Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Categorization by certification

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

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

Capitalization of foreign-name albums and songs

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

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

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

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

A case in point, which speaks for itself: 100 años de mariachi, changed to lower case despite musica.hispavista.com (a prominent Spanish-language site) listing it as "Plácido Domingo : 100 Años de Mariachi" and the upper case on the album's cover. I smell a hyperforeignism campaign. Chris the speller (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:NAME states "Most articles will have a simple and obvious title that is better than any other in terms of most or all of these ideal criteria. If so, use it, as a straightforward choice." I don't think this should be trumped by musicbrainz.org, and even that site says "It is usually hard to know if the title appears in the way it does because of the artist's will, or because of the producer or even the designer. In these cases it would be good to look for more references that help us decide one way or the other. Even the official websites of the bands and labels have their good share of mistakes, so it is important to use common sense when working on this." Do you think Plácido Domingo lacks influence over the album designer? Chris the speller (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't say I like the ALBUMCAPS policy. EN Wikipedia should subvert its own naming policies to follow foreign language naming conventions? Why is that? I think we should bring this up at WP:NAME as well - it appears the policies are in conflict; one of them needs to be revised to accommodate the other. --JaGatalk 17:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I've invited discussion from WT:NAME, good idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Hi Magiciandude, your comment is appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Dude, I doubt that any editor came to the conclusion that your actions were not well intended. You need not apologize.Chris the speller (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

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

This is English Wikipedia, and we use language that is verifiable by reliable sources, not something that you may consider academically perfect. The moves are incorrect, they should stop immediately and you should wait for consensus as it's clear that the ALBUMCAPS suggestion can directly oppose a Wikipedia-wide guideline, i.e. WP:NAME. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the Rambler; "Everytime" is not found in any respectable English dictionary, but I haven't changed the article about the song to "Every Time". All over Germany, the name of the city is named "München", but I haven't changed the title of the "Munich" article, either. I know what is academically correct, and what the foreign name of the city is, but this is an English-language encyclopedia, and article titles should reflect what its readers expect to see; do you hope to shock the readers? Chris the speller (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I came here via the invitation, I agree with TRM and Cts: "Use the source Luke" -- PBS (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
But those should be (as PBS will probably agree) secondary sources in English; if the label decides on some funky spelling and capitalization, use it if and only if most people do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I disagree. I believe that the current rule in WP:ALBUMCAPS for foreign language titles makes absolutely sense. I managed to dig up the discussion that led to the current consensus, back in 2008: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 26#Foreign language capitalization. I can only ask you to read through this discussion, all arguments are as valid today as back then. Furthermore, I don't believe that it contradicts WP:NAME; WP:UE even says "If there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject". This would be the case for the large majority of foreign language albums. – IbLeo(talk) 20:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry? You disagree that we use reliable secondary sources, not titles synthesised from a particular academic perspective. We use "verifiability not truth" in English Wikipedia? Are you contradicting one of the most fundamental pillars of Wikipedia? In any case, most pages are cited by Allmusic, Billboard etc. There are seldom "too few English-language sources". The images used on most of these pages are from the album/single covers themselves and they argue against your position. The point is, and this is really for real, the point is that we should defer to WP:NAME. If you can find more reliable sources to verify that lower case is more verifiable than upper case, then go for it. In the meantime, this being English Wikipedia, we use English language sources as a rule, and they will not follow your argument at all. This bizarre "guideline" is irrelevant, incorrect and should be deleted. We should follow WP:NAME. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Example, User:El Mexicano moved 100 Años de Mariachi to 100 años de mariachi. A quick search on Google (English, of course) came up with:
I'd like to see other English language sources that refer to this differently. Of course, don't forget this is English Wikipedia, not Spanish Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Example 2, User:El Mexicano moved Ponle Remedio to Ponle remedio. A quick search came up with:
I can do this all night, I'm sure. But I'd prefer not to. I think we have substantial ground for modifying this "guideline". My advice, follow WP:NAME. If all else fails, and there are no verifiable English sources then resort to native language. But still using verifiable foreign sources. Not an academic "rule". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Obviously I am not questioning the fundamental policy about reliable sources. They are just not usable for spelling and capitalization. Your own example on 100 años de mariachi illustrates it perfectly well: Two of the sources uses "ñ", the other two "n". One of them says "De", the 3 others "de". That's why we need an established, common rule. Otherwise there will be endless edit wars because different sources outside Wikipedia simply aren't coherent. Furthermore, I doubt that neither Amazon, MSN nor Discogs qualify as reliable sources. – IbLeo(talk) 21:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
My objection is with this Wikiproject "guideline" (which suddenly became a "mandate" at WP:FLC according to a zealous editor) which has no credence at all. FYI WP:MOS deals with diacritics, WP:RS deals with reliable sources, WP:V deals with verifiability. This "foreign language guideline" does not match them, would be subservient to them and actually contradicts them. For the title of albums, singles etc, surprised you think that Amazon can't reliably publish the names per the screenshots of the covers, and in any case, Allmusic and Billboard invariably go against this weird approach. I'm afraid the next thing will be that we can't have Spain, we have to have España. This is English Wikipedia. We use WP:NAME. If you can find English-language sources which go against the capitalisation then feel free to let me know. In the odd case I'm sure it's true, but in general we should defer to the English Wikipedia guidelines. That means deleting this "guideline" here and resorting to normality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

"[Se escriben con letra inicial mayúscula]
4.17. La primera palabra del título de cualquier obra de creación (libros, películas, cuadros, esculturas, piezas musicales, programas de radio o televisión, etc.); el resto de las palabras que lo componen, salvo que se trate de nombres propios, deben escribirse con minúscula: Últimas tardes con Teresa, La vida es sueño, La lección de anatomía, El galo moribundo, Las cuatro estaciones, Las mañanas de la radio, Informe semanal. En el caso de los títulos abreviados con que se conocen comúnmente determinados textos literarios, el artículo que los acompaña debe escribirse con minúscula: el Quijote, el Lazarillo, la Celestina."
"[They are written with initial upper case]
The first word of the title of any created work (books, films, pictures, sculptures, musical pieces, radio or tv programs, etc.), the rest of the words contained, except for proper names, have to be written with lower case: Últimas tardes con Teresa, La vida es sueño, La lección de anatomía, El galo moribundo, Las cuatro estaciones, Las mañanas de la radio, Informe semanal..."

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

Irrelevant I'm afraid. This is English Wikipedia, we use our own guidelines and policies, not those of some Academy. That means we use the English language were possible, and verifiable sources from English language sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
And that's exactly the problem. You won't find any English sources for it, as Spanish titles are not in English. You can't apply English rules for something that is not English. That's the point you all should understand. As in Spanish Wikipedia they write English titles as they are correct in English, the same way you should respect the Spanish spelling rules and write them as they are correct in Spanish. --El Mexicano (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
No, that's silly. We have plenty of English language sources like Billboard, Allmusic, for almost all of these Spanish singles and albums. They are the ones we use, per WP:V. We don't use a synthetic title created by you or some academy according to some rule of language. We use verifiable sources. By all means, respect the Spanish spelling at es.wiki, here we use English sources. Simple! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
But I remember you, this is an encyclopedia, where we should spell titles correctly, and not the way they appear in unreliable databases. Allmusic is good at music critiques, but not a reliable source for spelling. And the url I put is also a verifiable source. --El Mexicano (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Nobody proposes to follow unreliable sources; but this makes two assumptions: that Spanish forms are invariably correct in English and that all Spanish language albums are titled in Castillian - really rather unlikely for a mariachi ablum, I should think. In this case, it is probably simpler to follow the illustration and call the album "100 years of Mariachi" - which appears to be how most sources capitalize the English. Compare our article on One Hundred Years of Solitude.
So it is really simple? Let me just check if I understand you right: So according to you, WP:V tells us that we should rename
Is this correctly understood? I would also like you to explain what would be, according to WP:V, the correct title for 100 años de mariachi amongst the three variations you quoted above from four different sources? – IbLeo(talk) 07:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

With all respect, I don't appreciate your slightly arrogant and haughty tone. And if by "at least we are getting somewhere" you mean that I am beginning to see things your way, I am afraid I have to disappoint you. While WP:NAME is obviously the governing policy for article naming, when it comes down to the exact spelling and capitalization of the words in the title, it is necessary to establish more explicit rules to deal with the fact that WP is surrounded by an incoherent world where the reliable sources we use for fact-checking are inconsistent between them (and sometimes directly wrong when it comes to foreign language titles). This has already been fully demonstrated in the examples given above and consequently acknowledged as a problem by many WikiProjects in the past, especially in the area of music. To overcome this issue, standards like WP:ALBUMCAPS have been established, but it is far from the only one, and you will find many similar rules guidelines, even as a part of our WP:MOS:
In other words, WP:ALBUMCAPS reflects an overall consensus by editors working on music articles here on WP, and if you question WP:ALBUMCAPS you question all the standards listed above. Honestly, if they are there it's because there is a very good reason for it and I profoundly believe that they makes perfectly sense, do not contradict WP:V or any other policy, and need to stay. – IbLeo(talk) 07:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's all very well, but unless you can verify the names used, it's synthesis to make them up according to the "rules of the language". Incidentally, since when did we start using a wiki (wiki.musicbrainz.org) as a reliable source for how to write foreign languages? Oh, and you say "rules" while two of the links you provide are project guidelines, the other two are MOS guidelines, just to clarify. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
And, for example, are you arguing that Ponle Remedio (which has at least four sources with my capitalisation) should be Ponle remedio (thus directly contravening WP:V)? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for misusing the word "rule"; certainly, here on WP we have policies and guidelines, and the MOS is a guideline. Yes, I do believe that WP:V does not rule unilaterally over spelling and capitalization, that's why we have WP:MOS, and in particular WP:NAME. Let me take another example: Entre gris clair et gris foncé. This French album is called Entre Gris Clair et Gris Foncé by both Allmusic [4] and Billboard [5], but nevertheless Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related)#Works of art dictates the current capitalization, which is correct according to the rules of the French language (and as a French speaker I can tell you that the Allmusic/Billboard way looks really awful). Unfortunately, we don't have a MOS for every language in the world, and while I agree with you that the guideline to use musicbrainz is not the ideal solution, at least it points people to a place where they are likely to find the answer they need. So going back to Ponle remedio, yes, I believe that this is the correct capitalization, as explained above by El Mexicano. I can tell you by experience that even for albums with English titles we need WP:ALBUMCAPS to clarify the capitalization rules, as some reliable English-language sources capitalize coordinating conjunctions and/or prepositions in album titles. – IbLeo(talk) 12:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I still don't see why a "one-size-fits-all" approach is mandated here. That's what verifiable sources and consensus should be dealing with. And I still don't understand how we can justify the use of a Wiki page as a reliable source. In spite of anything else, that's clearly flawed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Question: on this project page, it says:

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

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

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

This uses capitalised first letters (because it's English I guess), but moreover, recommends their use as a result of their appearance on the album cover. Is the album cover advice for certain cases only? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
On a re-read I also saw "Vrisko To Logo Na Zo, not Βρίσκω Το Λόγο Να Ζω " but the Wiki says "Only the first word of the title should be capitalized. Use normal Greek grammar rules for the rest of the title." So should that be "Vrisko to logo na zo"? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Well spotted! You are completely right about the Norwegian title; the guideline is clear but the example is wrong, it should actually be Født til å herske. Apparently it's the same for the Greek title, but as I don't master all languages in this world I never noticed. Regarding the Chinese example and the album cover advice, I don't really know where that comes from (but it's out-of-scope of this discussion). Now that I have answered your questions, maybe you would be so kind as to complete the answer to mine: What would be the "correct" name for 100 años de mariachi? Your previous answer was quite vague and I can easily see it leading to endless discussions and edit wars. – IbLeo(talk) 22:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, it isn't really outside the scope of this discussion. If this "guide" is intended to be used verbatim then it needs to be definitive, unambiguous and certainly not self-contradictory. In any case, the answer to your question was the one I gave above. With my rationale, we'd need to do more research to find a clear consensus on a verifiable name. That would involve finding a number of reliable sources in English which named the album consistently. If we couldn't do that, we'd need to initiate a discussion to determine the most reasonable solution per consensus of the community. We certainly shouldn't be using "academic rules" from an external Wiki to determine the style of naming of articles. That would set a truly unhealthy precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Some considerations:

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

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

All capitalized? Usually not; unless independent reliable sources do; but we are not discussing the vagaries of the album producer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with PMAnderson, and not wishing to repeat what I've already said a number of times (and PMAnderson has re-iterated), let's go for verification via multiple reliable sources, not some arbitrary ruling that contravenes our general policies of WP:V ("verifiability, not truth" - go and re-read...) and WP:RS. And once again, this is English Wikipedia, where we spell things according to our guidelines, we definitely do not "... spell everything according to the spelling rules of each language..." because then you'd need to move the "Spain" article to "España" which is, frankly, nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but your last statement is completely off limit. Nobody here is suggesting to move "Spain" to "España"; clearly, WP:UE says: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage" and Spain is obviously the established English name. This discussion concerns album titles in languages in the Latin alphabet other than English, and these are normally not translated into English, except if the album has been released in an English-language version, in which case the English title is used. So what we are talking about is album titles in foreign languages, and basically WP:ALBUMCAPS (and the 4 other music-related guidelines that I quoted above) says is that they should be spelled and capitalized as in the native language—basically as it would be on Wikipedia in that language. – IbLeo(talk) 20:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Eh? I quote El Mexicano directly from above : " Sorry, but you can't think it seriously. In an encyclopedia you should spell everything according to the spelling rules of each language, regardless of what appears in any English sources". I also look forward to your responses to my questions above which clearly show this "guideline" (or whatever it is) to be internally inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I certainly hope he only referred to names in Spanish. I do believe it, too. – IbLeo(talk) 21:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to hope so too, but the indignation in some posts here is showing something of a hyper-nationalist approach to these things. In any case, I "called a spade a spade" and interpreted the sentence as he wrote it. And actually, why should albums/singles be any different from the rest of Wikipedia (apart from the couple of guidelines you've linked to)? Anyway, that aside, onto the inconsistencies that I think I noted above. Please help me understand what's going on there... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I won't pretend I have read through all of the above, but the handling of this issue at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (visual arts) may be a useful comparator: "Foreign language titles are generally only to be used if they are used by most art historians or critics writing in English – e.g. Las Meninas or Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. In that case they should be used in the form used by most art historians writing in English, regardless of whether this is actually correct by the standards of the other language." Of course if there is no EL coverage you take the normal foreign form, but this is rare in art. As you may know, the opera project takes the opposite view, using the correct foreign form regardless of usage in English. I think this can be a matter agreed at project level; taking it back to fundamental policies is not necessary. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I don't have any involvement with WikiProject Albums, but since this topic of capitalization crops up elsewhere, perhaps a passer-by can add a few contrarian points here:

1. I would suggest that the emphasis on "verifiability" and "reliable sources" in this context is a red herring. You can verify facts about the subject in other sources - including spellings. But capitalization is a matter of the chosen editorial style of the source, not the subject. Wikipedia will never achieve a consistent editorial style for capitalization if choices are based on a poll of other sources on a topic, because each source will be following its own house style.
2. The mantra of 'English style for English Wikipedia' merely begs the question: what is English style when the language is not English? This issue has been addressed in detail in numerous published style guides for English practice, and rather than seek to reinvent its own wheel, Wikipedia might sensibly takes its lead from these.
3. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) actually recommends one of these guides as a means of resolving capitalization issues, The Chicago Manual of Style, which does have the advantage of being one of the most widely available. On the specific issue of foreign-language titles, what is striking is that, with the exception of those manuals which are designed for newspapers and magazines, virtually all of the major style guides, including the Chicago Manual, recommend following the conventions of the original language for capitalization.
4. In all of the foreign-language versions of Wikipedia that I have looked at, the normal practice is to observe English-style capitalization when citing English titles, while of course following their own conventions for their own language. E.g. Shakespeare in Swedish Wikipedia, Miles Davis in Italian Wikipedia, Tarantino in Polish Wikipedia. A courtesy worth returning, I would think. Lampernist (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
as explained above, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (visual arts) takes the opposite view. This is because in that case there is often a large body of art historical writing in English that uses the foreign name, but capitalized by English rules. The opera project takes your view, as that is what their sources mostly do. Both are entirely acceptable ways of dealing with the issue, and the matter can be left at project level, following the style most reliable English-language sources use, if that can be agreed. If not, the foreign original should probably be used. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
"the foreign original" according to what source? Are we to "determine" the original spelling using some rule sets? Where are these sets defined? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
In the case of an album the CD itself will do nicely, or the record company. But I see you are determined to make difficulties where none exist. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
No, not at all, and for you to suggest that is pure bad faith. I just asked three simple questions, nothing "difficult". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I see you have got a little off topic with a wander down the leafy lanes of the MOS. Those lanes tend to lead to foggy bottom. This is an issued about naming an article not about the content of an article. The policy you need to follow is WP:NAME and if the sources do not agree on the use of capitalisation, then use the guideline called Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). If that guideline is inadequate to cove the issues raised here, then post a message on the talk page of WP:NAME explaining its deficiencies and the guideline can be modified, but what is undesirable here is to have guidance on this project page that contradicts the article titles policy and its guidelines. -- PBS (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Player?

A working, good-enough media player would be a lovely feature for this project. Just wondering if Commons.js already have a media plugin - something like jquery.media.js. Sal9000 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Myself, I think it's still a studio album. More and more these days, artists are working on tracks at home on their laptops or whatever and then bringing in those works-in-progress to a studio. Looking at the WP article for the album, I assume that this is what has happened with this Gorillaz album, since I assume that Stephen Sedgwick’s mixing of it took place in a traditional recording studio. To be honest, this sort of thing isn't even that recent a development; I remember reading back in 2001 that large sections of Björk's Vespertine album were recorded on her laptop before formal studio sessions for the album began. Basically, due to the advances in music technology, the distinction between a home demo and a polished studio recording is blurring.
Arguably, this sort of thing has been going on since the 1960s, with the tape loops on The Beatles' song "Tomorrow Never Knows" having been created by Paul McCartney at his home and then brought into Abbey Road studios for use in the song. Nonetheless, "Tomorrow Never Knows" is still considered a studio recording, and rightly so.
I guess I’m saying that, even though the entire The Fall album was recorded on an iPad, I would say that this still counts as a studio album because it's a finished, polished release and therefore quite different to a demo album. I mean, really, is this any different to Damon Albarn recording the album in his own home studio? I don't think so, it's just that with modern technology, one doesn't necessarily need a recording studio (in the traditional sense) to produce an album. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Wise words above, much better said than I can say them, so I'll just add my support. --Muhandes (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kohoutek1138, your position makes quite good sense to me as well. So basically, what we are saying is that a studio album can very well be recorded in a well-equipped home recording studio, and that with today's technological advances a home recording studio can consist of little more than an iPad, supposedly equipped with some sophisticated software and appropriately connected to various instruments (or not, if all the music is performed electronically). What counts is the quality of the finished product. I have changed the type parameter to "studio" accordingly. – IbLeo(talk) 11:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally speaking, yes, I would agree with your above definition of what constitutes a studio album. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It is entirely possible to create and release music today without physically entering a studio by using modern technology. Software programs like Reason and Ableton Live can be used to make electronic music, and the music can be uploaded straight to the internet. In the case of The Fall, the group has released what are basically the liner notes on their official website which lists all the iPad applications used. It looks like the album was produced using the app StudioMini XL, which as the title suggests, is a mini studio for engineering music. The website also reads: "Mixed by Stephen Sedgwick at Studio 13. Mastered by Geoff Pesche at Abbey Road Studios," so this music did eventually make it to a studio at some point. I believe a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that the majority (if not all) of the music was created, rather than recorded, through digital means. This includes the digital drumkit known as FunkBox, the M3000 HD digital keyboard, the text-to-speech app SpeakIt!, and totally bizzare apps that almost seem more like games such as SoundyThingie and Gliss (sourced from the list of iPad apps on their site). In that sense, there was nothing to really walk into a studio and record; it was all saved as a file onto an iPad. However, the sounds created from all these different apps were combined and edited using traditional studio methods. So I would classify this as a studio album.
I also believe Gorillaz fans want to classify it as something else because it doesn't fit the continuity of their three "main" studio albums. The same phenomena occurs on Wikipedia when a band releases a Christmas album, or something else out of the norm. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your interesting and insightful research. I think there should be no doubt that it qualifies as a studio album. I am also pretty convinced that you are right about your last statement; looking at Template:Gorillaz one can see that it has been put into the "Other albums" section rather than the "Studio albums" section as it is a bit of an oddity in their discography. – IbLeo(talk) 12:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

I fail to see your problem with the album not being given a preexisting label. It doesn't really fit into any of the preexisting categories, so why try to cram it into one? This WikiProject is about improving articles, and this clearly is not about that. It's wasting time that could be better spent adding to the page so that it's not just a stub that was clearly only written by the hardcore fanbase of the band. If this has to be such a big problem, a better solution would be to create a parameter at Template:Infobox album that isn't overly specific. Right now, "album" translates into "Studio album," which makes no sense. Creating a new parameter there (maybe one that just says "Album"? Isn't that common sense?) wouldn't just benefit The Fall, but various other albums. On the article talk page, I used Frank Zappa albums as an example of this. A lot of them have been given misleading labels over the years, due to the fact that they don't fit into any one preset category. Otherwise, they would show up at Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes, which apparently bugs the hell out of some people. Some editors apparently can't stand the idea that an album can't be described by one of 10 given labels. That problem seems to be with either the editors, or the way things are set up, rather than a problem with the article itself. Friginator (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm all for creating new templates when old ones won't do, but "studio" doesn't refer to a commercial establishment with specific hardware, nor does it mean the sounds have been played by a certain sort of instrument and not created digitally. There are portable studios and there are home studios. A person can set up recording equipment in their back yard or a cathedral or a boat on a lake, but the point is that wherever that equipment is becomes a studio, and whatever is recorded on that equipment is either a live recording (if before an audience) or a studio recording. Just as a recording is a single even if it is not pressed into wax, but rather digitally rendered, and that recording is officially released even if it is not physically shipped to brick-and-mortars, but rather placed on a site for download; that recording is a studio recording even if it was not played by a quartet and committed to reel-to-reel tape on equipment the size of a kitchen counter, but rather pre-programmed with software sounds on an iPad. I'm reminded of how Red Hot Chili Peppers' BloodSugarSexMagik was recorded in an abandoned mansion (which has since become a frequent recording site of its producer, and more of a traditional studio), yet that album is correctly classified as a studio album.
Think about it — a live album may be recorded on the kitchen-sink-size stuff permanently installed by the management in a performance hall concert venue, making it essentially a "studio" in a theater, or it may be on portable equipment owned by the band's sound technicians at an outdoor venue, and the categorization as live doesn't impinge on whether or not it's a major label release. And "live" performances often feature MIDI and other pre-programmed or pre-recorded/sampled elements, and often feature later overdubs and "sweetening", and may even be mixed between different performances at different times/dates or even different venues, yet that would be categorized here as a live album just the same as a straightforward acoustic performance. A live album can be recorded anywhere the live performance takes place, indoors, outdoors, in a traditional concert venue or someplace unexpected (I've seen performances recorded in abandoned factories, for example). Similarly, a studio album can be recorded anywhere that the presence of recording and/or programming equipment is situated in order to capture that input, even if it is whenever time permits on a tour bus moving from place to place, and/or hotel rooms and personal homes, as in "portable studio" or "home studio". Yes, if the technology is calling itself a studio and capable of serving as one, then that's what it is. Webster's defines "studio" in the music sense simply as "a place where audio recordings are made". Just like a computer was once something that weighed two tons and was housed in an entire floor of an office building with plenty of air conditioning and several highly trained technicians and analysts but is now simply an iPad; a music studio, that was once something similar, is now too simply an iPad.
Relative to a comment on another page, it isn't primarily about whether it was mixed and mastered in a studio, as of course live albums are mixed and mastered in studios. It's about whether there is apparatus that is registering input consecutively in order to present it all at once.
I think the distinction here is whether it is a full, official release by a record company, which has nothing to do with where it was recorded, but how it was released. Some artists, after achieving success, find earlier material released for the first time or re-released by a previous label, which it is fair to say does not belong at that chronological point in their chronology. Other artists, particularly in the digital age, self-release material that their label passed on. It seems to me that if an artist records an album intending that it be released at the point in their career that it is, that is the artist making the decision that this belongs at this point in their official chronology, regardless of any variance from their norm. I've posted this at the Gorillaz talk page as well. Abrazame (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Album ratings template

Why has this template started looking smaller? Anybody else noticed this? Dan56 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Better title?

Which one is a better title for a soundtrack album? For eg, "127 Hours: Music from the Motion Picture" or "127 Hours (soundtrack)"? Is there a guideline regarding this? I have seen articles using both titles. -- Arfaz (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Short answer - whatever the title of the album is. If the album is actually titled "127 Hours: Music from the Motion Picture", then that's the appropriate title for an article about the album.--Michig (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Medium answer — if the title of the album is actually simply 127 Hours, then it would be our editorial responsibility to add the parenthetical (soundtrack) to indicate the distinction from the film or book or Colorforms playset. Abrazame (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Jambands.com

Hi, I would like to hear some opinions about using an album review from Jambands.com. The review that I'm debating using is this one that was written by there senior editor. Thanks J04n(talk page) 12:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it meets the criteria to me. Effectively it appears to be the website of Relix magazine, or at least closely tied to it.--Michig (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This has come up before and the conclusion i believe was the blog was no good but the editorialized publications were ok. Moxy (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

HipHopDX.com

I would like a review of HipHopDX.com as a credible album reveiwer in album articles. This has been discussed before with nothing achieved. It is a very reliable source for music info and the album reviews seem to be credible. So should this be added to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT? STATic message me! 17:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As a long-established professionally-run site I wouldn't have any problem with it being used as a source of reviews.--Michig (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Spin Magazine

It appears that Spin Magazine now has a 10-point rating system instead of a 5-star rating system. I'm not sure how this effects previous albums that were released, but I think their new method should now be reflected on the WP:ALBUM/REVSIT page. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 04:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Stats on music projects

See Table showing productivity/size of the 48 music projects for information about this project and other music groups. --Kleinzach 07:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Covermount albums

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this (if it's not please link me to the right place and i'll discuss it there), but could we create a category for albums that have been covermount (means released free in a newspaper or magazine). Examples include A Night in NYC, Songbook, The Dreams We Have as Children amongst so many others with articles. --92.237.84.183 (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the three examples you've given, and only A Night in NYC has a source that it has been covertmount. The article covermount is also almost devoid of any references. I think both should be improved before a category is created. --Muhandes (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

www.deadpress.co.uk

A discussion over whether reviews by www.deadpress.co.uk are notable/reliable has been started at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here. Comments are welcome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Review site: Metal Storm

Dear all,

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

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


I'd like to propose Metal Storm [6] as a professional review site. It's listed among the non-professional sites, but I cannot find any discussion in the archives which has led to this classification. Metal Storm has existed for ten years now and is run by a fixed staff of volunteers.

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

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

Nonetheless it is a highly notable webzine which has made its appearance in print magazines and many other online media: the German print magazine Legacy has featured an article by Metal Storm in its October 2009 issue [7] [8] (the last sentence mentions Metal Storm and the involved staffers), the (now defunct) Estonian print fanzine Pläkk used to feature a page in English with Metal Storm’s reviews and the Belgian/Flemish newspaper "Gazet Van Antwerpen" has printed news about the victory of the Belgian band Oceans of Sadness in the Metal Storm Awards (here the news item on the newspaper’s online portal). The online news portal Blabbermouth regularly references Metal Storm’s news and interviews [9] and the annual Metal Storm Awards have received several mentions on Brave Words. Metal Storm is also in official partnership with Hellfest, one of Europe's biggest heavy metal festivals [10]. A quote from a Metal Storm review has also been printed on a sticker on the Peaceville re-release of Carpathian Forest's "Through Chasm, Caves and Titan Woods" in 2007. Unfortunately I don’t have the image link anymore.

  • A comment by another Wikipedian had rebutted the importance of Blabbermouth and Bravewords links, and of the mentioned sticker. I actually agree. Nonetheless the appearance and reference of Metal Storm in print magazines like Legacy (add another Metal Storm article in Legacy #68 p. 225 to the list (last line of the Black Troll article)), the print fanzine Pläkk, the newspaper Gazet Van Antwerpen or in an article by the professional music webzine laut.de [11] should make it notable after all. Speaking of notability, could someone please check if the two years old notability banner on Metal Storm's Wiki page is still justified? Due to COI I don't like meddling with it myself.

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

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

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


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

I supported your request from earlier this year, but looking closer at the recent reviews on your site I am confused. Do you mind clarifying how one can tell the difference between your staff reviews and user submitted reviews. For example, in which category falls this review? In the author profile his position is described as "Elite", what does that mean? – IbLeo(talk) 05:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The difference between official and user-submitted reviews is the disclaimer at the end of the review: [12].
Elite users are closely associated with the staff, many of them being former staff members who have stepped down from contributing regularly, but still do so once in a while, such as the guy you picked as example. Consider them freelancers, if that makes any sense in a staff of mostly volunteers, so their reviews are considered official and representative for Metal Storm's standards. But that's a good question, I've noted it and it will be added to the FAQ soon. Promonex (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
As promised, here is the answer to the question about elite users in the site's FAQ.

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

  • I like the fact that there is a very clear disclaimer when reviews are by 'guest reviewers', I'm not thrilled that not all of the staffers give their full names. 'Jeff' doesn't give his last name but 'Undercraft' does give his full name, Kike Congrains. If all of the staffers gave full names I would fully support, as it is now I'm leaning that way but would like to hear others' thoughts. J04n(talk page) 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    I am not sure that is a valid argument against inclusion. Artist names are commonly widespread and accepted amongst musicians (e.g. everyone knows Saul Hudson as Slash), so why shouldn't journalists be allowed the same? – IbLeo(talk) 07:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I was shown this discussion by Promonex (I'm a user on Metal Storm), and figured that I might as well contribute. I haven't really got anything new to say, other than that I agree with the notion of using the official reviews on Metal Storm here. I should probably be a bit more in-depth about my viewpoint, but right now I'm mainly trying to revive the discussion, since last time a decision wasn't reached. --LordNecronus (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So this proposition is already 2 1/2 months old again. As I see it there is one vote clearly in favor (IbLeo), one vote in favor (LordNecronus) and one more vote leaning towards favorable (J04n). No objections so far. How about accepting the proposition until someone decides to challenge it for whatever reason? Promonex (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on long enough and I believe there is consensus to add Metal Storm as an acceptable professional review site, with the reservations proposed above (no guest reviews, no staff reviews older than 2009). I have just done the necessary update. Promonex, given your obvious COI your behavior in this discussion has been exemplary. Thank you. – IbLeo(talk) 06:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mr. & Mrs. Smith (score)

The article Mr. & Mrs. Smith (score) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is orphaned, has no references, and does not meet WP:NALBUMS. The article only contains its track listing and infobox. And the fact that the movie itself is notable does not enhance the notability of this article, because it has no reviews and chart info when I did a little research about it.

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. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Timestamp: 20110317014707

Articles in need of cover images

See contributions for 130.89.172.35 and 77.248.88.252. Theses two anons have been adding Nocover.svg to several hundred articles. I could use some assistance going through all the articles and uploading appropriate cover images, as i already have a backlog of nearly 600 albums in need of covers, with over 600 already taken care of.Jasper420 01:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there even consensus that we want Nocover.svg to be added? I don't see how it's any better than no image at all. Anyway, I started to upload images. --Muhandes (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I sometimes add File:Nocover.png to articles because the file description gives a brief intro on how to upload photos for users that may not be familiar with how to do so. 16:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I generally remove the placeholder images. They're useless and give articles a continual "under construction" look. If there's no cover image, it's pretty obvious...we don't need a sign saying so. Do we have a maintenance category for articles lacking cover images? If so, we could probably set the infobox to automatically categorize the article as such if the cover field isn't filled in (I'm assuming this isn't done already). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a maintenance category, it is populated by atting {{reqphoto|albums}} to the talk page. I go through it once or twice a month and add everything that I can find. About a year and a half ago there were about 600 pages in the category now there are only 12 pesky that have been there for quite a while. If we can get consensus to get rid of the placeholders perhaps someone can program a bot to convert them to the talkpage notice. I would be in favor of this, I really dislike the look of the placeholders. J04n(talk page) 17:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. The category is Wikipedia requested photographs of albums. J04n(talk page) 17:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Well if Jasper's saying there are over 600 articles lacking covers, but {{reqphoto}} is only showing up on the talk pages of a dozen or so, that indicates that many editors aren't aware of {{reqphoto}} or aren't using it. Wouldn't it be simpler to have the infobox itself employ the maintenance category if the |cover= parameter isn't filled in? Seems like that'd be simpler than teaching editors to manually put a separate template on the talk page, then manually remove it when the cover's added. It could be automatic. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Can't argue with that logic. J04n(talk page) 01:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds great, if anyone can do it. It'd be so much easier than my current system of manually going through band discographys to see what needs to be done. The only minor problem would be some articles without even an infobox, but that can be ignored as theyre the minority.Jasper420 02:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a category for that also, Album articles without infoboxes, I suspect it is also underpopulated, perhaps there is a way to better identify these also?
So, I guess that the way to go about this could be 1. Delete Nocover.svg 2. Create a bot to delete the red link from all the article it was once on. 3. Make it so that any infobox with an empty cover field is added to a category. I don't know how to go about any of this, so I'm hoping someone does.Jasper420 22:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Our Home Is Gone

The article Our Home Is Gone has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No mention of notability, no references "only about 1000 albums were sold". 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) 16:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Citing liner notes

I haven't seen anything on the citation guidelines about how to go about citing the liner notes of an album. Is this something to be avoided or am I just overlooking something I should be doing? GRAPPLE X 21:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You can use the {{Cite album-notes}} template to cite an album's liner notes. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant! Thanks. I didn't see it listed anywhere but that's perfect. GRAPPLE X 22:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

I don't know how to do it, but Excerpts From The Holy Book Of Rhyme needs to be deleted.Jasper420 00:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Album chart

Should the European Top 100 Albums chart be included in the charts section for WP:Albums? Notabable chart? Dan56 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pentagram (Mezarkabul album)

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

No indication of meeting WP:NALBUMS, a couple of minor mentions in published (gBooks) works found. No references available in the Turkish article

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) 15:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheap Trick - Sgt. Pepper Live

I was confused by the article's statement that the album was released in August 2009 and recorded in September 2009. Seems a bit impossible, right? I got the album from the library and the liner notes say, "In 2007, we were honored to be special guests of the LA Philharmonic Orchestra to perform the 40th anniversary of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."

The guest artists the article lists for a 2009 performance are listed in the album liner notes for the 2007 performance.

I haven't seen the video version, but based on listening to the album I'd say guest vocalist Ian Ball is a featured performer, singing almost as much as Robin Zander.

Parts of the last paragraph read like a press release from Cheap Trick's promoters. I love Cheap Trick and have tickets for a show next month, but it seems like Wikipedia is striving to be more cool and collected. Specifically: "is an energetic performance that features an orchestra and a captivating experience of..." "an unforgettable musical experience." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.156.29.37 (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk: Sgt. Pepper Live might be the place to address some of these issues. Other than that, if you see glaring problems like these, be bold and fix them. Ideally you should dig up some sources and cite them to verify your corrections (album liner notes can be cited using {{Cite album-notes}}). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Splitting Wikipedia:Manual of Style (record charts)

I've proposed splitting this guideline, and have opened an RFC: Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

InYourSpeakers

A new editor, Prjulius (talk · contribs), has spent today adding reviews from a site called inyourspeakers.com to album articles. I've looked at the site and I'm not sure whether it meets our criteria (from WP:ALBUM/REVSIT). It seems to have a paid or volunteer staff, but it doesn't say when it was formed or by whom so it's hard to say whether it's new or has had time to develop a reputation in the field. I get wary of linkspam when a user's contributions consist solely of adding links to a single website, so I thought I'd put it up for discussion. What does everyone think? Legitimate source that we should add to our list, or should it be reverted? I've asked the editor in question to comment here. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been 2 weeks. If no one pipes up with an opinion today I'm going to go ahead and roll back the user's edits on the basis of the site being unreliable. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Just some info I found at the site HIRING states its "inception in December 2008". It also lists fully named STAFF. Its at least not just a first name basis blog, but I don't know if we should consider it a 'legitimate source' or not.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Altered ratings for 2000s albums on Allmusic

Heads up if it hasn't already been mentioned here before: apparently Allmusic has upped the rating scores for a number of albums released in the past decade, as explained here, meaning some pages should be updated. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The way we should handle this is not as an "update" but as two distinct reviews. If an album is given, say, 3.5 stars at the time of its release and then is given a 5-star review in hindsight (or when the management decides to succumb to a more copacetic reviewer), that's not something we should view as an "update", simply swapping one out for the other, but rather acknowledge as the historical double-take it is. To do otherwise would be adopting the revisionist's POV; it would make the source look more prescient than it really was; and it would court confusion and possibly conflict with individuals and sources that correctly recall the original review. Although, having said that, most AllMusic reviews are done after the fact and out of context as it didn't exist for most of the history of recorded music. Finally, an effort should be made to determine when a particular review is being given, contemporaneously with release or some years after the fact. While we may not know the date of the first review, at least we can indicate the date of the revision. Abrazame (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Since we use Allmusic so frequently as a source, it might be a good idea to send some sort of request on Wikipedia's behalf that they consider adding dates of publication to their reviews and ratings. The vast majority of their reviews of albums that came out before the website existed are made in hindsight, sometimes decades after the fact, while their reviews of more recent releases are generally contemporaneous to the releases. And of course if a review or rating is altered at some point, we've no way of knowing when the alterations occurred. It's always bugged me that they don't date their reviews, as most other mainstream sources do, even on their websites. I'm sure WP drives a lot of traffic Allmusic's way; perhaps if we expressed our concern they'd consider adding dates to their site design. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please contribute: Singles chronologies (infobox) reporting of Radio dates.

The crux of the issue is that we are reporting a NON-release date in a PREFORMATTED field titled "Released:". Radio date is NOT a 'Release' (industry terminology). We are attempting to resolve the reporting of Radio date in infobox HERE. Please note the portion most applicable to WP:ALBUM is "need to add a 'Radio date' field for the singles chrono listings on album pages as well. I would just use the Radio date when FIRST as this is what created it as a single and determines its placement within the chrono." Also feel free to review the considerable material prior to the subsection given in the link. Please contribute to the discussion at the link above so it can all be in one place and thank you.—Iknow23 (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Grammy Awards task force

You are invited to join the Grammy Awards task force, a subproject of WikiProject Awards and prizes dedicated to improving articles and lists related to the Grammy Awards. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants.

I extend this invitation to any project members interested in working on Grammy articles/lists. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to improve Fall Out Boy (artist) pages

I'm inviting everyone who is willing to help improve Fall Out Boy album articles, especially those who know a lot about the band. The album Take This to Your Grave requires a lot of work, as does Folie à Deux. I would rate them as between C and B grade articles. The charting history is all over the place, it would be nice if they were compiled in one place. In addition, would it be possible for the main Fall Out Boy, and Fall Out Boy discography page to be nominated to be relisted as a "good" article? Thanks! (I'm working on the pages myself too, but there's too much for me to do solo) Noreplyhaha (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding catalog number

How can I add the Catalog number in the Template:Infobox single?

There are 2 singles named "Mohicans" from the Trancecore Project:

I can separate them by the catalog number, but there is no such files in the template. Where can I specifiy it? Teyandee (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of His Way, Our Way (Sinatra Tribute)

The article His Way, Our Way (Sinatra Tribute) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable i-Tunes compilation, fails WP:NMUSIC

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. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Albums by artist

It has recently been brought to my attention that Category:Albums by artist bears the following instruction:

  • "Please note that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded."

This appears to have originated in 2006. Why are we encouraging the creation of categories that will only contain 1 or 2 articles? That seems to be contrary to the purpose of categories. Wikipedia:Categorization#What categories should be created says that "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles." A category that will only ever contain 1 or 2 articles has no utility as a navigational tool. For example, Drive Like Jehu broke up 16 years ago & only ever released 2 albums. The entire Category:Drive Like Jehu only contains 7 articles (1 of which is about to be deleted) and will likely never contain more than that. Yet an editor is insisting that we also need Category:Drive Like Jehu albums, a category that would only (likely ever) contain 2 articles, based on the notation mentioned above. This seems pretty illogical, like we're making categories just to have them, without them actually serving a purpose. What purpose does Category:+44 albums serve, for example? It's my opinion that, in cases of artists who have only a few releases, these should simply be put in an eponymously-titled artist category. Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, I've created close to 150 categories and several only have 2 or 3 and those all is likely to ever contain; So you say "a few releases", how many are those, 5 sounds good? Zidane tribal (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a good number, but I think it's more a matter of how big the parent cat is & determining if it even needs to be subdivided. For example, Category:At the Drive-In albums has only 4 articles, but Category:At the Drive-In encompasses 19 articles (plus a template & 13 files). So it makes sense to divide it into subcats. I can't think of an opposite example (where there are 5 or more album articles but the parent category is still small, say less than a dozen pages), but the general idea is that if the parent category only encompasses a handful of articles then there's no sense in subdividing it. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Take Category:Jonny Craig albums for example, is a category i created pretty much out of inertia at 1 AM, is useless really, only one article, but a parent category doesn`t even exist, should i create it and remove the one that already exist? Zidane tribal (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
So should every artist have an eponymous category? No. For artists that you are mentioning who have only a few albums, all those will already links from the main article, and per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, eponymous categories are discouraged in such cases. What would have to be done, however, is to properly categorize the album, A Dream Is a Question You Don't Know How to Answer, under Category:Alternative rock albums by Canadian artists. However, I am not arguing against the current scheme because when I look through something like Category:Power pop albums, I prefer to see the 55 artist's albums subcategories rather than 30 subcats of albums by artist and what would be a haphazard collection of 50+ albums individually categorized as power pop albums. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
So, when an artist or group only has 1, 2 or 3 albums and is unlikely to get more, we don`t create the category, just place the more appropriate categories to the album. Sounds good to me. but the question remains, should we remove the categories with very few articles? Zidane tribal (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Not so fast. I actually think the original rule is the best, in the name of neatness and simplicity. If I understand correctly, that's what Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars is saying as well. I much rather have the parents categories like Category:Alternative rock albums by Canadian artists be pure categories with no members except the artist categories. This also avoids the question of "how many". --Muhandes (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, I think it depends how many articles a particular topic area encompasses. +44 has only 1 album, so there's no sense at all in a Category:+44 albums. However, the general topic of +44 encompasses 9 articles (everything listed here, minus the "related articles"). So a Category:+44 would be of use to readers looking for related articles and navigating amongst them. I don't really see the logic in invoking WP:OC#EPONYMOUS; I don't believe categories are considered redundant to articles. I mean, we have things like Category:Arnold Schwarzenegger. Of course albums should still be categorized by genre/year/nationality/etc. This isn't meant to suggest otherwise. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep the original rule, which is completely clear. The same rule applies to all manner of categories, eg Category:Books by author. The fundamental criterion for categorising an article is by 'defining characteristic': A Dream Is a Question You Don't Know How to Answer is manifestly an album by Jonny Craig and thus goes in Category:Jonny Craig albums. It is immaterial whether the said JC has recorded other albums. (Lumping everything into Category:Jonny Craig is a really bad idea as this is not a well-defined collection and will collect anything that mentions JC, however tangentially, leading to over-categorisation.) I don't myself mind finding a few EPs or whatever in an albums category. Individual songs go in Category:Songs by artist, or Category:Songs by songwriter etc. Occuli (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep but the original issue needs to be addressed. I also like the current sistem, but IllaZilla makes a fair point, categories with 3 or less than articles should be avoided, i will for now on, avoid creating such categories, instead placing the more appropriate categories on the articles, by year, country and genre which is what Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and Muhandes said, as i understood it. Zidane tribal (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
From your statement it seems like I was not clear in my statement above. I support the original rule, i.e. there should be a category even if it only includes one article. This rule is quite prevalent all around Wikipedia, and it seems to me to raise the least issues. --Muhandes (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
What, exactly, is the purpose or utility of a category with only 1 article in it? Being "quite prevalent around Wikipedia" isn't a rationale, the issue it raises is that there are categories that serve absolutely no function at all. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
This just shows how different categories can be used. When I browse Category:Heavy metal albums by Israeli artists I expect to see only categories there, one for each heavy metal Israeli band. I don't expect to see albums, and then have to open them to see by whom they are. So for me, as a reader categories with one article serve the purpose of ease of use, arising from neatness and standard form. As an editor, it's one thing less to worry about (and debate about) - just add the same categories (by producer, by label, by artist etc.) to each album. So at least for me, both as a reader and an editor they serve a purpose. --Muhandes (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Muhandes, you are not failing to explain youself, is just that english is not my natural language so sometimes i miss or misunderstand some things, my bad. Zidane tribal (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Muhandes, I don't understand your argument at all. The entire purpose of categories is to help readers find and navigate sets of related articles. A category with only 1 article in it does not serve any purpose at all, as by definition it is not a set nor does it navigate to any related articles. It has absolutely no useful purpose. None. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying "It has absolutely no useful purpose" over and over again will not make is so. I gave some examples of purposes it serves above. I explained exactly how it helps me, as a reader, navigate sets of related articles. One should look at the complete picture. --Muhandes (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I`m with you Illazilla but perhaps you should take this to some other place, the guidelines are clear and apparently that`s the problem, I for one will avoid creating such small categories, but you might want to go the root to the problem. Zidane tribal (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is the "root of the problem"? The way I see it it's our instruction at Category:Albums by artist that's the root problem. That's the only place I've ever seen an instruction that says "you should create a category even if it will only contain 1 article". If there's a different place where this problem originates from, point me towards it & I'll gladly have a look. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

While I am not as familiar as you seem to be with the guidelines of each and every wikiproject, Books by author seems to be following the same rule we follow, i.e. a category is created even for one book. --Muhandes (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

By "the root of the problem" i meant the base guidelines of categorization, for exambple, if you check Overcategorization in the "Small with no potential for growth" section, it says something very useful for this discussion: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country. I think that`s exactly what we are doing here. Zidane tribal (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to suggest that since these "Small with no potential for growth" categories are used in various organizational schemes, it might be a good idea to do an WP:RFC at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization and notify those projects that also use small categories of this sort? (songs and books, at least.) If there's a problem, it's not just ours. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So the guideline does say it is ok because this is a "part of large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." I, too, also believe it is more useful as a reader to have sub-categories for each artist's albums rather than a mishmash of hundreds of albums within a category such as Category:Rock albums by British artists. I want to see who the artists are as I peruse this category and not have to click on each individual article to find out. Maybe something that IllaZilla can look into is to see if it would be appropriate to merge the only and only album an artist will ever release with the artist's article. I did just that with Afterglow (Quench album) by Quench (band). Per WP:NALBUMS, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
So the instructions, I've found, to create a category even if it has a single article is not something only on Category:Albums by artist, but comes directly from WikiProject Albums. It used to be on the main Albums project page but has since moved to a subpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body#Categories. This sentence, "Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released a single album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future)", has existed on this project since January 2005. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

B-class checklist

I wasn't getting any responses to my discussion at Template_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Checking_article_against_B-class_status, so I thought I'd generate some interest over here—which I should've one in the first place! I'm hoping to add the B-class checklist to the WP Albums template. It would help editors on what to focus working on in order to attain B-class. I've added the code at the discussion, so everything's set. I think it'd help, though, to get some input from users. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC nearing end

Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC has been relatively unattended, and I would like to hear more voices.—Kww(talk) 18:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

RIAA certifications

RIAA has completely changed the way the certification database is queried, rendering most of the links to the database mostly useless. I have tried to figure out how the new database is queried but I'm not a professional in the area and can't seem to figure it out. Is there anyone who would like to assist? Can anyone suggest another place where help can be found? --Muhandes (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Carpenters"

The usage of Carpenters is under discussion, see Talk:The Carpenters. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Closing Time (album)/GA1

GA review on hold for 7 days to allow time to improve prose and referencing. SilkTork *YES! 12:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Book soundtracks

Is it correct to add the category book soundtracks to albums that are not of this type? These albums are not even directly-related to its sources of creation or inspiration (i.e. Mastodon's Leviathan is not a [companion release] soundtrack to Herman Melville's book Moby-Dick). I have seen users adding the aforementioned category on I, Lucifer (Real Tuesday Weld album), Leviathan (album) and Greenslade.--Malconfort (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct at all. An album may be inspired by a book, but that doesn't make it a soundtrack to it. At the top of my head, I can think of two recent rock albums that are supposed to be companions to books, and those are the two Sixx A.M. albums, which were released contemporaneously or nearly the same time as the books. The band has released statement saying the albums are essentially soundtracks, and there are secondary sources to support it (the first album is even called The Heroin Diaries Soundtrack). These two albums should be categorized as book soundtracks (they currently aren't). On the other hand, concept albums based on mythological tales, or role playing games (Traveller (Slough Feg album)), or comic book characters (The Dark Saga) aren't "soundtracks". Looking at the category, I see albums that have been tagged more as a form of original research than as anything verifiable or even remotely true. I think the category could also use an infobox or at least a sentence at the top explaining how and when it should be used. Now, are audio books "book soundtracks"? That should be defined as well. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that albums should not be tagged as such if they are merely inspired by a book. There should be an uncontested source which blatantly states that the albums are soundtracks to one or more books. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
There are also the sub-categories, 1984 music and Cthulu Mythos music. Those subcategories are fine in and of themselves, but they should not be categorized, even generally, in book soundtracks, I don't think. Perhaps a new category should be created (unless one exists; I haven't looked) in regards to "Music inspired by books" and "Music inspired by mythology", and then those would themselves be grouped to some ultimate category. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 09:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If such categories are to exist, then I would definitely be fine with that. Such categories can be a nice way of identifying album content and concepts. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, right off the bat, I !vote that audio books are not considered soundtracks, since our own article defines it as an "album of music as featured in the soundtrack of a film or TV show". So I propose a notice box at the top of the category that will look similar to this:
Any suggestions on what else it should say or how else it should be written? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I added the notice since there were no voices against it. I'll go through and uncategorize articles and maybe try to figure out a tree for the mythos categories—I listen to albums that are based on country-specific mythologies as well that aren't currently categorized as such, so it could be a mini-project. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nadia Ali

Hi, I've done some work recently on Nadia Ali's album Embers. Could someone please check that and suggest any improvements and if it qualified for B-Class article. Hassan514 (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, we are not supposed to use the reviews section of the infobox, instead a reception section with the appropriate temlate is encouraged and more categories are always good. Don`t hesitate to ask with anything else, but there is a dedicated section for that in here

Fair-use image sizes

Resolved
 – – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't find information on acceptable album cover size for fair use (along with other images, like posters, etc). I used to reference WP:Albums#Cover, but that no longer exists (the page redirects here). Does anyone know where the information was moved to? Over the last year, I have read anywhere between 300–400 pixels on the largest side is deemed acceptable. But I would like to be able to back up any image reductions I make with a solid guideline. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The link WP:Albums#Cover was only a transclusion of the documentation from Template:Infobox album. While it has been removed from this project page, the original still exists at Template:Infobox album#Cover. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
That's perfect! Thank you so much. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammy Award template clutter

Please comment at Talk:Grammy_Award#Award_Templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Mixing format of Track Listings

I stumbled upon MCMXC a.D.. It has a limited edition and bonus disc which are using the {{Track listing}}, but using a simple list for the main album. Personally, I don't like the inconsistency between the subsections, but what are the guidelines for such? I realize that because of the movements in songs 2 and 7 the template becomes difficult to use, but I think it would look better to have all 3 sections with the same format, which is either all "simple" lists or all using the template. Further, I think that some guidelines should be added to the Track Listing documentation. Rlholden (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Billboard Decade-End as a parallel to Billboard Year-End

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Billboard_Decade-End_as_a_parallel_to_Billboard_Year-End so that all discussion is in one place.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

TedderBot

What was that? Why it erased the whole project page? Did no one else saw it? Zidane tribal (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Tedder got me to the undo. Nevermind.Zidane tribal (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that was pretty bizarre. I didn't know what that was all about... Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Review site: Melodic.net

Melodic.net is among the major English-language arts publications. It is frequently cited by other reliable sources and considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area (it meet WP:NME). The site has been referred to by many reliable sources, which include, but are not limited to:

Recommend it goes into the professional sites section, as a reliable source with a wide selection of reviews on different genres.--Strawberry Slugs (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

do I have to cry for you listing as a single

Can someone please list "Do I have to cry for you?" as a single? The song was a single and the video can be seen on youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.116.155 (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the one from Now or Never (Nick Carter album), I can't find any evidence of if being released as a single. I suggest if you can't edit the article yourself, add the source to Talk:Now or Never (Nick Carter album) and someone will add it. --Muhandes (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic's inclusion on the Review sites page

RE: Review sites
This list states that for SputnikMusic we should "Use staff and emeritus reviews only" - indicating that these are indeed considered by Wikipedia, or this project at minimum, as professional reviews.
The page for SputnikMusic however, has this to say about the Reviewer stratification:
Emeritus is a status given to former staff writers who no longer contribute to the site. Reviews by these users are not acknowledged as professional. --> Which is correct?

It would be good to have a clear definition to avoid pointless debates like this: Walk This Way
nikthestoned (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the consensus is, and I can't find any discussion on it in the archives, so unless someone is really familiar with the rationale for one or the other, I'm not sure there is a solid answer. Logically, though, the way I see it is, if "Review sites" says you can use Emeritus reviews, then I don't see why not. They were written by a staff member who is no longer a staff member, so the reliability doesn't necessarily change. I almost want to tag "Reviews by these users are not acknowledged as professional" with {{who}}? because why on earth wouldn't they be? Sounds like an opinion to me. And as I can't find any discussion for this either way, I think I would just go with what makes sense: staff reviews are professional, whether the author is currently on the staff or not. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 16:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
"Emeritus" in this case means a staff member who is no longer on the staff, as Keraunoscopia says. So at the time the reviews were written, they were on the staff, so the review is acceptable.
Keraunoscopia, the "not acknowledged as professional" bit comes from past discussions and consensus here. If you sift through the archives, you'll find a number of past discussions relating to various review sites. That's where the consensus was formed against the sites listed under "non-professional reviews". --IllaZilla (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I only found one discussion on Sputnik in this search through the archives (three results: two mentions-in-passing, one major discussion) and no results for "Emeritus", which is why I wasn't sure about the consensus formed. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't remember when/where it was discussed, but it came up that Sputnikmusic and some other sites (like Punknews.org) are considered reliable by WP standards and have a "paid or volunteer staff" that does reviews, but they also publish reviews by users who are not part of their staff. Since we only consider the staff (not anonymous internet users) to be reliable in relation to the topic at hand, it was decided to allow the reviews by staff but exclude those by non-staff users. Some of these sites, like Sputnikmusic and Punknews, have tags that tell you if a review was written by a staff member or a user, so that helps. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I understand that; I was just saying I couldn't confirm the original poster's question with a solid answer because I couldn't find any related discussion (perhaps it was discussed elsewhere). Anyway, I just want to clarify the answer to the OP's question. There seems to be a contradiction in the guidelines. This page says Emeritus reviews are okay, but the SputnikMusic article apparently says they aren't "acknowledged as professional", which I think is being construed as "not reliable". Your answer is that Emeritus reviews are reliable and okay to cite. Can we change the "not acknowledged as professional" phrase? Or am I missing something? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see, you were talking about the SputnikMusic article itself...I thought you were talking about WP:ALBUM/REVSIT#Non-professional reviews. Based on the fact that the "not considered professional" bit in the SputnikMusic article is unsourced, I say remove it. Common sense (and our own project guidelines) say that reviews by staffers—even former staffers who would be considered "emeritus"—are OK. Another example I can think of is Scott Heisel, who used to be a staffer at Punknews.org and is now the music editor for Alternative Press. He still contributes reviews at Punknews.org from time to time (generally stuff he doesn't also review for AP), though he's no longer on their staff and thus would be considered "emeritus". Common sense says it'd still be OK to cite his Punknews reviews, as he's a professional music journalist and critic and is an alum of the site. SputnikMusic's emeritus reviews strike me as the same or similar situation. So I say strike the "not considered reliable" bit from the article, 'cause like you said earlier:" according to whom? --IllaZilla (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I Agree with the above proposal. Would also suggest revising the "Sputnikmusic's non-staff reviews" in the Non-professional reviews section as mentioned by IllaZilla as this isn't consistent either. Maybe as simple as "non-staff, non-emeritus reviews"? nikthestoned (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Songwriting credits

If a song is known to have been written by someone other than the officially credited writer(s), should we credit the true composer in the track listing rather than the official composer? I've seen this done in many articles, but I want to confirm if this is actually Wikipedia's policy. In particular, if a song borrows from a Public Domain work, do we credit the writer of the Public Domain work even though he would never be credited on the album or the publisher's records? (E.g.Is it right that Electric Light Orchestra's version of "Roll Over Beethoven" should be credited as "(Berry, Beethoven)" since it uses excerpts from Beethoven's Fifth Symphony?--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly both your doubt and the guidelines, if you find someone singing Strawberry Fields Forever, you credit Lennon/McCartney even if it is a changed version or a remix, you make a sidenote mentioning the author of the changes. As for the Beethoven thing, is always better to mention the original authorship, for example if a song began with The Pink Panther Theme you credit Henry Mancini, specifying why and the author of the song itself. Zidane tribal (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that clarifies a lot. One other specific case I guess I should ask about, which is if the original version of the song has false credits. For instance, it is well-known that Andy Summers wrote the guitar line of Every Breath You Take, but because he didn't bother to ask for co-writing credit, the song is officially by Sting only. Should the relevant articles credit the song to "(Sting, Summers)" or "(Sting)"?--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, that`s really up to you, i don`t think there`s a guideline about it, but something like that is definitely worth mentioning. Just ignore all rules and be bold. Zidane tribal (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, and I don't know on what basis Zidane tribal makes that judgement. If the group's creative participation was such that Sting retained full songwriting credit and instrumental hooks and licks weren't considered by the band to be part of the songwriting process, then that's what the infobox credit should indicate. I think it's absolutely relevant to the article text to indicate who contributed what to the song (as reported in reliable sources). But studio musicians come up with their own hooks and licks all the time, and have often not even been specifically credited as playing on a particular song, much less given writing credit for it. In other cases, it's the arranger who comes up with the hook or lick, but again, if the creative or legal decision in force is to credit that as arrangement rather than as writing, then it's not our place to alter the official credit. Often what will happen is that a particularly respected musician will be credited not merely for playing but for the arrangement of what they play, which is a way of indicating that the individual's contribution went above and beyond just diddling in the background. In some cases this results in that individual earning what is called "points" on the song, which, in brief, means that the creative forces behind the project decide that their contribution entitles the individual to a small fraction of the royalties. In other cases, the legal agreement in place means the whole group is credited for every song whether or not they contributed something that would be considered songwriting.
There are certain cases where a solo performer contractually receives a writing credit when they did not actually contribute to the writing. (This has been notably alleged about major artists including Elvis and Madonna). There are other cases where the real writers either couldn't or didn't wish to be credited for their participation, usually for legal purposes, and so they use an alias. (Holland/Dozier/Holland were contractually obligated to Motown and so released "Band of Gold (Freda Payne song)" under the pseudonym Edyth Wayne; we handle that by crediting Wayne in the infobox but linking that name to H/D/H.) If we have a reliable source for a credible assertion, that can be reasonable to alter the official credit in the infobox, preferably with a cite.
I feel for Andy Summers, both from the standpoint of the working situation at the time that suppressed him from advocating for his own interests and from the standpoint of likely missing out on many millions of dollars in royalties. But I don't think the "Every Breath..." case is one that would lead a responsible editor to alter the infobox field, or to suggest it is up to anyone's whim which way to go. And honoring Summers' experience for what it was, rather than rewriting it as if he hadn't been so slighted, is what should make us argue to keep the infobox reading "Sting" despite what the article indicates about the process. Abrazame (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It was never my intention to suggest is anyone's whim to decide, but unless i`m mistaken, in which case let me know please, there are not specific guidelines about it and we are encouraged to ignore all rules for the sake of a better more informative article. I agree that the legal authorship should remain but i still think is worth mentioning the Andy Summers case, not in the infobox but elsewhere in the article. Zidane tribal (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The question the OP was asking ("Berry, Beethoven", "Sting, Summers") was not whether to include as an anecdote in article text but how to handle what his section title here announces, actual songwriting credits, as in the infobox. (We already do mention the Andy Summers case in that article; of course there's no reason not to if it can be sourced.) The infobox presents a higher threshold of specificity and adherence to reliable sources. Circumventing the contractual arrangement of the people who actually receive official songwriting credit in reliable sources to place in the infobox something else without a really strong argument to the contrary is misrepresentation and a failure to understand the process both of writing and recording a song and of editing an encyclopedia on that subject.
If sources say, "X actually wrote the song, not Y" (Or X and Y, not merely Y), we can debate whether to put that in the infobox, and I imagine in most cases I'd be arguing to do so. But if sources say, "X actually devised the instrumental hook, which some think is the best part of the song, and that's what you go off air guitaring to, but can you believe he didn't get a writing credit", we can't elevate X alongside Y in the infobox to correct that slight, even if he may deserve it more than some who would be officially included in another song's infobox do. Because it's not our place to override creative and social and legal and historical determinations about a specific composition regarding the difference between what they saw as arrangement and what they saw as writing, whether or not editors here are willing or able to understand that distinction.
To clearly answer the OP for the benefit of any reader who would misinterpret this appeal to rational thought as a he said/he said thing with no basis in editorial responsibility on my part, I'll say it one more time peppered with guideline links: When many guitarists or bass players in the studio laying down tracks independently come up with a line or hook or riff, or fundamentally alter one suggested to them (and most come up with more or less their own solos), yet do not get credit as having written the song, the fact that this guitarist has done the same is worth noting in article text when those are not because this is WP:Verifiable to a WP:Reliable source and those are not; but to alter the official credit line in the infobox in the absence of some sort of legal capitulation or historical consensus in any of those cases would be WP:Original research. The first paragraph of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) reads, "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". If Summers is not listed as contributing in a writing capacity, then his contribution was viewed as an arrangement or interpretive playing capacity, thereby inappropriate to append Sting's name in a brief summary of the key fact of who is credited for songwriting. Think of it as the difference between Caesar Romero's Joker, Jack Nicholson's Joker, and Heath Ledger's Joker. What those actors brought to the piece, even when an actor freely ad libs things that were not in the script (as Woody Allen often encourages actors in his films to do, for example), they are not credited as one of its writers in an infobox somewhere, the anecdote of this sort of approach in general or specific ad libs where known would be acknowledged textually. Believe me, I get the creative and legal differences between and among various filmmaking processes and various demo and album recording processes, and the injustice relative to other bands who by default credit all members with "songwriting" whatever parts they may devise for a song, and I feel for Andy Summers, but the infobox simply is not the place to represent that, and I'm happy to note that Zidane tribal and I are in agreement on that. Abrazame (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I was actually thinking not so much of the infobox as the track listing, but I assume that the same protocol applies there. Thanks for the help. I somewhat suspected that the standard would be as you say, but I've seen it done the other way so often, e.g.Nursery Cryme, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, and (before I edited it just now) Breakfast in America, that I wasn't at all sure.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_40&oldid=1140264094"