Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Album covers and fair use

With fair use cleanup going on in other areas. It is time to look at album Covers. The problem is that so many articles do not include comment on the album cover art makeing any fair use claim somewhat weak. For example I tend to feel that it would be very hard to make a decent fair use claim on Image:21737.jpg as the Live: P-Funk Earth Tour includes no discussion of the cover art. By comparison I feel the use of Image:Beatles - Abbey Road.jpg in Abbey Road (album) is pretty safe. Some form of cleanup is needed idealy involveing adding comentry on cover art to album articles.Geni 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In that only article, though, as most of the fair use claims of the image can be considered unnecessary (illustrating an album, in example). What do you think about replacing covers with home made images of the album cover, the media, and the booklet? If the focus of the image is the full set instead of the cover, I think it is possible to release it under a free license, just like Image:Encyclopaedia Britannica 15 with 2002.jpg. -- ReyBrujo 15:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The covers are used to illustrate the albums, and that's perfectly fine. There's no need to specifically discuss the artwork in order to have the cover in an album article (that's what the template says). Jimbo recently said that fair use covers of albums in article about albums are absolutely okay: "The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example." --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

ReyBrujo it is imposible to make unfree material unfree.Geni 17:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fritz Saalfeld Useing album covers to illustrate albums is somewhat questionable as a fair use claim. Remember jimbo is not a lawyer. The ocvers are fine as long as the article talks about the cover art. If the article does not it is going to be hard to come up with a fair use justification.Geni 17:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Album covers are widely used to illustrate albums, not just on Wikipedia. Our use is perfectly within both the fair use law and Wikipedia's fair use criteria. I really don't see a problem here. --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for you claims.Geni 17:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

He did—read the fair use law and Wikipedia criteria. Using an album cover to illustrate the corresponding album article is compliant with both. Where do you get the idea that one must comment on the cover art itself? Punctured Bicycle 18:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use claims require some justification either based on case law or on the principles of the law. In this case the first problem is the use. Normaly we mess around with the criticism and comment area but in this case that does not apply.Geni 18:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Punctured Bicycle 18:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use is based on USe. My contention is that unless the article inludes some comments about the cover art any fair use case is unlikey to get very far.Geni 19:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your contention is unfounded unless you can point to some criteria of fair use law or Wikipedia policy that is violated when album art is used in a corresponding album article without commenting on the art itself. From the angle of the four points of U.S. fair use law, an album cover is (1) used for nonprofit educational purposes to identify the subject, (2) the copyrighted work is the only sensible way to represent the subject, and album covers are widely used in this way by various organizations outside the record company, (3) the album cover is low-resolution, (4) use here does not affect the potential market or value of the copyrighted work. From the angle of Wikipedia policy, (1) free equivalents are impossible, (2) the image does substitute for buying the product, (3) because it is of low resolution, (4) it was published previously, (5) it meets our content requirements (6) and media-specific policy requirements, (7) it is used in at least one article, (8) it contributes significantly to the article, (9) it is used in the main article namespace, and (10) proper attribution and tags are given. Perhaps you are thinking of "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)" within the FU guidelines. But the critical commentary is the album article itself. That is to ensure that covers aren't being used for purely decorative purposes, such when someone includes 10 covers in a band article without discussing any of the respective albums. Punctured Bicycle 20:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You missed the bit before the the criteria. What is the use? How does that qualify? Until you establish that anything else is a waste of time. Still to continue with your other points 1) We don't like to rely on that one. 2) Isn't the only way to represent the subject. You can also use the title. We have no idea what agreements other uses have reach with the RIAA so speculation about their use is pointless. 3)fails. Most publishers also produce low res versions. 4)the most obious market we are competeing with is the market for online galleries of album cover images. And yes that market does exist. Aside from that there are various encyclopedias of music which we are directly competeing with.

So to wikipedia policy. 1)eh mostly true. 2)Problem is the product in this case is the image not the music. Album cover art is seperate from the music. 8)is clearly fase if you can't even write a couple of sentaces about it. You final point again makes the error of not seperateing the image from the music.Geni 21:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The use, like I said, is in the album article corresponding to the image. Image:Neu albumcover.jpg, for example, corresponds to Neu! (album). Obviously there are illegitimate uses of album images but for the sake of argument we're assuming that the use is legitimate. In response to your responses: 1) Who's "we"? The courts? Of course they rely on it in determining whether something is fair use. 2) True, we could represent an album using only the title. We could also represent Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima using only the title, but the article would be seriously harmed because of it. You are essentially arguing that fair use images should be abolished from Wikipedia, as any of them can be replaced by text. 3) What are you talking about? All we need to do is make our image reasonably smaller than the real thing, such that there is less "used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." 4) Those various encyclopedias of music don't own the rights to the images; they use them under fair use just like us. If they are profiting specifically from the images without some agreement to the copyright holder, as in the case of those image galleries you speak of, they are doing so illegally. I have never heard of a record company setting up such a deal with an online gallery.

Wikipedia policy: 1) It's very strange that you agree on this point but argue above that album images can be replaced by the title, which you consider equivalent. 2) Yes the image is separate from the music but the markets are exactly the same. When someone buys music, they are also buying original packaging. 8) Album covers directly represent albums. So, while an image of an album cover doesn't show the jewel case, show the disc, or "show" the music, we pretend it does; it represents the album as a whole, not merely the art itself. For all intents and purposes it is the album, and we write articles about albums--more than a couple of sentences. Punctured Bicycle 22:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

de indent

I see no reason to assume the3 use is legitimate. Untill you have shown it is legit then none of the other arguments are work the elections used to store them. But so to the ohter point 1)we is the wikipedia community since we stopped accepting "non comcercial use only" images only images some time ago. 2)That would be strawman since the article on that photo includes comments on the photo it is pretty safe under fair use. 3)The problem is with your defintion of the real thing. Record companies also publish low res versions of the album covers. 4)Please provide evidence of your claims we know the RIAA took action against one image gallery site[1].

To continue onto the wikipedia policy elements. 1)They are not equiverlent if the article talks about the artwork on the album cover. 2)The markets are not the same. I can buy music without looking at album covers and I seem to recall some album covers turning up in poster forms on student's bedroom walls. 8)The album cover artwork is not the album in either the de facto or de jure sense. Indeed I the UK it is posible to have albums on which the copyright on the music has expired but the copyright of the art on the album cover has not.Geni 23:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm done trying to argue against this confused, unedited interpretation of policy. Anyone else is free to try. The fact of the matter is, album art is considered a model case of fair use within album articles, with or without commentary on the art itself. You have not yet established why we are required to have commentary on the art itself in order for the use to be fair. Punctured Bicycle 23:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You are makeing the fair use claim you have to back it up. So far you have completely failed to do so.Geni 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If I am failing in doing so, then I will continue to fail happily, along with all the other Wikipedians who find no problem with album covers and fair use. If you want to change well-accepted practice, then you better start giving reasons more substantial than "jimbo is not a lawyer". Punctured Bicycle 00:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I did. Which ones would you like clarfied?Geni 01:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What about using an album cover in a band article? Where the cover is used to show the artist? -Freekee 16:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Such a us is not covered by the album fair use tag and should be avoided. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Come back to us when our fair use policy is based in law, and then it'll be worth arguing out. As it stands, we have no problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I work with big publishing corporations and my experience is that it is commonly accepted in publishing that an image of a cover, or an extract of writing, may be used to supplement an article or review so long as it constitues only a small part of the overall piece. After all, why would an author or band object to having their work promoted? The problem comes when images of their work are the main element, such as in a coffee table book of record covers, in which case they can justifiably claim that they ought to be paid for use of the images since they are the reason the item exists at all. The situation is different for portrait photos, where copyright will have been specifically reserved by the owner/photographer for the purpose of future income, and is probably one reason why people are using album covers to illustrate band line-ups and other things in general articles. Ricadus 20:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Album covers currently has this at the top of the page: "Please remember that according to Wikipedia fair use policy every fair use image must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.. Images that have purely decorative purpose may be deleted."(bolding emphasis in the original) Thought this might be relevant to the present conversation. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

When images I had uploaded were removed, I starting using the following, ludicrously written verbiage--

Reduced-size Facsimile digitized representation of cover art of long-playing recording album <name_of_album> of music created by <<musician> initially released in the United States of America in <year>. All rights owned by copyright holder(s) of said artwork, reproduced for Wikipedia under fair use provisions of United States copyright law.

Since I am not a laywer (just married to one) this is probably legally invalid. Fantailfan 18:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

more like meaningless. It is an assertion made without putting forward an argument to back it up.Geni 00:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you expecting to accomplish here, Geni? This is the talk page for WikiProject Albums, which has little to do with Fair Use. Until there is a consensus, expressed in policy, that it is not fair use to include an image of an album cover without specifically discussing the cover itself, then no "cleanup" can take place. Consensus regarding fair use can only reasonably be established at a place like WP:FU; so far, no such consensus has emerged. Punctured Bicycle 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

the memebers of the project are one of the main uploaders of album covers thus it is likely in your interests to understand our fair use policy and fix the current situation. At the present time I feel that the ideal solution would be the attidtion of commentary on album covers to the relivant articles. WikiProject Albums would appear to be the best place group to do this.Geni 14:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there is rarely discussion of the cover art itself in the article is, in itself, insufficient reason for removing the image from the article. The assertion that, "the image [is] not the music. Album cover art is seperate [sic] from the music" is correct. However, this is not WikiProject:Music, it is WikiProject:Albums. Within the scope of this Project, representation of album cover art is inseparable from the album itself. If use of degraded images within the project is not inherently fair-use within the scope of the project, the entire project should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fantailfan (talk • contribs) 15:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry. Fantailfan 16:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have stated that at this time I do not belive deletion to be the ideal course of action. I fail to see any reason why the members of this project cannot write about album covers. Of course it is posible that they can't but in the meantime I feel that the best course is to encorage people to write about ablum covers while at the same time finding out how extensive the problem is. This is the purpose behind Template:No commentary on cover picture.Geni 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any reason why members of this project should do anything until there is consensus that this is a problem to begin with. There is no consensus here that this is a problem, and no consensus at Wikipedia talk:Fair use that this is a problem. You admitted at WP:FU that you have no case law to show that this is a problem; the problem you see is based on your personal interpretation of the law. On the other hand, Postdlf, who seems to be a lawyer, doesn't see it as a problem, our benevolent dictator Jimbo Wales doesn't see it as a problem, and several others including myself don't see it as a problem. Why should we attempt to fix something when there is no consensus that anything is broken? That said, I find the idea of going around and slapping some template on each page completely ridiculous. Punctured Bicycle 20:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus over "fair use" images at this point? No I think not. As for my being unable to produce any case law it would appear that we are level in this area since you have also failed to do so. Why are you so worried about attention be brought to this issue.Geni 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think that there really isn't anything notable to say about many album covers, and asking/forcing editors to write something about them seems like asking someone to add uninteresting, unimportant information to articles. --Fritz S. (Talk) 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So you take the position that many album covers are not significant?Geni 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As a subject, yes, I think most album covers are not significant, but we use them to illustrate audio recordings, and that they do pretty well (while meeting WP:FUC that is, so I really don't see what your problem with them is). --Fritz S. (Talk) 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No that would mean that by defintion your use fails FUC 8 (and likely 5). You see idenitifcation can be done by the title of the article. The album cover is not needed to do that.Geni 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So, Geni, you have created Template:No commentary on cover picture and a new user, Genidealingwithalbumcovers (talk · contribs) to start dealing with this even though there has been no evidence that anything is being misused both here and at the talk page at WP:FU? This seems like you are stepping into the realm of WP:POINT here ... my $0.02. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see your logic. Could you clarify?Geni 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you want me to clarify? I was just stating a fact and then an opinion. No logic behind it. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

an opinion without logic behind it has no value.Geni 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, you should change the wording if you are going to be using that template a lot so that it says that articles don't have to mention the album cover to use due to policy, just someones opinion that it would be a nice thing to do. This way, people won't think they are breaking policy by using the album art on the page without mentioning it. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add that wording.Geni 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then there is probably going to be a problem due to scaring the newbies. Also, there will then be no problem with removing your template from talk pages either, since there is nothing in policy that says album covers have to be mentioned in the album articles. Just to play safe, I will bring this argument up at WP:FU because the wording seems faulty. You know you can not just address album covers, but also have to defend why your theory is valid against video game covers, movie posters, DVD covers, book jackets, ect, right? -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You remove them I put them back what do you hope to atchive by that?. In any case per WP:OWN they are not my templates. The templates are meant to inform newbies rather than bite them. Copyright is an extreamly complex area so it is not fair to expect people to understand it from the first (seen our upload page untill recently? If they survived that I don't think the template will be a problem).Geni 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've not yet cycled through the above text and related issues. But straight away this strikes me as an argument such as "There is no critical commentary on Syd Barrett's face. Nowhere is his appearance discussed. Let's delete all images of Syd Barrett." Album covers are as important recognising features to an Album, as a photo is of a person. You don't have to write a commentary on Kurt Cobain's face to be able to use a fair use photograph of him, just as we don't need to comment on Blue Monday (New Order song)'s iconic cover art in order to use it on Wikipedia. Seriously, for the Wikiproject guys, please just carry on as you were before. And for Geni, how about a Template:No commentary on person's face and User:Genidealingwithfaces? - hahnchen 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Geni would argue that discussion is required for fair use provisions. His/her presence here is unhelpful, at best. Since I have a day job, I will not suggest that her/his presence in this Project is disruptive and uncollegial and take appropriate WikiAction (I'm not an admin, etc.). Someone who cannot spell (or trouble to use spell check), uses sock puppets and incites what is a diverse and usually friendly group into argument over the usage of copyrighted images is charitably speaking a provoker and at worst a troll. Fantailfan 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My use of sock pupets is in keeping with WP:SOCK. As for the rest of your alligations WP:RFC is that way.Geni 17:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No one would argue against the adage of a picture being worth a thousand words. What would take an extra paragraph of text can be solved with music and picture samples. If these images and their captions assist the reader in understanding the topic, then Jesus Christ, let's stop hiding in bunkers and breaking cold sweats about copyright protection. Just add a healthy fair use rationale and exercise constitutional rights. --Zeality 02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to launch a music wiki, where articles without the sleeves will be considered "naked"

I've argued in favour of fair use of album covers in articles here many times (and lost a Featured List nomination over it) but, despite what I think is a good legal and moral case backed up by the near universality of this practice across the web and the printed media, we may have to accept that Wikipedia culture is to an extent against "us". There's a fair few people here who'd rather not use any content which isn't "free".

Indeed, it was once suggested to me that if I felt this way about fair use of album covers I should start my own wiki. At the time that seemed laughable. However, I think popular music is a topic which needs a little freedom to breathe, freedom which a general purpose encyclopedia can't provide: slightly lower notability requirements, some scope for editorial opinion, a community focussed on music, and so on, not to mention special features in the wiki software to suit the topic. So, I'm currently working on starting such a wiki, and illustrating articles and discographies will be the norm there. The wiki will of course feed off Wikipedia to start with and send material back to it, and we'll work alongside Wikipedia rather than against it. We will though be using images where it's legally and morally fair to the full extent allowed by applicable law!

I have some special features in mind which I don't want to say too much about yet, and they'll require some programming. I also have configuration and infrastructure to take care of. If however any folks want to get started before that infrastructure is in place, or help me out, I could put a Mediawiki up. At the very least I think we'd need a script to import music-related articles from Wikipedia before even thinking about going public, even if other features can wait.

Assuming I don't get deluged with inquiries and offers of help I'll be posting to the music WikiProjects when I have some news and also inviting a few folks to become admins. Work is underway, but I have some ambitious ideas here (which I don't want to detail just yet, cos somebody will pinch them :)) and am quite a plodder. --kingboyk 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Heck, I'm a plodder, too, with 896 albums in my collection. Onward the B student! Fantailfan 00:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be the case those who desire more breathing room when it comes to fair use content should start their own wiki. But the same is true for those who want to suffocate fair use content altogether. If you want a completely free encyclopedia devoid of fair use images, you are free to start your own wiki. The English Wikipedia has deemed fair use acceptable so that freeness does not undermine comprehensibility. I believe that removing the main album cover from the relevant album article undermines comprehensibility; album covers are an essential aspect of popular recorded music even if commonly one cannot find much to say about the cover itself. I agree with you that we are legally and morally justified in using album cover images, and the widespread practice of this supports us even more.

A long time ago there was an Albums sister project, like Wikiquote or Wikibooks, but it failed because it did not have a clear mission statement and could not distinguish itself from Wikipedia album articles. Hopefully your special features will distinguish it sufficiently. Good luck. Punctured Bicycle 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Where to get album cover images

Apologies if this is already mentioned somewhere, but where are the album cover images supposed to come from? Are you supposed to scan them yourself, or what? Eric Mushroom Wilson 17:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

By claiming Fair use, you can obtain it from web, or make them yourself. In any case, you must use the {{albumcover}} license. If you download it from the web, I suggest adding a link to the page containing the image, and a direct link to the image itself. If you download it from Amazon, add an {{amazonimages}} tag. Remember to add a fair use rationale in the image page. Finally, note that album covers may be deleted in the future, according to the discussion above this talk. Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 17:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You could also check out the All Music Guide, thats where I snatch all mine from. They are the perfect size; small enough to be considered low-resolution, but big enough that they dont pixelate in the {{Infobox Album}} template. Still remember your tags and fair use rationale as ReyBrujo said. -- Reaper X 17:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also found large images (which I reduce in size) at rateyourmusic.com which, despite my earlier disdain for them, useful as a third source of album info other than allmusic and amazon. Also, despite my refusal to market there, walmart.com has large-size pix as well. Keep in mind they should be reduced in size to conform to fair usage and used only in the album cited. --Fantailfan 01:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course to be really fair to the musicians and other copyright holders you could consider actually buying the albums yourself and scanning the covers – thereby ultimately contributing a royalty to these people - rather than just lazily thieving the images from someone else's website. ;-) Ricadus 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Idea for album infobox

Would be really good to have a field for awards that the album has won, e.g. best album of 2006, or other music awards. When this applies (which is only obviously to some albums) it's probably more important than the professional reviews as it puts the album beyond good, and actually as the best, or one of the best, from a particular year, or catergory. Brendanfox 00:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• It depends on what level of awards are considered... Sure there's the nationally known stuff, but there are hundreds of lesser awards that can be won. These sorts of awards should be discussed in the album text, and the album should be included in a category for "albums winning this award," if such categories exist. ~Gertlex 01:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Illmatic FAR

Illmatic has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Trying to avoid an edit war over individiual Capitol Steps albums

A user has recently flagged six album articles, one which has existed for a while and five more that I created this morning with the most basic information, claiming non-notability and lack of references. I did not flag the articles as stubs, though I suppose I should have done. I've started with track listings and an infobox. I have many of the CDs myself, so I could also add cover art. Other production information, such as songs parodied and performers are included within the individual CDs, thus being verifiable. Topics of the songs could also be added, as in Tom Lehrer's That Was the Year That Was What is NOT available are sales-figures, as the albums are self-published and largely self-distributed. What I guess I don't understand is why single out a political parody group known throughout the United States (though admittedly not outside the US, as much of the humor is based on specific incidents in US politics), and not flag, say, Lehrer's albums, or P. D. Q. Bach albums, and so on. --JohnDBuell 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Four of these articles have been tagged as comedy album stubs. Two of them I have "filled out" with lists of parodied songs and other credits, and the album cover images. I'd still like another opinion on the above, though I gather from the Notability guideline for music that album inclusion (probably much like middle school/elementary school/grammar school inclusion) is currently a hotly debated topic. I've also added comments about the troupe's notability on their talk page, at Talk:Capitol Steps#Notable or not? --JohnDBuell 20:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouildn't say album notability is hotly contested. It's more like, some people complain, but nobody ever tries to gain a consensus. I'd love to see album notability guidelines fleshed out and agreed upon. I think the way most (but not all) people feel about it is that any original album by a notable group deserves an article. Also, I think the majority (of seasoned editors) believe that compilation albums do not. That's probably the most widely violated "consensus opinion."

As for as your articles... in my personal opinion, Capitol Steps is definitely notable. I'm not sure we need to have articles on all of their albums, though. But that's just me. And I would certainly not complain if someone did create them all. There are more important battles to fight around here. Even regarding album notability. -Freekee 03:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Here, here. Although I empathise with the concerns laid out here, this issue is hardly worth expending energy on, IMHO. (Of course, I might feel different if I had a dog in this fight.) In any event, methinks 'tis of greater import to conserve one's vigour for more salient matters. Good luck. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 15:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I can understand someone wanting to say "Try to keep albums to the largest sellers or the award winners and nominees" but that's so subjective, especially for a group that never or rarely had a best seller or an award. Take for instance Aerosmith, who never had a big hit single until the late 1990s, or Weird Al, who finally got his big hit single off of his current record. In another example, it would be VERY easy to justify album writeups of the four P. D. Q. Bach recordings that won four Comedy Record Grammy Awards in a row, but what about the rest of the discography? Another point to be made about political humor, which I probably should have made sooner, is that being so topical, they are doubled-edged swords: either no one will remember what they're about, or they can wind up being used to educate those who didn't live in that era, about the issues of that period, provided you can see through any bias, be it in song, story, or cartoon (animated or drawn). The trouble is, getting back to this specific example, that there have been no award-nominated albums (or award-winning ones) - certainly none that I could find with some quick Internet searches, and as mentioned before, there are NO published sales figures. There are certainly no lack of reviews, however.... One thing I attempted to suggest, and got rebuffed on, was that I myself would have no objection of merging the six existing articles and any future details into a list article, but I still see no harm in having articles as a starting place and giving them room to expand (rather than attempting to cut them off shortly after creation). Anyway, sorry for the rambling, but I was hoping to make some points clear. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. --JohnDBuell 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's agreement, would someone ELSE be willing to remove the tags so I'm not accused of edit-warring? Thanks and thanks again for taking the time to register your thoughts here. --JohnDBuell 02:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't really have much to worry about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Field for album format in the infobox

Forgive me if this has already been discussed; I went through the talk page archives using my browser's find feature and didn't find anything quite like it, but I could have been mistaken. I brought this up previously on the infobox's talk page and a user suggested I bring it here. I think a field in the album infobox reserved for the format(s) (e.g., cassette, compact disc, DVD-audio, etc.) that the album was released in would be a good addition. Sam 03:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, and I'm sure there would be plenty of Wikipediholics willing to dedicate weeks of their lives to updating existing album infoboxes. Albums are often released in multiple formats, such as

• vinyl / 8-track (60's-70's) [?]
• vinyl / cassette (70's-80's)
• cassette / CD (80's-90's)
• CD/vinyl (current trend, especially among independent artists)

I may be jumping the gun, but if this goes through, it might be good to have two fields – one for "Original release format(s)", the other for "Subsequent release format(s)".

Twas Now 01:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was sarcasm, but yes, I would be willing to update pages. ;)

I wasn't thinking along those lines, but that's a good idea to consider. I pictured it more like "Vinyl (1979), CD (1991)", and so on. Sam 02:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It might get a little unwieldy depending on the album. Especially with different releases by different labels. I could see, for instance, an album release that was originally on LP and cassette in the 70s or 80s, re-released once on CD by another label in the 1990s, and re-released again by a third label in the 2000s in a remastered version.... --JohnDBuell 02:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How often is release information known and available? -Freekee 05:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That may depend on the collector and possibly how forthcoming the labels would be. Dark Side of the Moon would be a good example of multiple releases. The example I was thinking of earlier was the direct-to-audio drama Doctor Who and the Pescatons, originally released by Decca in 1976 (I don't own the LP or cassette, but the original copyright is on the notes of both subsequent CD releases), 1991 CD release by Silva Screen Records, and 2005 CD re-release by BBC Audio (with ISBN). --JohnDBuell 13:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Put a table in the main body of the article, towards the bottom, rather than adding more clutter to the info box. Some albums get released in the various formats at different times (i.e. years) in different territories, so there will be potential for getting into a mess, especially for any bands that have a huge fan-base of pedantic obsessives who will want to list everything. If put into a separate table you can include other specific info such as release dates for various territories and original catalog numbers, such as the example in the Ralf_und_Florian article, an album that was only widely released after the international success of a later album. The formats/release dates info in the table also illustrates the emerging international prominence of the band over a two-year period. Ricadus 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind that some recordings have been issued multiple times on the same format, especially CD: sometimes with different tracks, sometimes remastered or remixed, sometimes just a slightly different pressing. This level of metadata isn't necessarily well presented in an encyclopedia article nor in plain text. Also remember, we're writing for a general readership here. --kingboyk 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

'&' or 'and' ?

Black Sun Empire released an album/LP called Cruel & Unusual in 2005. In a case like this where the title of the album has the '&' symbol should the article be created at Cruel and Unusual or Cruel & Unusual? --OriginalJunglist 16:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read a guideline about the ampersand in titles. However, you should provide alternatives. Personally, following the advice at the naming policy (which, by the way, may be a good place to ask), I would provide alternatives: create the article at Cruel and Unusual (album), create a redirect from Cruel & Unusual, and an inline disambiguation link at Cruel and Unusual. Note that many, many, many anonymous will copy the contents from Cruel and Unusual (album) to Cruel & Unusual, so if you follow this approach, you will have to keep both articles in your watchlist to prevent splitting the history. -- ReyBrujo 16:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, there is a !!! article, so you may just create it at Cruel & Unusual to prevent all that "battle" with anonymous. It may not be worth the trouble. -- ReyBrujo 16:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say it should be spelled the same as it appears on the album. Besides, it is a good disambiguator. I would suggest moving Cruel And Unusual (album) to Cruel & Unusual. Then set up a new redirect page at Cruel and Unusual (album), because the old page was miscapitalized. Maybe put a For the album, see... at the Cruel and Unusual page. -Freekee 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Cruel and Unusual (album) is considered a "unfeasible typo". While a user may type "Cruel And Unusual" and another "Cruel and Unusual", no user will type "Cruel and Unusual (album)", nor he will type "Cruel and Unusual (Black Sun Empire album)". So, while converting the existing article in a redirect is fine, there is no need for creating a disambiguation link for the "and" version, as it is not likely to happen. -- ReyBrujo 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing how as the name of the album is "Cruel 7 Unusual", I would say to use that. $wingin' Utter$ has the "$" in the wikipedia : $wingin' Utter$, so I'd say to put it in. Violask81976 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What? Image:BlackSunEmpire-Cruel&Unusual.jpg -Freekee 17:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

DVDs?

In the process of categorizing albums, when we come upon singles and Dvds, should they be put in with the artist's albums? For example: the Feelin' So Good (DVD) release by J.lo, should that be put in under [Category:Jennifer Lopez albums]? I'd say yes. Violask81976 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

DVDs I've come across lately have all been classified under artist's album categories. Bubba hotep 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Category:Jennifer Lopez videos, maybe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freekee (talk • contribs) 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

EPs, etc in Infobox chronologies

How strong of a guideline is the recommendation on excluding EPs and compilations (WP:ALBUM#Chronology) in Infobox chronologies? The current documentation says "only studio albums, usually excluding". I can see situations where certain EPs would be appropriate to include, but mostly they unnecessarily clutter a lot of chronologies. I imagine that removing them has the potential to start edit wars (given the passionate nature of fans), so I was wondering if a more detailed consensus has been reached previously on what "usually excluding" entails... --Fru1tbat 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I always include them because I see the chronology as a handy navigation aid through the whole discography without referring back to the band article. This has a lot to do with the genres that I specialise in – mainly punk and metal, the former tending to release a lot of EPs. However, there aren't that many EPs out there, so I don't see that they would clutter the chrono that much. Bubba hotep 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I overstated the clutter, but when I'm jumping along a band's discography, I do find it fairly inconvenient to have to go through the EPs (which I don't care much about, generally) to get to the major works (which is what I'm generally looking for), and I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that most users would want/expect the same behavior (i.e. for the main chronology to link major works, not to be comprehensive). TMBG, for example, uses extra chronologies for every type of album (see They Might Be Giants (album)), and uses the main chronology as a comprehensive path (which is a nice compromise), but it makes sense there because TMBG has so many releases of each type. For bands with a more limited catalogue, it seems like it should be sufficient to leave the minor works to the main article or something... --Fru1tbat 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would have to be done on a case by case basis. Like the idea of using the extra chronology though. Bubba hotep 08:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

agree with Bubba. In many cases eps, lives and comps are repacking and cash-in by the label. In some they are vital to the discography of an artist's career. Fantailfan 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to see the "extra" albums in there. Live albums are okay, if they're significant releases. Greatest hits, generally not. I like the TMBG solution. As for EPs... it depends on the record. Some EPs are more like extended singles, and some are more like short albums. I would say if the EP is all original songs, include it in the chronology. If it leads off with songs from a full album, don't (and maybe include it in the singles chronology). -Freekee 17:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I was thinking of EPs from the punk genre point of view where they are almost always mini-albums with tracks not found on any other albums (or if they are, they are re-recordings). They are generally not singles in the traditional sense. Bubba hotep 19:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Album stubs category

In case anyone's wondering where all the entries in Category:Album stubs have gone – for the last couple of days I have really been hitting these and putting them in the proper sub-stub categories (and adding album tags and other categories, and maybe a bit of wikifying along the way). Progress thus far:

• A to Z – complete
  • A to K – 02/01/07 (UK date format)
  • L to Q – 03/01/07
  • R to S and U to W – 04/01/07
  • T – 05/01/07 (with help from User:Alex valavanis at the end)

Hopefully will have the rest done soon, then I can go back and work on them properly. By the way, I have done this without the aid of a bot or any semi-automated process – just a lot of finger-work! Bubba hotep 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed they were vanishing. When you're done, wanna help me add infoboxes?--Fisherjs 16:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly. :) Bubba hotep 17:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

All done. Bubba hotep 11:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's about 800 albums in this cat now (>L). Any idea how many were in there in the first place? Bubba hotep 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No clue how many there were. But it raises a question I've been having: Is there any way to figure out the size of a cat w/o paging through and counting by 200s (certainly wouldn't want to do it that way for Category:Albums without cover art)? Seems like Category:Wikipedia backlog has a tracker bot though I don't know if it can be applied to any cat.--Fisherjs 08:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not the only one to wonder the same thing. It crossed my mind (more than once) when I was stub-sorting. There were 177 per page for some reason. I will do some investigation. Bubba hotep 09:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I use AutoWikiBrowser to make a list of articles from a category. It takes only few seconds this way. Category:Albums without cover art contains 3426 pages at the moment. Jogers (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think of that! Only just got AWB. Haven't used it yet... Bubba hotep 09:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you are doing a great job here! Jogers (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Who, me? Shucks, it's a hobby-job really. I created 190+ album articles before I joined up and it's a good place to be. You lot on here aren't doing such a bad job either. Fisherjs is probably glad for the help though! By the way, Category: Needs album infobox is at 716 according to AWB. We will have those cracked by mid-week, I reckon. Bubba hotep 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant both of you, you and Fisherjs. May I make a suggestion about adding infoboxes? I've just moved the "longtype" field to the advanced usage section in the album infobox documentation. It's rarely used so what's the point of adding it everywhere? Jogers (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's added everywhere because it is part of the template which comes up on Category: Needs album infobox, where I presume we copy and paste it from. I personally wouldn't care if it was dispatched with completely. Messes up the formatting of the box sometimes. Bubba hotep 13:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the longtype from that page as well now. Used it maybe twice in the last few days and nearly had an edit war with someone who insisted on using "Type = promo" so I added "promo" in longtype as a compromise! Bubba hotep 13:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is useful to monitor a cat you could consider User:Dragons_flight/Category_tracker Rich Farmbrough, 19:58 17 January 2007 (GMT).

Spoken word

Is there a need for a Spoken word album stub and/or category? I've come across some (not many) in my travels in the last few days. Bubba hotep 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you name a few for us? -Freekee 17:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I stub sorted Talk Is Cheap Vol III and Talk Is Cheap Vol IV – two of many from Henry Rollins' spoken word discography. There were a few interview discs I came across as well. Bubba hotep 19:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Strictly speaking, those records can be covered by the studio or live types, as appropriate. Comedy albums are done the same way. The current categories are studio, live, comp, EP, tribute and soundtrack. All of them (except EP) are for albums that don't always fit in any other categories. I think spoken word albums can always go in one of the existing ones. -Freekee 06:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

According to information at the All Music Guide website (AMG), there is a subgenre of comedy albums known as Spoken Comedy. This is quite different from the Spoken Word category. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There are also interview discs and cassettes, but I really hope we never get to the point where people start writing articles about those.

More seriously, how about The Conet Project? –Unint 20:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should say about interview discs. I must have seen at least 3,000 albums in the last few days and I have come across some of these. Not only did I not know how to stub them (I stubbed them {{YYYYs-album}} in the end), I did not know whether to hit the {{db}} button! So yes, I would say people have started writing about them. As for The Conet Project... erm, strange at least, scary at most! :) Bubba hotep 20:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-standard album infoboxes categorization

Strange... Category:Non-standard album infoboxes doesn't serve its purpose anymore for almost two months (since this edit) and nobody noticed this or have I missed something? Jogers (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I think I visited it in December or so, and thought you had done a great work there :-) Adding it back. -- ReyBrujo 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, the articles are being refreshed. This will make the server work some. I will add a note after dinner about not removing it from there. -- ReyBrujo 01:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, methinks that category has quite some life left in it. As it stands, I am concerned with Optic Nerve (CD-ROM) being considered a studio album. (Come to think of it, I doubt if it qualifies as an audio CD; I will have to look into that...)

As much as I am loathe to introduce further bureaucracy, this project would be better served by more accurate descriptions. Proposals of new categories are welcome. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 18:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I've been hammering away at these today and there are many situations where the exiting types are not adequate. I've been trying to use the Longtype field, but even this isn't an ideal solution. Even if there was just an "other" type available, it would be useful. Alex valavanis 19:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Optic Nerve CD-ROM fails to qualify as an audio recording; while there are a few music videos on the disc, none of the tracks will play on a audio CD player. For that reason, I question the "Studio Album" classification... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 20:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on an offsite description of the aforementioned recording and information gleaned from the All Music Guide website (AMG), I propose the creation of a "Spoken word" category.

Strictly speaking, this recording is a documentary; however, the information provided by AMG considers documentaries to be a subset of "Spoken word" recordings — even though there is music included on the "Optic Nerve" CD-ROM. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Albums without cover art

Anyone know why this category is no longer populated with all the articles where Cover is missing in the infobox?--Fisherjs 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was about to ask ReyBrujo why he removed it from the infobox code without any comment. Jogers (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think it should be Album articles without cover art :-) -Freekee 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Jogers (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember the days when vinyl singles came in a paper bag with a hole cut in it so you could see the label... horrible, savage, uncivilised days. :( Bubba hotep 14:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So, we agree with this name change? Remember that everytime we change something, the server needs to update over 30k articles. -- ReyBrujo 17:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds rather grave. Perhaps you could post this reminder somewhere so you avoid sounding like a "broken record"? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 17:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a massive problem. I changed a temp recently (12k memebers), and the job queue was 50k. Looked a little while later and it was 0. Rich Farmbrough, 20:02 17 January 2007 (GMT).

Chronology formatting

Copied from Template talk:Infobox Album for further discussion

Don't know whether this has ever been asked, but is it possible to code-in the formatting in the infobox (italics for "last" and "next", bold italics for "this") so that these fields can be entered sans-wiki-formatting? It might mean the year would need another field, but I don't see a problem with it having the same style as the album name. Just a thought. Bubba HoTep 15:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is done this way on Polish Wikipedia. I like the idea. However, the implementation would be somewhat problematic because it requires updating thousands of pages. Jogers (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Polish one isn't bad. And, yes, very problematic to implement for relative low gain. Maybe my ^@/_' key could do with a little more bashing after all! Bubba HoTep 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it may be worthwhile. Filling the infobox would be so much more straightforward... It would require a bot assist, without a doubt, but few other nice things could be done by the way - e.g. finally standardizing the type field. How about bringing this to WP:ALBUMS? Jogers (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

While I have no objections to how it is now... well, I didn't when I was creating my own articles, at least... now I am doing the rounds with the Category:Needs album infobox task (with others), I think it would make input easier. Not only for us, but for users who are totally baffled by the infobox in the first place. Bubba HoTep 20:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Standardizing the prev/cur/next fields would be great, but I'd object to extending the formatting to the year, or using separate fields for the years. The former doesn't seem appropriate per the MoS, and the latter, well, I guess I prefer to keep minor fields to a minimum when possible. If line breaks are used as recommended in the chronology fields, it should be possible to parse it correctly and apply the formatting to only the album titles, shouldn't it? --Fru1tbat 20:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The latter I think would be preferable over the former, agreed. Although it may be a minor field, the entry of it would be so much easier. By the way, wasn't this tried back in Aug/Sep maybe – I seem to remember something going wrong in the chronology fields then (adding the wikiformatting marks sent it a bit doo-lally), or was I imagining it? Bubba HoTep 20:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I remember the same thing. Single-quotes started showing up in the infoboxes or something, IIRC. I don't remember the exact change, but my guess is that it could be implemented differently, in a way that would work. I have another idea, though, which has the advantage of not requiring any change to current uses of the template, but the disadvantage of making the syntax much less obvious... It's probably not a good idea, now that I think about it, but here it is anyway (feel free to crush mercilessly as needed):

| Last album = {{lastalbum|AlbumTitle|Year}}
| This album = {{thisalbum|AlbumTitle|Year}}
| Next album = {{nextalbum|AlbumTitle|Year}}

"lastalbum" and "nextalbum" could be redirects to the same template, of course. Not exactly an ideal solution, though. --Fru1tbat 20:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the look of it, and what it does, but you do realise you just made it more complicated with more keystrokes per function! :D Bubba HoTep 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC) No, it isn't though is it? Not if it is included in the template. Silly me! Good idea. But still not n00b friendly... Bubba HoTep 21:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I'm just thinking aloud. About the n00b-friendly thing - they don't even use infoboxes anyway! Is it possible to do a mock-up of this to see if it is practical in real-use? It's beginning to grow on me already, Fb! Bubba HoTep 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, it's probably over-geekifying something that should probably remain simpler, which is kinda why I downplayed it so much. :) It seems to me the current options are as follows:

• Automatic formatting, extended to entire field including year

Style not ideal, requires all existing box uses to be updated

• Extra field for year

user-friendly, but requires either update to all existing box uses, or code to check for empty year field(s) and apply formatting differently as needed (with potentially subtle problems if fields do not conform)

• Sub-templates (which I will humbly and perhaps unwisely call "the Fru1tbat solution") :)

Not user-friendly at all, but makes standardization easy, and would not require any existing transclusions to be updated

Any better ideas? --Fru1tbat 21:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the second option with massive update. Jogers (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to throw another spanner in the works, people. But it depends on your views on red-links. Personally, I don't like them. I would rather go back in to the previous/next album and update the chronology when an article is created than have one. With auto-formatting, you would have a proliferance of red-links. If I stand alone in my preferences, tell me, and I will go for option 2! Bubba HoTep 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow. How does it affect the number of red links? Jogers (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the auto-formatting will convert the title into an wikilink without the brackets? Or am I off-course with that one? Bubba HoTep 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC) I am off course, aren't I? It would be the same sort of thing as adding the genre where the [[]] are optional. Silly me, it was late last night! Bubba HoTep 12:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was sure that Fru1tbat meant only italicizing and bolding. I'm afraid that automatically wikilinking the title is not possible. For example there are several albums named Time. About the optional brackets - don't you mean the album type? Jogers (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, any field where we currently wikilink the contents. I obviously (now) realise this is not practicable and it should only be used for text formatting – which was my original suggestion all along, I just got lost along the way somewhere! :( Bubba HoTep 13:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Implementation

Here is the example of how it works. An user doesn't have to care about italicizing the last and the next album, italicizing and bolding this album, putting the line break and placing release years in brackets. As most of you probably noticed many new users have troubles with this and there are thousands of infoboxes around which don't have these fields entered correctly. Please share your thoughts. Jogers (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. Just what I was getting at (honest!) Bubba HoTep 13:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! My only (minor) quibble is with the field names... "This year", "next year", etc seem like awkward choices. I guess I'd prefer names like "next album year", even though they'd be a little longer. --Fru1tbat 14:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I named them like this only to preserve the current spacing. Jogers (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Release year" > "This album year" for uniformity? Bubba HoTep 14:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about that. If the full release date were unformatted, you could use {{#time:Y|{{{date}}}}} to extract the year and forget a duplicate field for "release year" or "this album year" entirely. It won't work with linked dates, though, and I can't find a parser function that translates a linked date to a raw date, though. If there were some way to accomplish this, it would be really slick. --Fru1tbat 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, many infoboxes list release dates for different countries (against the recommendation on the Project's page). I thought that "release year" may be more straightforward than "this album year" and that uniformity isn't that important if there is no "this album" field anyway but I'm not particularly good at naming. Jogers (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm, good point about the release date field usage. I guess for uniformity and clarity "this album year" is better, especially if the field is grouped with the other chronology fields, even though it's a little more clunky than "release year". I really wish there were a way to parse out the year from the release date field, though. Frustrating! --Fru1tbat 14:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking if we are making the field names clearer for the "average" user, then "This album year" would be more explicit. I really don't mind what the fields are called. :) Bubba HoTep 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've changed it. Naming is not the most important thing at this stage anyway. Jogers (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So... what happens next? Bubba hotep 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

1. Have we ever had any particularly weird use of the fields? Multiple chronologies solved a lot of potential weirdness, but I'm particularly paranoid about unforseen problems.
2. Is this going to be migrated to Infobox Single? Because that one is definitely going to have problems. –Unint 05:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1. It's just too complicated to use now. People forget to italicize album names, boldface "this album" or put a line break.
2. It would be a good idea since the situation is even worse there. Jogers (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it, solves a lot of style problems. -- ReyBrujo 05:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like occasionally albums in the chrono fields have words that aren't part of the title, and therefore wouldn't be italicized. But I can't think of any offhand, and maybe they shouldn't need those words. ??? -Freekee 05:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you give some examples? I remember some articles with covers thumbnails in these fields but it was agreed a long time ago that they shouldn't be used. Jogers (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe referring to the addition of the words "EP" or "Live"? I've come across those. Bubba hotep 09:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Right! Good point. Any ideas how to deal with these? Jogers (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Difficult one because in some cases it is part of the title, e.g. Metallica's The $5.98 EP isn't called The $5.98 with EP erroneously tagged on the end. (Yes, in fact it is called The $5.98 E.P.: Garage Days Re-Revisited, but it is the only one I thought of off the top of my head!) What I'm saying really is, it would probably be down to manual corrections and removals. Erk. :( Bubba hotep 10:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a possibility to make additional fields for comments like "(EP)" or "(Live)" that wouldn't be italicized. It would work similarly to the longtype field. The question remains - should these comments really stay? Jogers (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Bubba hotep 14:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of the cover thumbnails and parentheticals would be a good thing, yes.

What I was thinking about in reference to the single infobox is that sometimes parentheticals are used to denote multiple releases, or a link to a double A-side is needed where both songs have separate articles. (Granted, "Song 1 / Song 2" combined articles are also common, but I think the idea is to encourage articles about songs as entities, rather than single releases as entities.) –Unint 20:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category summary box-thingy

Would this be any use to anyone? User:Bubba hotep/ALBUM Figures would be updated manually with AWB if necessary. I would find it useful (obviously!) because I think it is good to see the numbers go down. Of course, there is also the danger that the figures going the other way would be disheartening, but hey! it would make me work a little harder! Anyone can update it (obviously!) by clicking on the word "updated" which will take you directly to the sub-page edit screen. Update timestamp with 5 ~. The only ones which would need counting with AWB are "without cover art" and "without infobox" - the others seem perpetually small. Notwithstanding cats I may have forgotten (I just did them in the order they appear on the To-Do list). Feel free to use and abuse. :) Bubba hotep 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it's at User:Bubba hotep/ALBUM at the moment. Bubba hotep 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been waiting for just the thing. Any way to feed that into a simple graph that tracks these numbers over time at regular intervals? Any way to not count the templates (in the stub cat, for example)? Or is that best dealt with by modifying the templates themselves?--Fisherjs 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a way to do all those things... I just don't know how at the moment. It's all very manual at the moment, but it's a start. Are those templates supposed to be in that category anyway? I have been wondering that as well. Maybe they should be taken out of the category as they seem to be the only two in there? Bubba hotep 19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC) I just updated the stats and added an important category I forgot (I knew there would be one). Time I got a new PC, I think, because it nearly overloaded when I asked AWB to count how many album articles there are in total – don't think I'll be doing that one too often, but it is the only one which is allowed to increase! Bubba hotep 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea! It would look nice on the Project's main page. There must be some way to automatically update the data. How about trying a bot request? Jogers (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a question at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, but not many people frequent that page! Obviously, bot would be good, but to be honest it doesn't take that long to do it manually. NB: WP:ALBUM articles = number of articles with the album tag on them, so doesn't include those we haven't got round to tagging yet. Bubba hotep 13:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But a bot would save you some effort anyway so why not? You could add some infoboxes instead ;-) Jogers (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! I didn't say I enjoyed updating it :D. Will make enquiries. Bubba hotep 13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The question has been raised. Bubba hotep 13:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is useful to monitor a cat you could consider User:Dragons_flight/Category_tracker Rich Farmbrough, 19:58 17 January 2007 (GMT).

That's where I stole borrowed the format from! I must admit, I'm a doofus with bots. Will have to read up on them. Bubba hotep 20:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not this is automated, can't you just run it on the main namespace so that Templates and such aren't included in the count? (also, has the question been answered as to IF templates (in this cat for example) should even be in the cat?) It's a pretty minor point but consider how many cats are here in the "top" album cat.--Fisherjs 15:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The large number categories I run through AWB and it has a filter to only count talk pages carrying the {{album}} template. And no, no answer on whether templates should even be in the category. Bubba hotep 15:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

{{song-stub}} seems to be in Category:Song stubs so I assume the two templates in the album category are supposed to be there. However, I will exclude them from the count of Category:Album stubs from now on. Bubba hotep 15:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You will notice that {{Ep-stub}} has disappeared from the category. This is because I reclassified it as a music-stub. The album one will be a bit trickier because it seems to be protected and only an admin can edit it. Oh well, one less than two is half of what we started out with... or something. ;) Bubba hotep 12:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way

Why are people still updating/using this page? Didn't the introduction of the category deprecate this list? Bubba hotep 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about this once. This page doesn't seem to be very useful now. Jogers (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've at least removed it from the Category:Needs album infobox. People are using it all the time, though. Maybe it used to separate the ones that need them from the ones that really need them, i.e. special requests? Dunno, it will be obsolete soon... hopefully... if I can get past "T" without having a breakdown! Bubba hotep 21:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the list is deprecated. I have changed the information on the page, so people will add articles to the category instead. The old articles still need moving. I've been working on it. After that, is it worth considering deleting the list? Alex valavanis 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Where do people find it from, I wonder? Bubba hotep 12:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

From WikiProject Albums, perhaps? :-) I've just removed the note from the Project's page. Jogers (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should be deleted just as needs infobox conversion list. Jogers (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we still using List of albums? Surely we should be moving to Category:WikiProject_Albums_articles instead? If this is the case, maybe we should check that everything in the list has an {{album}} tag and then delete the list. Alex valavanis 12:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

With over 37,000 (registered) articles (checks category summary above ;) ) lists are inherently unmaintainable. Next, people will be adding a new parameter to the album tag, something like "needs-adding-to-list-of-albums=yes"! Categories are the only way now with the speed the project is growing. Delete all the lists. Bubba hotep 12:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If the remark about list deletion is a motion, then I second. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Once they are cleared, yes, deleto. :) Bubba hotep 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Current Collaboration?

Is it worth having a "current collaboration" set at the top of the project page, like they do on some other projects? It could be one of the housekeeping tasks that is getting a bit out of hand, making improvements to an FA/GA candidate etc… If everyone focused on a particular task, we could see some real results rather than spreading our efforts over some 30,000 random articles! Alex valavanis 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We had this once but it didn't work very well. It may be worth trying it again though. Jogers (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What went wrong last time? Is it something we can improve on, or would the same thing just happen again? Alex valavanis 12:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just remember the Project was "collaborating" on Revolver for over a year and people were complaining that the article didn't receive any extraordinary attention at the time. Jogers (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I misunderstand the question, but it seems that the proposed idea goes against the spirit of this Project. Any encouragement — real or perceived — of herd behaviour is fraught with peril.

When you speak of "real results", could you please clarify what you are referring to? Speaking for myself, my motivation for contribution is devoid of any desire to be acknowledged or validated by way of FA/GA candidates. As the incident related by Jogers suggests, this source of inspiration leaves much to be desired. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on collaboration. I have no problem. If anyone asks me to help them with anything, I will try my best. That's as far as it goes though. It could be a stub or an FA-candidate, a thorough copyedit or a comma. That goes for any article, not just an album-related one. I recently helped someone out with this article, which is now an FA, but I would take no credit for it. What I'm trying to say is: I will do my best to help anyone if asked. Worth bearing in mind. :) Bubba hotep 15:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of it as some form of project management, which is very much in the spirit of a WikiProject (rather than advocating "herd behaviour"). When there are around 100 listed project members working on over 37,000 articles, I just figured it would be better for the encyclopedia to focus our efforts a little. I doubt anyone is doing this for personal acknowledgment! My main idea was to collaborate on housekeeping tasks which have been sitting on the to do list for months. It would be great to finally kill off the old-style infoboxes, assess the thousands of unassessed articles for WP:1.0 etc… If people think it would be better just to ask for help on a task then that's fair enough. I just felt the to do list was too big to get anything done fully. We could just choose one of the To Do items each day and list it in bold at the top of the list maybe? Alex valavanis 15:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I echo the remarks put forth by Bubba hotep. My previous missive was deliberately crafted to assume good faith; as it was hard to determine your point of view. Initially, I was under the impression that your remarks were to dismiss the work of those who contribute [to] a stub as opposed to a candidate for FA status.

You might be suprised at the number of ostentatious characters involved with the project... --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, shall we trial this with the effort to clear out the old Needs Infobox list (see previous discussion)? It shouldn't take too long. I don't think FA collaborations are a good idea either. They generally require a bit too much expertise on the subject for most people to get involved, so I'd prefer it to be a general housekeeping task, personally. Alex valavanis 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how much of this effort can be automated? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 19:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As we're purging a list rather than a category, I don't think we could use AWB to do the job (does anyone know if it is possible?) Maybe we could write a bot, but I have no idea how to do that. The list's not too long anyway, so if automating it would take a lot of effort, it would be quicker to just do it manually. Alex valavanis 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As no one seems to object to trying this out, I've set the current collaboration in the to do list. If it seems like a bad idea, we can always remove it. Alex valavanis 02:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm dipping into this as well as what I was doing before because most of them have ended up in this category anyway. Bubba hotep 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I point to WikiProject Computer and video games as an example of productive collaboration. Some highlights: an active weekly article collaboration, and — I think this is a first — an archive of print sources owned by editors, available for research and citations.

That's just video game magazines. Think of how many music magazines have been published in comparison (and yet All Music Guide remains the most ubiquitous source for album reviews for us). Some topics you just can't find online. –Unint 02:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps compiling a list of resources which rival the quantity of information available via AMG – while surpassing the quality – would be a good starting point? --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 15:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How to include article in Cat:albums w/o cover art

Recently, I noticed that some infoboxes have "Nocover.gif" for the cover, which gives the right image in the infobox, but doesn't include the article in the Category:Albums without cover art. Before I search through all of Wikipedia for cases where Cover = "Nocover.gif", and making that edit on each article, I'm wondering if we can change how pages are included in the cat by saying if Cover is missing OR if Cover = "Nocover.gif"? It's just that I have no idea how to do such a thing.--Fisherjs 15:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be an adjustment to the infobox code in much the same way as something other than a recognised "type" puts it in the Non-standard infoboxes category. I must confess, I'm not much good with template code, although I am working on it. Bubba hotep 15:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It would need two {if} conditions. Looks simple in practice, but I wouldn't want to try it! Jogers or Fru1tbat are template wizards, aren't they? It's either that or a job for AWB to replace all instances of "nocover.gif" to null. Bubba hotep 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point! There must be plenty of infoboxes still using "Nocover.gif". I've already requested a change to the infobox. Jogers (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So whatever happened with this? Can you provide a link to where this request took place (and was the request to deal with gif or png, now that I think of it)? WP is a big place, yo! Hard to find my way around sometimes. Related question (as I just spent a few minutes replacing this gif image with the png version in the mainspace): what ever happened with this IFD? --Fisherjs 20:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It was dealt with at Template_talk:Infobox_Album#Album_articles_without_cover_art, and indeed the modification was made. The IFDs look to be more or less done as well, though I have yet to receive feedback on the particular ones that I'm personally dealing with. –Unint 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Definitive Collection"

I notice at The Definitive Collection, the Abba album gets this title, everything else (presumably) with this title has to be The Definitive Collection (Partridge Family) (for example). The talk page over there seems to state that Abba has rights to it and no one else. I think there should be a disambiguation page for this title (I notice Donovan has one without the "The" at the beginning). I'm pretty sure there are others besides Abba, Donovan, and the Partridge Family. It says at the Abba page not to create more disambiguation pages without bringing it to the project. I'm bringing it here and requesting the disambiguation page.Squad51 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You can find all pages that start with "Definitive Collection" or "The Definitive Collection" with the Special:Allpages tool. Those statements were probably made without awareness of these other articles; if there are many "Definitive Collection" articles in existence, then nobody will complain about a disambiguation page being created. –Unint 20:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard to define album types.

Take an example like Film Music by Mark Isham. It is a comlpilation of soundtrack material from three different films but is considered by most to be a significant part of Isham's discography, unlike Isham's other soundtrack albums. Should this album be considered a soundtrack, a compilation or an be treated as a studio album? Justin Foote 20:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Simple answer: Compilation album.

Rationale: Consider the Now That's What I Call Music! series, which features studio recordings from several artists. The releases are still regarded as compilations, even though most (if not all) tracks were from previously released studio albums.

An argument could be made that most film score and soundtrack releases are compilations; however, there are so many recordings of this sort that it easily falls into a class onto itself.

For the album in question, the songs – which were studio recordings – have been previously released, as is the case with many Greatest Hits albums. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Needs Infobox" list

Now that it has been emptied, shall we go ahead and delete it? As far as I can see, the only links to it are a few User Pages. Alex valavanis 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We can also just redirect it to WP:ALBUMS. Jogers (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do that. Alex valavanis 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Single/Song Infobox Conversion

Has anyone else noticed that the {{needsinfoboxconv}} tag is being used mostly for singles and songs, and yet it places articles in Category:Needs album infobox conversion. I feel that something should be done about this. We could possibly do one of the following:

1. Edit the template so that it adds articles to a new category instead: Category:Recorded music articles needing infobox conversion.
2. Edit the template so that it has a type parameter, which places the articles in either Category:Needs album infobox conversion, Category:Needs single infobox conversion or Category:Needs song infobox conversion. The three categories can be placed under one parent category.

I favour the latter, as editing will be simplified if all articles in a category need the same infobox conversion. Any thoughts? Alex valavanis 09:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice. And I thought it was rather strange! I would favour the latter, also. Bubba hotep 09:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I prefer the second option, too. Jogers (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How about modifying {{newinfobox}} instead? Jogers (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Have a look at the newinfobox page for details. I could use some help replacing all the transclusions of {{needsinfoboxconv}} so we can get rid of the old template. Alex valavanis 10:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider help forthcoming. :) Bubba hotep 10:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I found one EP and converted the infobox there and then. Rest were singles and a couple of songs. Bubba hotep 12:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff :) Thanks! I'll put a note on WP:SONGS project page suggesting that they should look after the singles/songs conversions now Alex valavanis 12:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job! This is exactly what I meant. Jogers (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Another album type question

Hi I am new here and I have another question on an album type. A band who's pages I am working on put out an album that takes tracks from their earlier releases yet re-records them with their current (and mostly different) lineup. The vocal tracks sound close to the original songs but many other parts are in some cases subtly, in other cases obviously, different. I think this should called a studio album but I would like to hear opinions just to be sure. Also other than a Night Ranger album which hasn't been entered here I can not recall another instance of this so I could see how those pages were handled. Anyone know af some? Any help you can give would be appreciated. Thanks Solonyc 05:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I can think of Still Cyco After All These Years by Suicidal Tendencies. It was a 1993 re-recording of a 1983 album. It is down as a "type=studio" and my rule of thumb is: if in doubt, if it was recorded in a studio, the type should be studio. Of course, there is the "type=remix" option, but I'm not sure whether that fits in with this type of album. I would say not. It's not strictly a compilation because they are re-recorded versions. I would say stick with "studio". Any anomalies can be dealt with in the body of the article anyway. Bubba hotep 08:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Washington D.C. record labels

Just a heads up that there is a cfd for Category:Washington D.C. record labels]. The main question being asked is if Category:American record labels should be subdivided into states because of its size (it's a really big category). I don't work much with record label stuff, but I thought you guys might want to give your input at the cfd. Dugwiki 20:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment Backlog

Currently, there is a backlog of albums which need to be assessed at WP:ALBUMA. Could more people participate, please? Thanks. Real96 04:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not add it as the collaboration task? I'll help out later if I get a chance Alex valavanis 08:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment: stub, start, etc.

Funny you should mention that, Real. I was just on my way here to discuss ratings. The subject has come up before, but we never come up with any guidelines for the different ratings. Maybe others have no trouble rating album articles using the general criteria, but I'd like something a little more specific for our uses. And maybe more people would rate album articles if there were better guidelines.

So what do you think makes an article?

Personally, I feel that if an article has a reasonably complete infobox, a minimal list of personnel (band members, at least), a track listing and at least a paragraph of text, it has transcended the Stub class. If the article meets these four criteria, it can be labeled Start class. Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded. Here's a question, though... How much information needs to be given in the text to meet Start class? And would it be worth mentioning what sort of information might be expected?

Does anyone have any opinions about B class or Good articles, as regrds this project? -Freekee 06:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say Start class is an oft overlooked status. I agree with your definition. With all that information, it can hardly be called a stub, which, to me, suggests that it is the bare-bones of an article with only the smallest intimation as to what the album holds. That's my thoughts for now! Will have a look at the other assessment ratings soon. Bubba hotep 08:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been using the following loose rules when assessing articles:

• Stub: (not good enough for start class)
• Start: Contains an infobox with an image and most of the information, an introductory paragraph and a tracklisting.
• B: Contains all of the mandatory sections listed by the project and at least an additional paragraph or two of relevant material
• GA: Should not be reviewed directly. Check that it meets all the GA criteria and list as a candidate. Add the {{GA nominee}} tag to the talk page.
• A: Should not be reviewed directly. Check that it meets most of the FA criteria and request peer review before setting to A class.
• FA: Should not be review directly. Check that it meets all of the FA criteria, request peer review and list as a candidate.

Alex valavanis 10:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. When I was stub-sorting, I must admit I sometimes added {{...|class=stub|...}} purely on the basis that it was a stub per the stub on the article (basically what the auto process would have done). Which leads me to this question: when a stub becomes a start, do you remove the stub on the article or leave it? I would say leave it because it encourages more people to improve the article. There must be a few people who contribute solely through the articles in the {{genre-album-stub}} category? Bubba hotep 11:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There are already about 25000 album articles listed as stubs, and it is quite difficult to find real stubs among the multitude of short articles which are actually start class! I think it might be better to remove the stub tags and allow start class articles to "naturally" improve over time into B-class as people add bits and pieces to them. With periodic checking, we can select the B-class articles from these. Cleanup tags will then encourage a lot more editing. The start class therefore might represent a slight lull in the development of the article, but it will help work progress faster on the genuine stubs. Alex valavanis 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is not very useful to have most of the album articles tagged as stubs. Freekee's criteria sound fair to me. How about mentioning them at WP:ALBUMS#Stubs? Jogers (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more in terms of, for example, cima de la cabeza, Category:Heavy metal album stubs which *only* has 600-odd stubs, but when you put it in the context of 25000, Alex, of course, you are right! Get them Stubs to Starts, shall we? People who are more likely to progress the articles from there are likely to go straight to them anyway. Bubba hotep 20:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I think we should re-assess the stub articles as well as do the unassess articles. I like Alex's system of evaluating as well as Freekee's. Stub class (might) have changed since re-assessment. However, I archived the old assessments in a seperate page (the assessment results were getting kind of long). By the way, the Wu Tang Clan album was rated a FA by Project Hip-Hop (PHH). Did anyone look at the article before an FA article was made, becuase I think it was assumed that since PHH gave an FA rating, then we gave an FA rating. Real96 19:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Projects don't assign FA ratings, the centralized FA nomination does. I think what you're talking about is the FA tags in two separate WikiProject boxes (which don't indicate that a particular project gave out the rating; they just report that an FA rating has been assigned). –Unint 19:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was confused about how FA articles were assigned, since I am new to Wikipedia. Anyway, I didn't rate the articles (which needed asking for assessment) on the current page, because I thought they were from the B - GA range and needed a person who was at the project a little while longer to assess the articles. Thanks. Real96 01:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts (and please add more if you have them). Here are my thoughts on your thoughts. Alex's guidelines are pretty good for a basic outline. I definitely think they should be included on our project page with a note to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment for further guidelines. The only things I would change would be to add "personnel" to the Start class requirements, and to define B class better. Like which sections are we talking about and what are the things that should be included in the text. I think it needs some stronger guidelines that are album specific. Anyone? Also, while Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Article body is a good place to go for guidelines, it could use some expansion. Feel free to do so. And I think the difference between Start and Stub classes are fairly obvious, and urge everyone to tag/untag and rate articles accordingly. -Freekee 04:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Album covers and fair use - 2

Sorry, I'm running around with my head up my bottom today. Was anything ever resolved with the discussion above? Can anyone point me to the relevant policy where it states that album covers can only be used in the album article and not the band article to which they pertain? Is it policy? Is it interpretation? Only I've seen a few people enforcing this lately, but discussions seem to be scattered throughout the darkest corners of Wikipedia project space and I never have been able to find a definitive answer. Bubba hotep 10:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to use an album cover on both the album page and the discography section (or page) of the artist. Others disagree. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it is reasonable, too, but many people don't and are pointing to a policy which doesn't permit it. Unfortunately, I can't find it or interpret it as such. It was mentioned on the talk page of Wikiproject music as an aside to the "flags-in-infoboxes" ongoing discussion (near the bottom of the page). Bubba hotep 11:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The (disputed) guideline is here, discussion here. Copyright/Fair use issues aside, I still think using the covers in discography galleries is irritating, because they link to the image and not to the album article. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above actually concerns whether album covers can be used in album articles when there is no commentary specifically about the album cover itself. Punctured Bicycle 12:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Another problem then! Ooh, dear... Bubba hotep 12:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Although, I see from the second link Fritz gives that it alludes to the same disputed policy. Bubba hotep 12:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Fritz. Will have a look at that. And yes, I have clicked many a discog link only to be taken to the image rather than the album. I have used cover images in band articles as a supplement to body text at the point where the album in question is being mentioned, but rarely in discographies. My interpretation is that because they are being mentioned in the text (not necessarily discussed as such, more like: Band x then released the album, Album,... picture left sort of thing) their use is justified. Bubba hotep 12:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Participants page

Do we really need the manually generated list of members here? This category does the same job, and users automatically join it when they add the {{User WikiprojectAlbums}} tag to their user page. As with all lists, it is difficult to maintain, and in this case, it occupies about a third of the project page for no clear reason. Does anyone else support its removal? Alex valavanis 12:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just changed it to a link so it doesn't occupy so much space. Jogers (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too - edit conflict! :p I tried to encourage use of the category. See what you think. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. Alex valavanis 12:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care to have categories or userboxes on my user page. But then i also don't care if i appear on the project members list. I do link here from my user page. Do what you want. -Freekee 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Two album stub articles (properly categorized, with introductory sentence, track listing, infobox and covers) has been deleted on the grounds of insufficient notability (although the notability of the artist has been established). Some editors express opinions that keeping pages that are not likely to evolve anywhere beyond this point is stupid. As many articles covered by this project provide no more than that so I thought someone here might be interested in this discussion. Jogers (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all happy with the outcome of this. Merge was definitely not a reasonable outcome. They should have been kept as separate articles like every other (38,000+) articles in this place. Seems to me someone wants to ride roughshod over the project. Not happy. Not impressed. :( Bubba hotep 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As I mention below, I've seen articles that were written pre-merged. I've written articles myself that were pre-merged.

But then, if an article gets merged in a forest and nobody's around to read it or expand it (since September 2006, in fact), is it still merged? –Unint 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a definite outcome. Anyway, the Project should adopt a stance on the matter. I don't mean these particular articles but a general question whether this amount of content is better organized on a separate page or on the artist page like this. Personally, I'm leaning towards the former. Jogers (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me state the reasons why I feel this way. There is always enough verifiable information available about a studio album by a notable band to have a reasonably short article with few sentences, infobox, track listing, credits etc. I don't think it's a terribly large problem that many articles can possibly never evolve beyond this point. It doesn't look weird like in case of very short articles about singles. Also, separate pages can be properly categorized and it's easier for the Project to maintain album entries this way. Jogers (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles which are three lines and don't even have a track listing (as below, and as the Gerry Rafferty albums I'm currently wasting my time adding infoboxes to instead of merging them!), yes, by all means merge. But the ones in this DRV were near enough fully formed stubs (by project standards, start-class by others). That's what a stub is, right? The only thing against the Happysad ones is, admittedly, the lack of sourcing. But that can be fixed. Sorry, still not happy. Bubba hotep 20:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a question of notability. If a band is notable enough to have an article, are their albums automatically considered notable enough to have articles? Personally, there are albums that I would not write articles for. But I would not consider deleting them if someone else does, and I would vote to keep. There's sort of an answer for you.

Additionally, I do think that any album article can be expanded to a full paragraph of text. -Freekee 06:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say if a band is notable, their albums are worthy of an article, yes. Although, I don't really think this includes demos (seen a lot of them around) and "unreleased" albums (how can anything unreleased be considered notable if it never made it out of the starting block? Plus there's the verifiability of such things). I would vote keep, too. And a paragraph of text should not be too hard to fill out, even if it is an expansion of the facts which would go in the infobox. What I find hard to understand, however, is that somebody would create an article without a track listing. Presumably people create an article because they have the album? Or is that a misconception? At least I think it may be true for new contributors. Even if it was inserted in completely the wrong format, it should be inserted nevertheless. If it isn't, then you can see why some people get the itchy deletion trigger-finger! Bubba hotep 08:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Template for articles with no context

Hi, I am a new page patroller, and I frequently come across album articles that are simply track listings, with no context. Because of this, I have created User:J Milburn/album as a template to place on the userpages of the creators of such articles. Someone reccomended to me that instead of keeping it in my userspace, I should put it in the template space. However, before I do that, I want to get some feedback, and make sure that there is not already a template very similar in existence. Thanks. J Milburn 22:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is actually quite relevant to the issue above this one as well. We should formalize some policy against minimal-context (and minimal-content) album articles; in fact, in sufficiently low-content cases I think an entire discography could exist solely within the main artist page. Caroline Lavelle is an example of such an article existing with no problems. –Unint 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is not ideal. One solution is to merge any articles about singles (when there are any) with the album article (leaving the redirect, obviously), so that we're offering at least some content to the reader. Jkelly 00:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

But then sometimes the singles articles consist only of infoboxes, and we're left with a column of boxes four-five high with nothing down the left side.

Perhaps we should standarize a format for album pages combined with singles as well. Given that this often involves a long list of track listings, maybe devise a multi-column format? –Unint 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so I understand, is this template to be placed on the author's talk page, to alert them to a problem? Or placed on the album's talk page, in hopes that the creator will see it on his watchlist? I think this it's better to use this template than to simply Speedy the article. But I think you might include some wording warning that the article might be deleted if it is not expanded. And we should not be afraid to nominate it if it is not improved in a reasonable amount of time. Can we use {{album|attention=yes}} on such articles? -Freekee 06:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the past, I would just nominate the article for deletion as having no context, or contact the editor and give them ten minutes if I was in a good mood or I had seen more than one article that looked the same by that editor. Then I realised that I was typing basically the same thing so often, I may as well create a template. I admit that it needs to mention the fact that the article could be deleted, I will add that in now. In response to the other comments, I am not a fan of when album articles are merged into one, or, even worse, the artist's page. I don't mind it when singles are merged into their appropriate album, that looks neat. J Milburn 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated. J Milburn 12:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have just used the template for the first time, at User talk:Museli. J Milburn 15:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair. I made a small change to it. The opening sentence is just a bit negative. Should it be changed to something like, "We appreciate your efforts to expand Wikipedia, but..."? since you have your full signature on the template, when anyone uses it, it will always have your name and that date on it. I suggest either removing the sig and having people sign it, or putting four tildes in, and directing it to be subst'ed. Or maybe there's a way to have a sig automaticaly added to a template? -Freekee 16:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

God, I hadn't noticed the sig problem. I have never created a template before, I have no idea how to change that. I will work on the opening line though. J Milburn 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated further. J Milburn 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Gospel albums

This may or may not be the place to post this query, so if I'm out of line or place with this, please direct me to the correct place. Anyhow, since there already are a number of articles on gospel albums (country or otherwise), do you think it's a good idea to create a special album/color denoter for such albums, as to distinguish them from regular secular studio albums? Your thoughts are appreciated, but I think it's an excellent idea. [[Briguy52748 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)]]

I guess the question is, what makes gospel albums different from other studio albums, other than genre? All infobox colours assigned so far have been independent of musical genre. –Unint 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say adding

| Genre = [[Gospel music|Gospel]]

to the infobox, and/or

{{christian-album-stub}}
[[Category:Gospel albums]]

would be a great distinguisher. And, excuse my ignorance, but what is a "regular secular studio album"? Do we have "Jewish studio albums" or "Satanist live albums"? I guess this is just a rephrasing of Unint's question, really. :) Bubba hotep 21:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the respondents so far. I believe the type and genre fields should be mutually independent. "Gospel" tells you nothing about the type of album: whether it is a live or studio or compilation album of songs from the gospel genre. Also, take the example of rock albums. There are thousands of articles about them, but the independent type/genre fields have worked pretty well for them. - Alex valavanis 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)