a link for readers to read more. (4) The change was proposed, discussed, and implemented by Wikipedia editors, not industry insiders. It certainly has nothing to do with sales or advertising. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion concerning musical infoboxes

Please see the discussion here. J04n(talk page) 22:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Producer on infobox

Should personnel credited with "additional producing" and "assistant producer" be included on the infobox? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say, "No." The Infobox is a summary and not a FULL listing of Producers or anything else. For complete details the reader needs to view the appropriate section of the article. The subordinate producers thus should not be listed in the infobox, just Executive producers, and "producers" without the sub-qualifiers you have mentioned. IMO of course.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree. PL290 (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. Just top-billed producers, not assistants/additionals. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ghosts I Have Been

The article Ghosts I Have Been has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references ("Ghosts I Have Been" & "Faith Assembly") found no published (gBooks) references and little on line support for this article. Fails WP:V and WP:N

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Advice

A young new editor (User:Grace603) has asked me for an opinion on her contributions to "Here We Go Again (pureNRG album)". I can't say how Wikipedia prefers to deal with contemporary pop music, so I'm forwarding her question here. Perhaps someone else might be able to offer her some advice. Cavila (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of GoodThunder (album)

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

No incoming links, unlikely direct search, all content moved to GoodThunder (band)

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Scaruffi

it must be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.72.252 (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What must be added? And added to what? If you're trying to make a point here, you're going to have to explain yourself better. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
As of now Scaruffi is not considered a professional critic by Wiki standards, and therefore his reviews should not be included in album articles. However, this can change if we vote for his inclusion. I believe that his reviews should be added to the "eclectic" albums lacking reviews from mainstream critics/publications/websites. A lot of people have made an argument that Scaruffi is merely a guy with too much time on his hands and that anyone can do what he does. This argument is very weak and banal.
Things to Think About:
  • How many other "average Joes" have self-published 500+ page books on rock, jazz, and consciousness?
  • How many other "average Joes" have written about 8,000+ musicians?
  • How many other "average Joes" receive four million hits per month on their self produced website?
  • How many other "average Joes" have interviewed 50 musicians?
WestArcherLives (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
One more thing. Here's the current stance on including a critic. "Specifically, reviews should be written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs), and must be from a source that is independent of the artist, record company, etc." To call his website a "personal blog" shows your lack of competence of understanding the difference between a website and a blog.
Cons:
  • He does not host an online publication, but he does pay for the website.
Pros:
  • He has a staff of volunteers (unpaid interns).
  • He has a database of over 8,000 artists. This is helpful for the more obscure albums/artists.
I am merely suggesting that we use Scaruffi for artists/albums that require information that is not accessible from these mainstream critics. Perhaps articles should be flagged as "obscure"? (We already flag/rate articles on their significance and importance...this obviously denotes a sense of obscurity). Please consider.
WestArcherLives (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Question for "cover" section

Should the image for the album cover include or exclude the "Parental Advisory" label if the album has been warranted explicit by the RIAA? • GunMetal Angel 22:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO if an equivalent image is available sans the warning, use that one. The label isn't part of the cover in 99% of cases. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You mean it is just on the plastic overwrap, right?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Leave it out. I'm assuming the warning only exists on American pressings anyway, and most major-label albums are released internationally. —Gendralman (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The label isn't part of the plastic overwrap anymore, and it is no longer a sticker, it has been in-printed with the covers for about a decade now. But if you guys say so to leave it out when uploading the album artwork, I guess then that's how it'll be. Be sure to write-this up on the survey, though; because that's the most important thing. - GunMetal Angel 19:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Invented (album)

Given that the album linked in the title has been out since September 28th, I boldly changed the article class from future class to B-class. Seeing as I'm not well versed in this WikiProject's rating scale, I would like it if someone would please double check my assessment and let me know if I assessed it correctly. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sales estimations

Should sales estimations for albums be included in album articles? Such as this edit to the Speak Now article? Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes proposal

I've posted a proposal on the use of song and album succession boxes here if anyone is interested. 28bytes (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Release History

I was suggested to bring this up here. As you can see on this album here, in the template box, underneath the release dates it says see release history and it takes you to the release history section. I've tried to add this to other albums, as have other users, and certain users keep saying it is not needed, and we should not be sending people to the bottom of the page when they can just read the article. Ok, yeah we want people to read the article, but if you just want a release date your not going to read the article anyway. I was told to discuss this issue here and would like to know what other people's opinions were on this. It doesn't harm anyone, it's useful, and there is nowhere that says this is against the rules and can't go in pages. Even an admin I have asked about this didn't say it couldn't be added. Please discuss! I think we should add this on any album page that has a release history section. --Shadow (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion above, but it is called "Redirect links".—Iknow23 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Geesh, I totally forgot about this page. Sorry but I didn't check back and now I can't reply tot he archive, but I would like to continue this discussion. It seems very mixed reception to me. --Shadow (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Melodic.net

Melodic.net was founded by a musical industrialist. It is the European leading site for modern rock and it meet WP:NME. I thought I should ask whether or not its reviews are professional to be included in an album article. Is it a professional review site?--Strawberry Slugs (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that Melodic.net should be added to our list of review sites, your best option is probably that you bring us the necessary evidence, like other editors did in the past. For example here, here, or here. Personally, I have never heard of that site, and I am not prepared to do the necessary work to prove it's notablity and reliability. Good luck with it! – IbLeo(talk) 20:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic's URL syntax has changed...

... and a discussion about how we migrate all links to the new syntax is taking place here. As this project probably has the most articles impacted someone might like to join the discussion. – IbLeo(talk) 21:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Placement of stub template in article

Does anyone know if there exists a guideline for where in an article we should place a stub template? At the top? At the bottom? If yes, before or after the navbox? Cheers. – IbLeo(talk) 08:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Per MoS (layout), it should appear in the footer, after the categories. PL290 (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, PL290. The MoS is clear and concise about it. So visually the stub statement is displayed at the very end of the article, after the navbox. – IbLeo(talk) 06:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Album articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Album articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Further IN collaboration page.

Well hopefully this is right and is our "Talk" page for the Further In article.

The New page needs a more articulate lead, media (pictures or music), biography, touring information, lyrics, better subject headings, more organization, and so on. What are you guys going to add or edit to the page this week. I am going to add to the lead and see if I can track downs some pics of Greg or a few tracks from the album this weekend to add to the page as well. -Jeremiah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miahc77 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets discuss also what we thinks works for structure on the current page and what does not work and how we will change that. Essentially I would think that comes down to the criteria we each are editing and adding. Lets start the basis of that discussion on this talk page. What works on the current page for you and what does not work and what are you going to change about it. -Jeremiah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miahc77 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are at the wrong place. This is the talk page for WikiProject Albums, not the article talk page for Further In. That talk page is located at Talk:Further In. However, if you need help improving the article, please don't hesitate to ask here. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you are right that this is not the correct talk page, however we can not find one for the Talk:Further In page as a way to communicate back and fourth as we build this page from a start up page to something more viable. (college assignment). If you have any advice on where to find the proper talk page for it or how to create one I would love to know. In the meantime we are using this as that space. Thanks for the thoughts. -J —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miahc77 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I think a couple of questions have to be asked:
  1. What is "Further In"? Are you talking about the album by Greg Brown? Because that already has an article at Further In, and a talk page at Talk:Further In.
  2. Who is "we"? Are you a college class?
  3. What is the "this page" that you are trying to "build up"?
  4. What is this "assignment"?
This isn't a space for you to use to coordinate some sort of class assignment. This is the talk page for WikiProject Albums, a collective of Wikipedia editors dedicated to improving articles about albums. The project coordinates editing efforts and works towards consistency across articles and advancing articles to higher levels of quality. If you have questions about the project, or need assistance with work on an album article, this would be the place to post. But it's not a forum for you and your classmates to collaborate on an assignment. If you can give us a clearer idea of what it is you're after, perhaps we can help point you in the right direction. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL, I feel like I just got taken behind the Wikipedia woodshed. This is a group project for advancing existing articles about musicians or albums. I finally found the Talk page you were talking about. Working as an editor on Wkipedia is new to me so you will have to excuse me if I am fumbling the snap here a little bit. this is the last time I will put a post on this page, thanks for the help but lower your blood pressure a little. This is all a public domain after all but I appreciate a point in the right direction. all the best -J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miahc77 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Relax, we're here to help :-) If I sounded terse above, I apologize. Best of luck in improving the article, and if you have any questions or need any assistance (or are ready for the article to be re-assessed), please don't hesistate to post here. I or someone else from the project will be happy to help. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of It's a Beautiful Feeling

The article It's a Beautiful Feeling has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) references for this article and relatively few web mentions, Fails WP:N and WP:V

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Way (album)

The 70s, Jesus music band called The Way (band) released their first album in 1973. As it was a self-titled album it has been sitting at The Way (album). Apparently the Irish band The Script have announced that they too will be releasing an album called The Way in 2011. An anon came by and attempted to hijack the existing article. I would like some guidance in what to name the two albums. I'm assuming that since there are only going to be two articles there's no need for a disambiguation page. I thing that calling the existing article "The Way (The Way album)" is a bit awkward, but think "The Way (The Switch album)" isn't quite as awkward. Suggestions? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you have dealt with this properly so far. With the album by The Switch off somewhere in the future, as an interested person you may have to keep an eye on the current article for 70s album and make sure nobody else hijacks it. You'll just have to watch the page which you might already be doing. When that new album becomes a reality it should definitely be at The Way (The Switch album) as you suggest, but I believe the rule would then be to move the existing album article to The Way (The Way album). Yeah that is awkward but it might become necessary. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
That's what I suspected. There's always the chance that the new album with have a title change and then this will blow-over. Yes, I am watching it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

B.O.X ~Best of X~

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is apparently a Japan-only budget compilation that is nonexistent in America (no mention at AllMusic, for example) and I can only find one source at an otherwise defunct webzine (here) about the Japanese release. Notability is a real problem for this item. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tagged it with a Proposed Deletion. Maybe somebody will step up and fix it. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Usage of chronology in the infobox

I've started a discussion on the usage of the chronology in the album infobox. It is located at Template talk:Infobox album#Chronology. Thought I'd drop a note here in case there are interested project members who don't watch the template page. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Backlog (album)

Hello again: A group of us are STILL working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and might be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help find one or two good references. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Album chronologies

Changes have been proposed relating to the chronology field of {{infobox album}}. You will find the discussion here. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I already mentioned this a couple of threads up, under #Usage of chronology in the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams singles

Is the edit this article here adding citations supporting the release(s) of a single? Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Track listing based on Tweet/Twitter

This edit proports that a track listing is to be included with a citation that involves a producer saying there will be a second pressing of an album with bonus tracks. Reverting edits to this article up and down, I'd appreciate some input. Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Matter's been cleared up. Dan56 (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participate!

Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.


I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.


Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 13:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson final album

Should the first sentence in the lead for Invincible (Michael Jackson album) include the note "to be released in his lifetime"? It seems like something seperate from the album article and biographical, more appropriate for the Michael Jackson article. Dan56 (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's fine to state that it was the last album to be released in his lifetime. It's a fairly significant detail in terms of the album’s place in Jackson's discography and as such, the reader should be made aware of it. Yes, it could also be mentioned in the main Michael Jackson article (and probably should be) but it's definitely relevant to the album article itself. Not every reader of the Invincible article will have read the main MJ article. Really, it's no different to saying that Got to Be There was his first solo album in the article for that album; it's a relevant fact concerning the album and therefore readers should be made aware of it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
But his first solo album "to be released in his lifetime"? Should that be noted in Got to Be There? Dan56 (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox song list

Template:Infobox song list has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox artist discography. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Type for Audiobook

The Ugly Duckling (audiobook) has been sitting at Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes for ages because of its fairly unique nature. The creators of the article have built it as if the item is an album (it is available on CD), with "audiobook" as the Type in the infobox. A while back I changed it to "studio" because it's technically something Cher recorded in the studio, but I got reverted for a fairly good reason, because it's not really a studio album either. But "audiobook" is not one of our standard album types. Does this article even belong in the Albums Project, or should it be treated like a book, where there is an infobox option for audiobook? (See Unearthing for example.) Any thoughts? --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of anything, except for creating an audiobook template, or (see the following). The E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (album) is another example of an audiobook, but for the inclusion of one track, featured in the E.T. film, the template lists it as a soundtrack. Note that audiobooks based on Doctor Who have their own Doctor Who audiobook template, like Pest Control, but these should not be considered albums. If an album template can not be made, i suggest using the book template. It's the next appropaite thing. Plus, most articles on audiobooks feature the book template.--92.235.128.38 (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Under "Type" in the Template:Infobox album documentation there is an "other" option. As this release doesn't fall into any of the set types I think "other" should be used for it, which can be customised as "audiobook" for example. Dell9300 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Should articles contain copyright information?

I've made a brief perusal of a few dozen different song articles and album articles, and none of them indicated who held the copyright to the album being described. Maybe I was just unlucky, but this information being missing on all the pages I checked makes me think it's probably missing on the other album pages as well. This makes it difficult to find the copyright holders and ask permission to use the songs on the albums in derivative works.

Should this information be included on album pages, or is there a better place for it to be listed?

Rob Kelk 01:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Wikipedia is for and as far as I know this information has never been included in album articles. The articles do include the record company, and that's probably who someone should contact for copyright info. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to update this project?

In comparison to other WikiProjects for works of media (WP:FILM, WP:VG and WP:BOOKS), the albums project seems way behind the times. The other projects have entire separate articles for outlining what content belongs on the articles, while Wikiproject Albums as a tiny section hidden below the transcribed infobox documentation. In fact, it looks like the outlines for how to properly create a track listing is more detailed than the guidelines for what the actual article body should discuss in prose. I'd be willing to donate my time and services in helping to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body (or something of a similar title) if other editors were also intersted. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. I think further description of what should go in a good album article would be of great help to editors. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
If no one has any objections to the red-linked subpage title I came up with, I could get a start on what I had in mind for this new guideline as early as later tonight. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems like a great idea to me. Zidane tribal (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty rough right now, but I posted what I have so far and would like other members of Wikiproject Albums to start collaborating and contributing their thoughts. Sections that are currently on the WP:ALBUM page were copied and pasted with zero changes, new sections that I wrote were derived from my own styles and examining dozens of featured articles. I also thought it was important to include basic things like referencing and maintenance templates on this guideline. When I first started editing I remember it was a little discouraging to have to learn from trial-and-error, and it would have been great to see these simple things all on one page. Perhaps having these things mentioned here, in addition to how we want the article body to look, will feel more welcoming to new members. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Landmines and Pantomimes

The article Landmines and Pantomimes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no references fails WP:V, article content implies fails WP:N

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

German project albums

Hi everybody, since 10 months we're building up an albumproject in Germany. This is now visible in the changed interwiki-link. In de:-Wikipedia it's very hard to build up the whole range of albums and songs, because there is a group of users, that tries to erase album-stubs or song-stubs. They want to keep the quality-criterias for new album- and song-articles high (too high in my opinion). But I don't want to go further into detailed explanations now (I would if I were asked). Every advice is welcome helping to create better and more album-articles in German language, too. (Up to now, there are just 3.500 German album articles compared to - according to categorycount - nearly 100.000 articles in English language). Some change in de: is already visible in the changed German Infobox, which features different colours now, similar to the English system. One question: Are we allowed to use and change the userbox of the en:-project into German language? This would be great. Thank you in advance. And sorry for any mistakes in my English.--Rmw73 (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Single(s) release?

Is this edit to Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams supporting the release(s) of a single with Amazon.com mp3 download citations? Dan56 (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix - Live at the Isle of Fehmarn Entry

Someone has been having a laugh with this page... As far as I understand it was changed by user "sebastiangarth" to include this fanciful tale...

"The Experience were originally scheduled to play on September 5, but heavy rain and Gerry Stickels interference delayed their appearance to the next day. Before the concert was slated to begin, former roadie Gerry Stickels [who was fired three nights previously, after Aarhus] stormed the box office and attempted to shut the concert down. Stickels and Hendrix exchanged insults in front of the crowd, and by the end of the concert a group of Hells Angels had attacked the crowd and Hendrix's roadie, Rocky, had been shot in the leg, forcing Hendrix to flee the stage. Two weeks later, Hendrix was dead, and the presence of Gerry Stickels and Eric Barrett at Hendrix's apartment would raise questions about a possible role in his death (at the concert, Hendrix had revealed the two as being lovers). Amateur recordings were made and released as bootlegs over the years, and after a new source of audio from the festival's promoters surfaced, the album was mixed and produced.[2]"

All of this stuff about Gerry Stickells (person cannot spell) is utter rubbish and comes from a home made online documentary at rockprophecy.com. I was going to edit it myself, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention first. Should be reverted back to edit before sebastiangarth changed it in June 2010 Postsoul (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lethal Weapon 3 (soundtrack)

The article Lethal Weapon 3 (soundtrack) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No mention of notability no refernces, fails WP:N and WP:V

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Lethal Weapon 3 (soundtrack) for deletion

The article Lethal Weapon 3 (soundtrack) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lethal Weapon 3 (soundtrack) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jeepday (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Limited Edition (The Concretes EP)

The article Limited Edition (The Concretes EP) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no mention of notability, no references,limeted edition of 500 copies, fails WP:N and WP:V

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lipstick Edition

The article Lipstick Edition has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No mention of notability, no references,limited edition of 1,000 copies, fails WP:N and WP:V

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Liquid Sands

The article Liquid Sands has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No mention of notability, no references, fails WP:N and WP:V

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for new infobox: POSTHUMOUS ALBUM

There has been some talk that this project should clearly see and be involved in - it has led to a proposal of sorts for a new category called "POSTHUMOUS" for the Template:Infobox album ... Pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Posthumous albums: Studio vs Compilation.Moxy (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Upon reading that discussion it appears that the proposal for a "Posthumous" type has been dropped due to widespread opposition. If that's the case, someone should do something about the pointless edit war going on in the infobox at Michael (album). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Strange effect with {{Track listing}}

Ẁurdah Ïtah has been edited to use {{Track listing}}. The article has a large infobox containing two additional covers. Since the edit, the tracklist text only starts below the infobox with the effect of a large empty space. IMHO, this looks so bad that the template should not be used there in its current form. See also the discussion on Template talk:Track listing. BNutzer (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

{{Track listing}} behaves differently depending on your browser & screen settings. For example, at work I use the outdated IE6 on a standard-size monitor and see the same effect you describe. However, at home I use IE8 with a widescreen monitor and this effect does not occur. This has been brought up at the template talk page several times in the past, with the general attitude being that it's not worth fixing because it only seems to be a problem with a outdated browsers, and because the problem is easily fixed by expanding the article with relevant information (a decent lead section, background and reception sections, etc.) that will naturally push the tracklist well below even an extended infobox. In other words, generic article improvement will make this a non-issue. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Album covers and Parental Advisory stickers

I just wanted to know what type of cover is preferred to be used, covers with the Parental Advisory sticker or not? Ga Be 19 10:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I personally avoid all stickers given to album covers when uploading artwork. So the PA sticker for sure, but also when the album title and artist's name are just a sticker on the CD's plastic wrap, I avoid those too. Maybe in situations where the PA sticker is notable and caused some other action to occur, but I generally don't include them. The artwork should stand on it's own merits the way the artist intended, and it's not an encyclopedia's job to alert the masses of explicit lyrics. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
If a version without the advisory sticker/label is available, it's preferrable to use that as the warning is not part of the artwork. See previous discussion on thi at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 39#Question for "cover" section. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, just asking. Also, should a note or bullet point be added to Template:Infobox_album#Cover and Wikipedia:ALBUM#Cover about album covers and PA stickers? Ga Be 19 21:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I maybe get some type of response on this?? Ga Be 19 01:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I have added some language to the instructions to cover this point. – IbLeo(talk) 22:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Audio theatre

Hi, I am a person from Germany. I came from Disneyland Records on this site. Possibly somebody can look on the discussion of the article: Audio theatre, because you have made edits in the past on articles which are related with it. with friendly greetings, Soenke --Soenke Rahn (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC regarding use of succession boxes on album articles

There is currently an RFC taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes. Interested parties are encouraged to participate. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Live from the Planet Archives: Volume 1

The article Live from the Planet Archives: Volume 1 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for reference found no published (gBooks) references, no indication of notability. Fails WP:V and WP:N

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Live from the Planet Archives: Volume 2

The article Live from the Planet Archives: Volume 2 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for reference found no published (gBooks) references, no indication of notability. Fails WP:V and WP:N

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Album cover

Is there a guideline I can refer to in deciding between the uncensored or censored album cover for the My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy article? A new image has been uploaded by a user claiming that since the cover was banned in stores in the US, the censored one should be used for the infobox. Dan56 (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The general precedent is to use the original (uncensored) cover first, and the replacement (censored) version in the "alternate cover" area. Template:Infobox album#Cover says to use "An image of the official front cover of the original version of the album" (emphasis added). See Virgin Killer and its talk page for an example where this was the prevailing consensus. It appears that the censored version is only used in specific store chains, so it is superceded by the original, more widely-used cover. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't we use one of the less-controversial covers instead of the censored version of the banned one? - ziansh | talk 21:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Eh? The original uncensored cover should be first in the infobox, with other alternates added using {{Extra album cover}}. For albums with controversial cover art, the original, uncensored version needs to be displayed as that's usually a significant factor in the album's notability. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mehboob-e-Yazdaan

The article Mehboob-e-Yazdaan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found LOTS of self promotation web pages, and no published (gBooks) references, no mention of notability in article fails WP:N.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Single release

Is this edit to Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams supporting the release(s) of a single with Amazon.com mp3 download citations? Dan56 (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Midwest Skies and Sleepless Mondays

The article Midwest Skies and Sleepless Mondays has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) references for this article. Lack of clearly independent WP:RS, fails WP:N

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miyaviuta -Dokusou-

The article Miyaviuta -Dokusou- has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for reference found no independent WP:RS for this article, no mention of notability, no references, only a single primary source in any other language article, fails WP:N and WP:V

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Moodswings and Roundabouts

The article Moodswings and Roundabouts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) WP:RS for the content of this article, fails WP:N and WP:V

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Moonblood/Nema Split EP

The article Moonblood/Nema Split EP has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no WP:RS for the content of this article, fails WP:V and WP:N

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediatraffic?

I was aked by a user to ask here, if it's allowed to use "http://www.mediatraffic.de" as a source for albums charting and year sales (or total sales). In my opinion, the page looks honestly and with real numbers and facts, so should it be used, or not? I'd think so, but before I do something wrong, I better ask here : ) !

Please also write me a message as an answer...

Thanks! --79.216.153.186 (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's on WP:BADCHARTS (United World Chart) and isn't to be used in any Wikipedia articles.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

CFD of Category:Oricon weekly number-one albums

BPI deadlinks

Happy New Year everyone. Links to show BPI certification awards have gone dead. I've gone to the BPI website and am able to find the information to verify the claims from the old refs but the url doesn't change from the search page. This is the url for the search page, under artist, in this case, I entered 'Deep Purple', I found all the info that I need but I can't link to it because the url remains the same as the search page. Does anyone know how to get the search result url or know of an alternate way to verify the British certifications? Stormbringer (album) is the page I was working on but there are many more with this situation. J04n(talk page) 21:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Zobbel.de

Is Zobbel considered a reliable source for charting information? J Milburn (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this question should rather be raised over at WP:CHARTS. If you look in its archives you will find several references to it, but no clear consensus as far as I can see. – IbLeo(talk) 05:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the allowance of cover images per NFC

I've opened an RFC to determine what the current consensus is on the use of non-free cover images on articles of copyrighted works per current treated of the non-free content criteria policy. The RFC can be found at WT:NFC#Appropriateness of cover images per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Allmusic links, tabs, and template

A couple of months ago, Allmusic changed their URLs. The old links redirect to the new links, but only at the "overview" level, not for specific tabs like Credits or Charts & Awards. A bot was written to change uses of the {{Allmusic}} template to the new URL system. The bot was also set up to change links that used actual Allmusic URLs to use the template instead. The bot has been stopped temporarily, and there's currently a discussion about URLs for the tabs in the Allmusic articles. Members of WikiProject Albums are encouraged to join the discussion, at Template talk:Allmusic#URL syntax has changed. That's a long-ish talk page section, but the recent action is in the last couple of sub-sections. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The migration is close to completion. It has been proposed to enhance the template by adding parameters to support the author name to the template and a sandbox version has been implemented. Interested editors are kindly invited to leave their opinion on this idea here. – IbLeo(talk) 09:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think it's needless, especially since if Allmusic drastically changes their URLs, the coding is worthless. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If one the other hand Allmusic does a minor change to their URLs, but keep the same keys, then it is sufficient to update the template instead of tens of thousands of articles one by one. I personally think this is more than worthwhile. – IbLeo(talk) 20:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Unhalfbricking GA reassessment

The Unhalfbricking album, which was listed as a Good Article in 2008, is going through an individual reassessment to see if it still meets GA criteria. There are concerns regarding prose quality, broad coverage, references, and compliance with WP:Lead. Additional views and editing assistance welcomed. SilkTork *YES! 14:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sample Credits

In my opinion the sample credits section, that is actually being put in the track listing section in many albums like My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, Recovery, etc, should be put at the personnel section, because it's also a kind of credits, so it relates more to the personnel section. The example will show how Dark Fantasy would look.

Extended content

Track listing

No.TitleWriter(s)Producer(s)Length
1."Dark Fantasy"Kanye West, Robert Diggs, Ernest Wilson, Jeff Bhasker, Mike Dean, Malik JonesThe RZA, Kanye West, No I.D., Jeff Bhasker (add.), Mike Dean (add.)4:40
2."Gorgeous" (featuring Kid Cudi & Raekwon)West, Wilson, Dean, Jones, Che Smith, Corey Woods, Scott MescudiKanye West, No I.D., Mike Dean5:57
3."Power"West, Larry Griffin Jr., Dean, Bhasker, Andwele Gardner, Ken LewisS1, Kanye West, Jeff Bhasker (add.), Mike Dean (add.), Andrew Dawson (add.)4:52
4."All of the Lights" (Interlude)  1:02
5."All of the Lights"West, Bhasker, Jones, Warren TrotterKanye West, Jeff Bhasker (co)4:59
6."Monster" (featuring Jay-Z, Rick Ross, Nicki Minaj & Bon Iver)West, Shawn Carter, Patrick Reynolds, Dean, William Roberts, Onika Maraj, Justin Vernon, BhaskerKanye West, Mike Dean (add), Plain Pat (add)6:18
7."So Appalled" (featuring Jay-Z, Pusha T, Prynce Cy Hi, Swizz Beatz & The RZA)West, Wilson, Dean, Carter, Terrence Thornton, Cydell Young, Kaseem Dean, DiggsKanye West, No I.D., Mike Dean (co)6:38
8."Devil in a New Dress" (featuring Rick Ross)West, Roosevelt Harrell, Dean, Roberts, JonesBink!, Mike Dean (co)5:52
9."Runaway" (featuring Pusha T)West, Emile Haynie, Thornton, Bhasker, Dean, JonesKanye West, Emile (co), Jeff Bhasker (co), Mike Dean (co)9:08
10."Hell of a Life"West, Mike Caren, Wilson, DeanKanye West, Mike Caren (co), No I.D. (co), Mike Dean (co)5:27
11."Blame Game" (featuring John Legend)West, Justin Franks, Khloe Mitchell, Dean, John StephensKanye West, DJ Frank E, Mike Dean (add.)7:49
12."Lost in the World" (featuring Bon Iver)West, Bhasker, VernonKanye West, Jeff Bhasker (co)4:16
13."Who Will Survive in America"West, Bhasker, Gil Scott-HeronKanye West, Jeff Bhasker (co)1:38

 • (co) Co-producer
 • (add.) Additional production

iTunes bonus track
No.TitleWriter(s)Producer(s)Length
14."See Me Now" (featuring Big Sean, Beyoncé & Charlie Wilson)West, Sean Anderson, Beyoncé Knowles, Charles WilsonKanye West, No I.D., Lex Luger6:03
Deluxe edition bonus DVD
No.TitleWriter(s)Director(s)Length
1."Runaway" (short film)Hype WilliamsKanye West35:00

Personnel

Credits for My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy adapted from Allmusic.[1]

Musicians

Production

Sample credits

Of course it doesn't have to appear in that order (Musicians-Production-Sample Credits), but whatever, I thought it would be better this way and I wanna know your opinion, what do you think about it? - MrKingz0 (talk) 04:44, 08 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I would de-cap Brass and link the first occurrence of A&R. Rich Farmbrough, 17:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Categories

Back in December I went though the then list of redlinked album categories, either creating or emptying most of them. The following non-empty categories remain redlinked and non-empty from that list, I have not the project specific knowledge to know if most of these should exist.

  1. Category:1971 live live albums 0 — recategorized album under Category:1971 live albums
  2. Category:1976 Christmas albums 3 — category created
  3. Category:1978 studio albums 0 — recategorized album under Category:1978 albums
  4. Category:1997 (band) albums 1 — category created
  5. Category:22-20s albums 5 — category created
  6. Category:Alternative albums 0 — category removed from album page; Category:Alternative rock albums was added to the artist's albums category
  7. Category:Anti-folk albums 24 — category created
  8. Category:At the close of every day albums 0 — category createed
  9. Category:Christian alternative rock albums 46 — category removed from album pages; added Category:Christian rock albums and Category:Alternative rock albums to artist's albums category
  10. Category:Northstar hip hop albums 0 — recategorized album under and created Category:Northstar albums
  11. Category:Samba albums 29 — created category
  12. Category:Slapstick albums 0 — recategorized album under and created Category:Slapstick (band) albums

It would be good if these could be resolved. There may of course be more such categories now. Rich Farmbrough, 17:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

I've gone through these and added my comments above, striking out those that I emptied through recategorization. I also populated a few where I was able. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. I didn't even see "live live" in the first example.. Rich Farmbrough, 19:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

A great injustice undone

This Wikiproject recently underwent a major improvement when Fezmar9 (talk · contribs) expanded the article content guidelines and moved them to a separate sub-page, as explained here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 39#Time to update this project?. However, this big step forward went almost unnoticed by the project members which I feel is a big injustice. I have therefore boldly awarded him the project barnstar for his efforts. – IbLeo(talk) 21:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

My edit.

I simply included the reprise of "A Sentimental Man" which, in addition to "The Wicked Witch of the East", is not included on the Original Broadway Cast soundtrack. 67.194.150.211 (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but what are you talking about? This is the talk page for the Albums project. If you're referring to this edit you made, you might want to post at Talk:Wicked (musical album) instead. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move WTF?! (album) to WTF?!

There is a discussion at Talk:WTF?! (album) concerning whether or not this is an acceptable article move. Please comment there if you have something to add. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 17:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Albums by artist and record label

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

Single or not?

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

It appears to have its own cover art and promotional video, so it seems to have some claim to being a "single", albeit a download-only one. This says it's the third single off the album, and it's reviewed as a single here. Now that some singles only get released digitally, there can be a fine line between something being a single and being an album track that gets a bit of a push. This looks more like a digital single/EP release than the one track URL used in the article.--Michig (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
"TONY" is definately a single, but in the edit I cited, I meant the additional four (single4 – 7) added by the editor. Is one mp3 download page at Amazon enough to support the release of a single, or should it come from the label's/artist's site, PR release, etc.? Dan56 (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Most seem to be multiple tracks/remixes with their own cover art and a release date specified. Ideally we would have more than an Amazon URL to go on, but they don't make these things up and even if a record company releases a single as a download from Amazon only, it's still a single.--Michig (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. Dan56 (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

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

New /Sources subpage

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

Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites? As far as I can see, it serves the same purpose as your new page. – IbLeo(talk) 16:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of this page, and it's actually one of the "See also" links at /Sources. Not all publications that are about music will have reviews, and not all sources that publish album reviews focus solely on music. I think about a third of the sources listed under "Online only" don't actually post reviews, but they're still valid sources of information. One of the big things I would still like to do with /Sources is expand the "Other sources" section to include other mediums like videos and books. Also, /Review sites goes into necessary detail on the rating system format and source-specific notes that would be irrelevant on the new page. So I do see your point, but the difference between these two pages is their scope. /Sources is for all places to find information, while /Review sites is more narrow and only focuses on one aspect of an album article. Perhaps that difference will become more apparent after it's expanded a little more. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I understand where you are heading. Nevertheless, from your description it sounds like /Sources would be more appropriate over at WP:WPMU, as it is much more wide-reaching than just albums. Also, I am skeptical to your inclusion of websites that don't even have their own article here on WP, like The Boombox and The Boot (website). In my experience, if a website is not notable enough to have an article, it's highly possible that it will fail the criteria for reliable sources. – IbLeo(talk) 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the majority of Wikipedia editors like to believe that something without an article is automatically non-notable. This is generally a pretty logical way of thinking, and nine times out of ten it makes perfect sense. However, the two sites you have mentioned are part of AOL's genre-specific music news blogs, similar to Noisecreep and Spinner (website). If these other two AOL sites can be deemed notable, then surely by extension The Boot and Boombox are as well. Especially if you glance at the staff pages[1][2] that give a list of well-established writers with credible backgrounds. When writing /Sources I noticed that it largely appealed to my tastes of punk and metal, and when trying to come up with sources that cater to other genres, the other AOL sites came to mind first. Even though they don't have any articles. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to point it out as we are quite "picky" before including a new source on /Review sites, and I believe it should be the same here. I have never personally heard of those two websites, but your argumentation makes sense and I am not going to contest. Secondly, I still believe that /Sources and /Review sites have so much overlap (both in content and purpose) that they should be merged, and I actually think that /Sources is the better name. If the project agrees to this, I am willing to lend a hand. – IbLeo(talk) 06:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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

Genre - R&B?

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

Genres should always be sourced by reliable sources. Of course there is an element of judgement involved e.g. you cant just go out looking for a source to call something R&B... it has to actually be in the text itself. I've read the article (briefly) and get the distinct impression that soul and funk are better genres to leave in the infobox as they have support in the text and citations. I'm not being pedantic but rhythm and blues doesn't appear to be sourced. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 12:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the "funk" part is pretty well-cited, and "Marvin Gaye" might as well be a synonym for "soul music", but I added another cite with a critic's statement that should support both, just to be more complete about it. Dan56 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Both funk and soul are R&B genres, so why not simplify it in the infobox, is all I'm sayin'. As for "This seems to me like a case of being misinformed about black music, since WP shows more quality articles related to popular music made by whites", that makes an awful lot of assumptions based on was was simply an attempt to cut down four genres to one that summarizes them all. It's also a bit much to bring this here instead of the article talk page or even my talk page first. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
That is less encyclopedic; "R&B" is just a term used ..... I explained this in the paragraph above. I see that most of your contributions related to rock music. Many of the articles you edit recently actually include subgenres (alternative rock, grunge, punk rock). Soul and funk are popular music genres, so why not just put in "popular music"? It's two completely different genres, that are sourced in the article. Your the one that brought up removing "soul" and "funk" in the first place, only providing a petty edit summary to removing genres that have been there since the article's GA selection. Leave it be. Dan56 (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
To simplify Let's Get It On as just an "R&B" album is undermining its legacy. It not only had funk and soul elements but it also included doo-wop styled arrangements, some jazz elements were in there, as was some pop in some of its arrangements and of course a subgenre Marvin helped to define later on - "quiet storm". I'm with Dan on this. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 02:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
What does my editing of rock articles have to do with the matter at hand? My recent edit history on other articles isn't the subject of discussion here. I really have no preference whether more specific or general genres are listed for this specific album; I simply decided to be bold and offer a solution to avoid listing four genres in an infobox if one could suffice. Also, there's no need to state "Leave it be" when I have expressed no intention to change the field again, and the description of my edit summary as "petty" is in bad faith. Frankly, I'm kind of offended by the way this minor issue has played out, and I see no point in continuing a discussion that could've been settled pretty easily if you'd addressed me directly in the first place to talk about it, instead of going directly to a WikiProject talk page and writing statements like "This seems to me like a case of being misinformed about black music" which actually made me kind of angry when I first read it given my background (which admittedly you would be unaware of). As for your contention about R&B not referring to soul, read this. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that Dan56 is quite right. The terms "R&B" and "rhythm and blues" have been used by different people, at different times, in different places, to mean different sorts of (at least originally) African-American music, since the 1940s. Without going into too many details, it's probably safe to say that adding the term "R&B" to any article isn't particularly helpful in itself, without any further explanation being given. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
After watching this discussion and listening to both sides of the argument, I've gotta say that I think Dan56 is correct in this case. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Propose decommissioning /Summary

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

I interpret your deafening silence as an intermediate approval and will go ahead and do it over the coming weekend—that is, unless someone protests within the next 24 hours... – IbLeo(talk) 05:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Summary is no longer transcluded into the main project page and has been marked as historical. Furthermore, I have integrated all the listed categories into Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/to do so nothing has been lost. – IbLeo(talk) 06:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Elvis (Züri West album)

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

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

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

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

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

Album reviews in languages other than English

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

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

Proposed deletion of New Music Canada, Vol. 1

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

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

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

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

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

Are Proposed deletion announcements redundant here?

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

Chronology ambiguity

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

This has been discussed a little bit here with respect to The Allman Brothers Band. My position is that non-studio albums can be included if they demonstrate contemporary artistic development. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 01:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
A more recent discussion on this issue can be found here. I may dig it out of the archives soon to hold a poll that was talked about but never happened. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternate covers

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

Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover: "If the album has been released with different album covers, they can be added to the infobox using this template. However, please ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria." So NFCC is the overriding policy. I don't believe it's formally written down anywhere, but past discussions and precedent have been that if an alternate cover is significantly different from the original and widely-distributed (as with The Dark Side of the Moon), or replaces the original cover from that point forward due to controversy (ie. Virgin Killer) or reissuing (ie. The Offspring), then it's appropriate to include both the original and the alternate. This requires a lot of case-by-case evaluation, so is there a specific article you're looking at? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It was inregards to a question posted [[3]]. I was hoping to direct the user, although xe hasnt edited again since posting. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Work in progress: automatic certification citation - feedback request

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

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

Believe was certified 4× Platinum in the United States,[a 1] 2× Platinum in Germany[a 2] and 4× Platinum in the United Kingdom.[a 3]

  1. ^ "American album certifications – Cher – Believe". Recording Industry Association of America.
  2. ^ "Gold-/Platin-Datenbank (Cher; 'Believe')" (in German). Bundesverband Musikindustrie.
  3. ^ "British album certifications – Cher". British Phonographic Industry. Select albums in the Format field. Type Cher in the "Search BPI Awards" field and then press Enter.

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

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


‹See Tfd›‹See Tfd›
Region Certification Certified units/sales
Argentina (CAPIF)[2] Platinum 0^
Australia (ARIA)[3] 2× Platinum 140,000^
Austria (IFPI Austria)[4] Platinum 0*
Finland (Musiikkituottajat)[5] Gold 32,682[5]
France (SNEP)[6] Platinum 300,000*
Germany (BVMI)[7] 2× Platinum 0^
Netherlands (NVPI)[8] Platinum 0^
New Zealand (RMNZ)[9] 2× Platinum 30,000^
Norway (IFPI Norway)[10] Platinum  
Poland (ZPAV)[11] Platinum 0*
Sweden (GLF)[12] Platinum 0^
Switzerland (IFPI Switzerland)[13] 2× Platinum 0^
United Kingdom (BPI)[14] 2× Platinum 600,000^
United States (RIAA)[15] 4× Platinum 4,000,000^
Summaries
Europe (IFPI)[16] 4× Platinum 4,000,000*

* Sales figures based on certification alone.
^ Shipments figures based on certification alone.

  1. ^ Credits: My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. Allmusic. Retrieved on 2010-11-21.
  2. ^ "Argentinian album certifications – Cher – Believe". Argentine Chamber of Phonograms and Videograms Producers.
  3. ^ "ARIA Charts – Accreditations – 2000 Albums" (PDF). Australian Recording Industry Association.
  4. ^ "Austrian album certifications – Cher – Believe" (in German). IFPI Austria. Enter Cher in the field Interpret. Enter Believe in the field Titel. Select album in the field Format. Click Suchen. 
  5. ^ a b "Cher" (in Finnish). Musiikkituottajat – IFPI Finland.
  6. ^ "French album certifications – Cher – Believe" (in French). Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique.
  7. ^ "Gold-/Platin-Datenbank (Cher; 'Believe')" (in German). Bundesverband Musikindustrie.
  8. ^ "Dutch album certifications – Cher – Believe" (in Dutch). Nederlandse Vereniging van Producenten en Importeurs van beeld- en geluidsdragers. Enter Believe in the "Artiest of titel" box.
  9. ^ "New Zealand album certifications – Cher – Believe". Recorded Music NZ.
  10. ^ "Norwegian album certifications – Cher – Believe" (in Norwegian). IFPI Norway.
  11. ^ "Polish album certifications – Cher – Believe" (in Polish). Polish Society of the Phonographic Industry.
  12. ^ "Guld- och Platinacertifikat − År 1999" (PDF) (in Swedish). IFPI Sweden.
  13. ^ "The Official Swiss Charts and Music Community: Awards (Cher; 'Believe')". IFPI Switzerland. Hung Medien.
  14. ^ "British album certifications – Cher – Believe". British Phonographic Industry. Select albums in the Format field. Select Platinum in the Certification field. Type Believe in the "Search BPI Awards" field and then press Enter.
  15. ^ "American album certifications – Cher – Believe". Recording Industry Association of America. If necessary, click Advanced, then click Format, then select Album, then click SEARCH. 
  16. ^ "IFPI Platinum Europe Awards – 1999". International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.
Discussion

As one can see, the table also calculates the sales/shipment figure based on the award and different parameters, notably the year of release as in many regions the amount for certification changed over the years. If we have no concrete information on the sales threshold it can also be ignored, see e.g. the Norway entry.

So, what do you think? Is this helpful? Would you like to see this released? Be kind, I worked hard on this :) --Muhandes (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Initial feedback is that you shouldn't include the table end in the template. {{singlechart}} doesn't, and the reason I chose to do that was to allow editors to add extra columns. I'll look it over in more detail.—Kww(talk) 16:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Editors who want a different number of columns should not use either the top or the bottom which both fix to three columns. But if one uses top, they might as well use bottom. I'll add that to the documentation (once I write it) --Muhandes (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Great work! This would be a great help, both saving editors' time and giving one less variable for inexperienced editors to misapprehend or vandals to distort.
I would recommend that you use templates requiring both year of release and year of certification for all titles whether or not it seems relevant at the moment, as we may learn about past or future cert threshold changes after a table is presented and then whatever function is processing the threshold would change automatically, without editors having to individually update every single table or necessitating the creation of a bot to do so.
The SC article says Finland's album cert threshold is accurate only as of Jan. 1 2010, but it says nothing about what the threshold was at any time prior to this. Yet the singles certifications say those figures are as of 1994, so they had a cert authority and the means to gauge; surely they certified albums prior to 2010, no? (I'd swear I saw a Finland Gold album cert once.) The record in the example you use was released and certified prior to 2010, so I'm guessing that if I'm correct, and if the meaning of the "as of Jan. 1 2010" is that this is the date this cert threshold debuted, then this wouldn't be accurate...?
Thanks for your work on these! Abrazame (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. Year of certification is only required for citation purposes, and is not always available, but I will make sure year of release is always passed through. I'll check what I can find about Finland's certification. I will also add in the documentation the data I was basing the sales thresholds on. --Muhandes (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Finland's certification levels, I don't use them at all, since the website supplies the exact sales figure. --Muhandes (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm conflicted about two or three things in that regard. Do the "exact sales figure" numbers get updated at the Finland Musikkii Tuottajat page, or is that figure simply the actual sales at the moment of that title's audit? Because by citing a non-rounded number (and not adding the "+"), we're representing it as an updated figure that is inherently more accurate than the rounded numbers. But of course it's not necessarily so, as an album's sales can peter off at any number and any time, no matter how close or far from a specific audit or random certification threshold. So it seems counterintuitive that we would call it a column of actual sales of that album when in fact it is a column of a dozen or so certification thresholds met and only one allegedly actual sales figure. Abrazame (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe it is just at the moment of audit. In a sense I am only duplicating the current status in certification and sales tables. On most existing tables the numbers are based on certifications, with one or two exceptions which are a reliable source with a sales figure appropriate for some date. Would adding the date make more sense? We can make "certyear" mandatory and then all the numbers will look like 100,000 (1991) or something like that. I'd be happy to hear other opinions. --Muhandes (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, we need to talk about what data we're working with, and how we are presenting it to a reader — not current status. And my point is that if in all cases the number is presumed to be over the amount, yet in all cases there has been no official count since the time of the certification audit, then there should be unanimity in the way the table presents and footnotes the information. A "+" symbol implies that it is more than this amount, so either that is a misleading substitute for an asterisk when used with numerical data, and should be changed in the other instances, or it should be added to the unrounded numbers as well.
And to my understanding, the point of the column (its current status) is not to tally the most accurate count of actual individual unit sales possible, it's to list certification thresholds met (of course if the certification audit reports a threshold met with an unrounded number, that would be the number we present). Is someone able to correct me on that point? Because it's important that if we're standardizing this with templates that we both know and indicate what we intend to be presenting and how it will be interpreted.
For example, if it is simply intended as a rundown of all sales certifications, I see no problem in listing the European certification as we are doing, but then we shouldn't be adding updated figures between thresholds. However, if it is intended as a tally of individual unit sales as best and most updated as we can cite (which it is likely to be perceived as by a reader), then the way we are presenting the European certification is misleading, as the individual European country certs are components of that continent-wide cert. Just as we don't present component chart data in tables where the main chart is represented, for fear it will be conflated with an additional success and not understood for both components of a whole and that whole — we should not be presenting in a column a metric that in some instances we're implying would be added together to determine a whole, while in many other instances (all of Europe, the majority of most chart tables' rows) it would be double-counting to do so. This is not a criticism of your work, but I raise the issue with you because form follows function and it affects the design (and accuracy) of your standardized table, which in turn dictates how this data is input by editors going forward. If it is a sales tally, we might put the Europe-wide cert in the tally column, with a subsection in the table (but not that column) breaking that figure down by country. Is there anyplace at IFPI or Wikipedia where we can find out which countries have been/are included in their European award? The member states of the European Union have changed over the years and have only recently come to include Eastern Europe, while the EU currently does not formally include Norway and Switzerland, two countries often cited in chart/cert tables. I would point out that the IFPI Europe award — indeed, the very word "Europe" — does not appear in List of music recording certifications. Abrazame (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The + was replaced with a *. To my understanding, the column represents the best knowledge we have of sales in a specific region. That region can be a country, continent, or in some cases, worldwide. In most cases (way over 99%) the best we have is the latest certification. If a better figure is available it should be added, and the template facilitates this as well. I hear your concern about the European certification. Breaking the number down is impractical. Rather than removing the certification entirely, which would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I added a summary certifications section to the table which prevents misunderstandings.--Muhandes (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
What is the consensus on double albums certified in the U.S.? Doesn't the RIAA certify a double album that sells 500,000 copies as platinum? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The wording is "Each unit within set counts as one unit toward certification", so indeed this seems to support what you say. I will make a note to add a "mutlidisc" parameter to account to this. --Muhandes (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done --Muhandes (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I hate to come stumbling in here so late after you've done so much hard work, Muhandes, but I just saw what you're doing. I hate to tell you this, but the last discussions I remember ended with a consensus to avoid using Slaes/Shipments columns in general, and in particular not to back-derive some figure based on certifications. I'll go to find these discussions now, but they were in 2010 and, as I recall, there was a pretty solid feeling that the uncertanty of whether the awards represented sales or shipments was a strong reason not to show anything at all. I believe we ended up agreeing that specific sales figures, well-sourced, were okay, preferably in the text (and not in the tables). Off to find links. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Though this would be somewhat disappointing, the main target of my effort was to provide a standard citation method for inline certifications and a standard certification table - the sales/shipments column were an afterthought based on the so-many articles in which I saw this used (which should be cleaned if this is the consensus). If indeed consensus is against a sales/shipments column I will see my investment in this column as a worthwhile exercise and move on with the rest, but please do supply the discussion link so I can see what exactly was agreed upon. For example, some of the certifications (Dutch for instance) are based on pure sales, what's the consensus on specifying only the numbers for which there is certainty? Also possible is to specify for each figure if this is sales, shipments, or we don't know. --Muhandes (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Without having read the discussion John is searching for the link to, it should be simple for Muhandes to append each country's figure with an asterisk when that country's certification denotes shipments, and none (or a different mark) when it denotes sales. These are the only two metrics used to gauge a cert. If the distinction between sales and shipments really is a sticking point for editors, then why would they want to be conflating sales certs and shipment certs in the same column? For that matter, we routinely present in the same column certs from before and after a cert threshold change, for artists whose careers span that change; and from before and after a shift from counting shipments to counting sales, for artists whose careers span the advent of SoundScan, for example; yet without any standard indication that the underlying data indicated by a single word (the cert) is a number that is varying by 100% or up to 2 million (in the case of Platinum and Double-Platinum U.S. singles, 1 million vs. 2 million and 2 million vs. 4 million). Without knowing who came down on what side or for what reason, so not directed toward anybody, I find it perplexing that editors would find a big deal in such distinctions, yet the result of their consensus would be to obscure those distinctions.
I wasn't trying to give him a hard time before, I applaud Muhandes' efforts to standardize a template because in so doing, editors who do not know the difference in what threshold or metric was being measured at what date will have a foolproof tool to determine that automatically for them, and editors who do know the difference will have an easy and standard way to present it, while unsavvy readers comparing two artists' or releases' stats (or, for that matter, one artist's stats over time) will actually see the distinction. Frankly, if, as John states, consensus was based on the uncertainty of which was which, then I wonder if the previous consensus would be different had it considered the possibility of a template like Muhandes' that could automatically figure out the different thresholds for each country at a given time as well as the distinction between sales and shipments for each country, whether the contributing editor knew the difference or not, and there was a standard way of presenting it that ensured that those who know these differences exist could see at a glance which is which when, and those who do not can learn about them or ignore them as they so choose. Sounds to me like Muhandes' development is grounds to revisit the issue. Abrazame (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and distinguished between sales/shipments/unspecified. I'm open to suggestion how to make this look better, but I think, as Abrazame suggested, that this is actually better than not specifying anything. This way, at least when you compare apples to oranges you know which is which.
Can anyone suggest how to move forward with this? Should I just move it all to the main space and start applying ? --Muhandes (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have made the suggested improvements. To summarize, to address the issue of sales/shipments column I have made several major modifications.
  • If the parameters provided are not enough to determine the applicable certification level (say, release year is not supplied), or the certification level is not supported by reliable sources (for example, Denmark before April 2009) the template will return "0". Editors can then either use nosales=true to hide the number, or supply another source by using salesamount and salesref.
  • I have added a different footnote for sales, shipments, or unspecified figures. Thus it is clear what the certification applies to. I think this in itself contributes to correct comparison of apples to apples, and of course the actual figure helps even more.
  • I added an option to completely omit the sales/shipments column. While this is not the default behaviour, if after the template is used for a while, consensus is still not to use the sales/shipments column, we can easily change the default behaviour and hide the column from all tables.
If I don't get any more comments for a few days I am going to start moving the template to the main space and start implementing it to hopefully get more feedback. You can see quite a number of examples of how it is going to look like here. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Just letting anyone who is interested know that the templates are now working and I started using them on some articles where certifications were uncited or missing. --Muhandes (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Arbitrary break

The biggest problem I see is trying to determine the sales/shipments column. The threshold numbers for meeting Gold/Silver/Platinum certification levels have changed in most regions over the years, so depending on when an album was released, the numbers automatically determined by your template may not be accurate estimations of sales. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This is also my major concern. One of the major reasons to try to automate this column is that I noticed how many of the numbers mentioned in articles are simply wrong. Which is why the template only displays the number for regions in which we have reliable source for the certification. For example, note how the table in Believe (Cher song)#Certifications does not have a number for Austria and Norway. That's because we have no reliable source showing what the level in Austria was before 2007, or in Norway before 2002. The sources are all listed in {{Certification Table Entry}}. I'm happy to say recent help by Harout72 has also helped clarify the certification history in Poland, Belgium and Austria, at least to some extent. --Muhandes (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

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

The problem is the reality not the template. In reality, these certifications are given for separate things in different regions. As pointed above, at least now everyone can compare apples to apples. I'm eager to hear suggestions on how to make it clearer and less confusing. I thought about adding a word instead of a footnote marker, i.e. something like 1,000,000sales, 50,000shipments or 100,000sales/shipments? when it's not clear. But I thought this will needlessly make the table wider. --Muhandes (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest separating the footnotes on separate lines, a is this (new line) b is this, rather than a/b/c is this/this/this. I would also suggest the project members who are most interested in the distinction between sales and shipments in certifications track down that information about those countries for which we apparently don't even know which it is currently, much less some years back, so that Muhandes' symbols and footnotes may be limited to two, rather than three. This should make it clearer and more straightforward. Abrazame (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
That might be a good idea, I'm also going to enable displaying just one type of footnotes when only one type was used. --Muhandes (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done If someone could help me remove the whitespace on the bottom of the table it would be even nicer. --Muhandes (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Indeed, tables are optional, but if they are going to be used, lets make sure they are correct. This entire project started when I saw the sad state of the certification tables used. As for your other concerns, you can use whatever source you want, by using the certref field. An example would be the certification for Portugal in ...Baby One More Time. As for stating access date, I thought I implemented that already, but I seem to have forgotten. It will be implemented in the next few hours. Thanks for the feedback, and if there is anything else you think could help make this more intuitive I'd be happy to hear it. --Muhandes (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done it was actually mostly implemented, so I added the final touch and documented. --Muhandes (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
This is not really something that can be addressed by the table itself, but there should be a guideline describing the difference between sale certifications and sales figures (ie. the difference between an RIAA cert and figures offered up by SoundScan, the latter of which is more accurate), as they are not synonymous. I'd strongly recommend making the table for certs only and leaving actual sales figures for the prose, as it's easier to elaborate on the latter in that form. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The situation right now is that tables all around Wikipedia mix the too, so my implementation reflects the current situation, and allows the inclusion of sales figures via salesamount and a source via salesref. This could be easily removed if the consensus will be otherwise.--Muhandes (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you should be bold in just making it certs. From my observations, the tables that mix both are the result of editors who don't understand the difference between the two. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_39&oldid=1157441137"