Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Dead Yahoo Music links

What do do about all of the dead links to Yahoo Music US in the professional reviews section of infoboxes? With the change in the Yahoo Music US site to "new.music.yahoo.com" last year, most of the review links are dead and it's not even clear of the reviews still exist at the site at all. (Examples at The Division Bell, Cypress Hill). Should they be changed to Yahoo Canada as with Straight Outta Compton or Musicology, or Yahoo UK as with Fijación Oral Vol. 1 or We Are the Night? — AjaxSmack 02:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Any link to a reliable source is fair game. -Freekee (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Album portal

IllaZilla mentioned creating an album portal. Do we need one? What would it include? -Freekee (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say not- album articles are better suited to music type portals, such as genre specific portals, or location specific portals. J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a thought I had. I might make a proposal for it later on, maybe over the summer. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with J Milburn's thoughts, but if you have any ideas, by all means, bring them up. :-) -Freekee (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A assessment?

While I'm all for most of the changes to the assessment guidelines, we seem to have suddenly added an "A" assessment—which we've never used before—and the example (Batman (film) is not an album article. Was this automatically added? For the moment, I've restored "Not used by this project". If we're going to add it, I think we should agree on some tangible differences between "B" class and "A" class. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need A. It seems to be covered by GA. And do we really need Category and Current class? And how do you even use Needed class? -Freekee (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree- A class seems to fill a non-existent void between GA and FA; it's simply not required. I don't see why Category class should be separate from NA class, and, to echo Freekee, I have no idea what Current class is. J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how A-class works in general. It seems to be a project related "official" assessment, but the GA process seems more in depth. I feel like A-class, if it exists at all should be lower than GA. I've never used it myself or seen an A-class article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Short of a project-wide consensus to start using A-class differently, that isn't going to happen, but I agree that it would be a better idea. However, now that there is C class, I don't think there is a need for another class below GA. J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying A-class always seemed so unnecessary to me. I mean GA seems like a big deal, but A-class seems like just another rating. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

GA is such a big deal that it would have to be higher than A class. -Freekee (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how we use Needed class. Create talk pages for which we have no albums? Watch them get G8ed? :) Is this used by other projects? I'd be interested to see how they manage it. I don't know how we'd use "Current" class either. As for the "Category" class, it seems to be already having out at places like Category talk:Factory Records albums. I don't know why. It's only used on 173 category talk pages, but it's been around for a while. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I figured since I was adding classes, I might as well add them all. In a project with over 70,000 articles there's probably a use for each of them. As for A class, WP:1.0/A says that "Once an article reaches the A-Class, it is considered 'complete', although edits will continue to be made." Let's say, for example, that you have a fully complete article that is better than GA but just can't seem to pass FA review due to minor style issues like "brilliant prose". Such an article could be rated A, which would make it eligible for 1.0. Ah I just found WP:A? which says that's precisely the purpose:

• "An A-Class article should approach the standards for a Featured article (FA), but will typically fall short because of minor style issues. The article may need minor copyedits, but it should be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and reasonably well-written."

As for the others, Category is, obviously, for categories. It helps the project to keep track of all the categories that are within its scope (for example, all cats associated with Category:Album articles by quality and Category:Album articles by importance. As categories, templates, files, etc. are in different namespaces and are handled differently, it's handy to have separate assessment categories for them rather than lump them all under NA. In these cases the tags are being used not for "assessment" in the traditional sense but mainly for categorization & administration. "Needed" is, as it says, for articles that don't exist but have been identified as topics that should be covered. So you could create a talk page with the tag, and it would be marked as a topic for which an article should be written. There are apparently a lot of other projects that use it, though I've never actually used it myself. It might be one that we could do without, if we have some other means of identifying articles that should be created. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Current" would be for any article that uses {{current}} or a variation of it. For this project I imagine it would be appropriate for articles about recently-released albums, since they are usually in a constant state of editing flux and thus can't be properly assessed until the album has been out for a while and editing activity calms down. "Category" has been around for over a year; I just added it to the assessment page. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of those ratings are very strange. I think "Future" is very useful. I went down the third column only at Category:Needed-Class articles, and only two of them have content: Category:Needed-Class Zagreb articles, which is really a list, and Category:Needed-Class meteorology articles, which has two talk pages for redirects--I guess a sort of project-specific way of noting {{R with possibilities}}? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. When I first came across Needed I thought it sounded like a decent way to suggest articles be created, but of course doing it this way I imagine they'd just be G8'd. We could always get rid of it, but I think we ought to have some formal way for editors to suggest albums for creation (such as on the to do page...do we have one?). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several. There's Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable albums, which is almost finished (sadly, I have not been pulling my weight there for some time. :( But I did my share!) There's Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Albums and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/List. These are on the project page under "Work to be done". And, by the way, since it's natural for people to talk more about the stuff they want different, let me note that I really like the separation of "Editing suggestions" into a new column. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's my issue with A class. There's this big assessment and improvement effort made for Good Articles. Your article passes. Then you improve it some more, but it hasn't passed FA review (for whatever reason), so you ask the album project people to give it an A. But how do those people know it's a whole grade better than GA? Maybe the GA people aren't as expert as I imagine, and maybe I'm not giving our own assessors enough credit (my apologies), but IMO, when you get to that level of quality, you ought to have it assessed by experts. And, btw, at that level, album-specific guidelines are less applicable than at lower levels. -Freekee (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

For GA and above I copied straight from Template:Grading scheme without any changes. In fact I just copied the whole thing and then made changes to B and down from the project's previous assessment table. Keep in mind that the "experts" are just other editors. AFAIK there's no certification board or anything for assigning GA/FA reviewers. A class is saying "it's better than GA, and doesn't require any major improvments to be FA, it's just being held up by these 1 or 2 minor details". I had that problem last year with Alien (film) when I nominated it for FA. There were a few concerns (some of which still need addressing), but the one I had the most trouble with was the "brilliant prose" criteria for FAs (a subjective phrase if I ever heard one...it's not like we have a pool of world-renowned copyeditors on staff to tweak these things into "brilliance"). I tried several avenues for help with this criteria, including requesting copyediting from several "experts", but nothing came of it. And so the article sits at GA. If that were the only criterion holding it up from FA, then it could be rated A and would thus be suitable for any future 1.0 release. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your example sounds like a perfect case for A class, but I think we need to sharpen up the guidelines. It will help in that a passer-by might see a place where he can offer some real assistance. But I think we should have some clear guidelines as to how an article meets the criteria. I don't want to see someone ranking it as A, just because it was GA, and he made some improvements. Who would decide? Should we have an official assessment team for that ranking? -Freekee (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, an A-class assessment is made by members of the WikiProject, which to me seems like it would be less strict than the process to achieve GA-class. As members of the WikiProject, we would have expectations on how the article should be, but we would lack the "fresh view" that someone unrelated would have. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine it as being basically "GA + peer review". In other words, a GA that is approaching FA can be peer reviewed and possibly advanced to A if the review deems it to be among our best work. It would still have to go through FA review to make FA, which involves even higher levels of scrutiny. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we state on our assessment subpage who is allowed to grant that rating, or what process to go through? At the moment, it still says it's not used. -Freekee (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I would rather get more discussion before we add it in. It seems to me that most people in this conversation (including me) aren't convinced that it's something we should have. Wikipedia:Version 0.7 included the B article Louis Armstrong. According to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria, they accept articles all the way down to "start". Where we need to improve, to get on that bus, is in our importance rating, since that features in to acceptance. A GA article can be "mid" importance. Anything beneath that must be at least high and possibly top. (Unless they're changing, of course.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Importance rating, i don`t know if i want to get i that bus, importance is WAY subjective, for that task we need more people. Zidane tribal (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Category and Current classes

Do we need Category class? I agree that it makes sense, but is it necessary? Should we prescribe its use? I assume it would only be used on Category:Band albums. The big question is whether it's helpful. I think the assessment classes are generally useful in gathering up all articles of a certain kind. But categories, by their vary nature, are easy to find. And they wouldn't be particularly useful until most of them were included. I create a lot of these categories when I'm doing category maintenance, and to be honest, I don't want to take the extra step of having to add a tag to a talk page.

Current class is (correct me if I'm wrong) used on current events pages, where info is likely to be changing. I don't think this is really an issue for album articles. Assuming I interpret that correctly, I'd prefer to have the standard assessment in place, rather than "current".

What do y'all think? Should we use them or not? -Freekee (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree on the Current class, is useless to us. The category class could have some use, but i don`t think nobody would miss it. I give my vote to remove them. Zidane tribal (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to keep the Category class. As I said above, it's useful as an administrative tool. Someone else pointed out that other editors have already started picking up on it, and I'll certainly use it. It allows us to keep tabs on categories that are relevant to the project, without them being lost amongst the NA-class miscellanea. It has already existed for over a year and I see no reason to remove it. I myself used it on perhaps over a dozen project-related categories yesterday. I think Current class could be useful for albums just being released, as those articles are generally in a state of flux, but I can also see it going unused since most editors aren't familiar with it. Then again, we might want to give it time to see if any editors do begin to use it, before we rule it out as useless. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about me, I didn't say that the category class was picking up so much as it's been around a while. But it's only used on a couple of hundred category talk pages, out of the thousands that we have, and I can't imagine how it would be useful. A lot of projects may need them to keep track of categories, but we know from the standards of our project that every album will be categorized by band year. Anybody who would be savvy enough to use that template will be savvy enough to create a parent category for Category:Albums by artist. It just seems like it'll use up bandwidth with no function. The "current" class could be useful if we had an active assessment team that was on top of new articles from the minute of creation. But currently our assessment team seems to be pretty much User:Zidane tribal (when I was doing it, there were one or two others I'd run into), with occasional others. Very rarely did I run into a "current" article when I was assessing, and even when you do the value of rating it as it goes is that it lets contributors know what they need to do. I would support removal of that one. The future assessment is a good idea. I think we should eliminate needed, as we've got lists that cover it, and it seems likely we'll be just another empty category there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so current class is fine to keep around in case someone finds it relevant. But I still have some trouble with category class. Illa, you say that "It allows us to keep tabs on categories that are relevant to the project, without them being lost amongst the NA-class miscellanea." I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but I looked at NA class articles, and it seems that every one of them is a category, and there are 4215. If we recat all of these as Category class, you'll have 4389 of them. One long list of all album-related categories with no organization except alphabetizing. How will this be useful? I think that if you want to find album-related categories, you start here: Category:Albums. There are 58 subcats in that cat. There are 10,786 cats in Albums by artist. 70 years under albums by date, plus 7 in Albums by decade. 79 subcats in Albums by genre, and 1451 subcats of those cats. How will having a list of 12,451 categories (or 1670, if you leave out Albums by artist) help us? I mean this as a serious question. -Freekee (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well my initial thought was that it would allow changes in these cats (ie. deletions, moves/redirect, CfDs) to show up in the project's assessment log and article alerts. If this is not useful, it could be restricted just to Project categories and thus would still be useful to the project. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How would they show up in the assessment log and article alerts? I don't understand how this would work. As for Project categories, can you give an example? -Freekee (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, took yesterday off. Project categories are things like Category:Album articles by quality, Category:Album articles by importance, and all the subcats of those. Basically all of the categories in this table and this one. So that's 30 categories right there. Oh, and Category:WikiProject Albums members. Changes to these should show up in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Album articles by quality log...unless the log only shows changes in the mainspace; I'm not sure whether it covers categories or not. Is this project signed up for article alerts? If so then changes to these would show up in those alerts as well (AA covers stuff like CfD, TfD, MfD, etc.). I've found article alerts pretty useful in some of the other projects I'm involved with. If we're not using it currently then I'd be happy to set it up. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, took most of the week off. :-) Okay, this makes sense. I wouldn't be opposed to its use, as long as it is clear how and why it is to be used, and that the results are useful. But I also don't want it to create a lot of extra work for very little gain. -Freekee (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Anyone care to weigh in on a discussion about what qualifies for inclusion in the reviews section? TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to Greatest Hits albums

Is there a preferred method to writing the intro of a Greatest Hits album? Using "Greatest Hits is an album by Name of Artist" seems a little clunky, since there are about eight trillion Greatest Hits albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "In May 2009, Joe Blow released this, his first Greatest Hits album"? Some GH albums actually have unique names, so this doesn't affect those that much. CycloneGU (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Track Listing Question

In a discussion with an admin., he referred me to this WikiProject. Something I find interesting is that this project insists on the "en dash" in the track listings. I've always used square brackets; for instance, using the example from the WikiProject page, you`d have:

1. "Pantala Naga Pampa" (Dave Matthews) [0:40]
2. "Rapunzel" (Matthews, Stefan Lessard, Carter Beauford) [6:00]
3. "The Last Stop" (Matthews, Lessard) [6:57]
4. "Don't Drink the Water" (Matthews) [7:01]
5. "Stay (Wasting Time)" (Matthews, Lessard, LeRoi Moore) [5:35]
6. "Halloween" (Matthews) [5:07]
7. "The Stone" (Matthews) [7:28]
8. "Crush" (Matthews) [8:09]
9. "The Dreaming Tree" (Matthews, Lessard) [8:48]
10. "Pig" (Matthews, Lessard, Beauford, Moore, Boyd Tinsley) [6:57]
11. "Spoon" (Matthews) [7:33]

(For the sake of example, I`ve left off guest musicians in this example, but this can also be done just as easily as in the other listing.)

My question: is this really that wrong? I've always done my listings like this (still much preferred for me over the tabular methods the project also recommends) and I've never seen a problem with it.

I wanted to have this discussion here instead of keeping it with just one admin. I would appreciate some additional opinion - particularly from those who have an arbitrary say in setting guidelines - as to whether this method is all right; if so, I`ll be happy to add this to the list as an accepted variation. Even if this isn't done, I'd just like to know it's fine. Thanks. =) CycloneGU (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That wrong? That's a bit of an odd question. :) By the guidelines, yes, it's wrong. It's not morally wrong, but it's non-standard. I would oppose altering the guideline to list it as an accepted variation. The point is to standardize the approach, and the method we have seems to work fine. I myself prefer the en dash. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl! I asked the question as such because I was given the impression that my style is incorrect and should not be used. I'm merely seeking further opinion on this before I continue to use it. I'd rather just type on my keyboard without having to resort to special characters (the en dash is not on the keyboard, thus is a special character). I know by the guidelines it's wrong, but I am proposing whether this kind of style is still accepted as square brackets generally can be avoided in titles (while sometimes dashes appear - obviously why the en dash is used, but some titles can still be confusing). CycloneGU (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was wrong, it's just not the method this project has adopted. Don't be surprised though if another editor changes it to endashes if the article ever goes to peer review, GAN or FAC (or even at any point in the future). --JD554 (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a bit of a shame. The beauty of the Internet is that everyone has their own opinion, but that always means that you won't always get your preference; my preference is the square brackets, not the "en dash". Oh well, if other people insist on changing my entries in the future, that's their call; I just hope I'm done with it first. *LOL* =) CycloneGU (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong is one of those words with two meanings. Correct/incorrect is a bit binary, in my opinion. :) Everyone does have their own opinion, but, of course, the purpose of the styleguide is that we all come together to agree on a standard so that Wikipedia's articles on albums have a uniform look. In that sense, I don't think using brackets is "as" wrong, say, as insisting on writing them all in Swahili. It is incorrect, though (until and unless the group swings that way). In terms of ease of use, I myself use the en dash once and then copy it (spaces also). Then it's a simple matter to paste it in each time I need it, probably easier than using your brackets. The distinction between the en dash in a title and in setting off the track time is pretty well covered by the quotation marks around the title. The styleguide feature that irritates me is the use of lowercase letters in the personnel section. AMG uses caps, and I usually start by copying their list. It's extremely tedious with longer ones having to go in and replace "Guitar" with "guitar", etc. :P --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If one were to just leave "Guitar" capitalized (as many often do; I think the majority of album articles violate standards in some way), and someone else were to come along and change it, that would be a welcome change, and I don't think anyone would object to it. At the same time, the person making the correction could conceivably grumble to him/herself about the lazy so-and-so who didn't format it right in the first place, so we should endeavour to make it right if we can. The question asked, has to do with the editor entering the non-standard format, wanting his edit left unchanged, which seems to be an "aricle ownership" desire, if I'm not making too much of this. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Personnel lists on compilations

When you have a compilation album, what is the best way to present the personnel list? I've seen several box sets recently, that list every musician from every track. A huge amount of work went into them, and I want to be clear that I appreciate the amount of time these editors have dedicated to improving album articles. But how should this info best be presented? Should the personnel be listed under each song? Is it even possible for all records? Examples: The Bootleg Series Volumes 1–3 (Rare & Unreleased) 1961–1991, CSN (box set), Children of Nuggets. The problem with the alphabetical list is that you may have trouble finding out who played on what songs (Hendrix played with CSN?), which (to me) is the most interesting part of a track listing. -Freekee (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think personnel lists aren't necessary to various artists compilations. If it's a compilation album by a single artist (ie. All Systems Go 3) then yeah, they're useful, but on a various artists compilation I don't think that information is essential. Plus they'd likely be longer than any other part of the article. The performing acts should be listed, sure, but the individual personnel? No thanks. I'm sure as hell not doing it for Short Music for Short People. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I never took time to think on the performers of every track, i don`t think is fundamental to the article, if it is possible to list the performers of every track it should be done, but there is no problem with the alphabetical list, it fulfills its role. Zidane tribal (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Two columns might be nice. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, two columns will be nice, but how long the columns 50, 75, 100, when is a list "too long", personally i don`t have a problem with long personnel list, maybe with (unfairly long personnel lists, i don`t mind placing them, (i dislike most hip hop songs which have more composers than some albums have members). Zidane tribal (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Use {{Div_col}} and specify how many columns. It will divide them evenly automatically. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

While we're talking about it, I've often wondered: does CSN_(box_set)#Personnel show as columns on all browsers? Somebody told me a long time ago to make columns like this: <div style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">. I once saw one of my pages on an Explorer browsers, and it wasn't showing in columns. Was that a glitch, or the way I'm doing it? Anybody know? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that Internet Explorer does not show columns when you use {{Reflist|2}} (or 3) though it does when you use most other browsers. It must be the same with the div cols then. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I use IE and I've always wondered what the point of {{reflist|2}} was, since I never actually see any columns. Learn something new every day. I wonder if that can be fixed. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been using {{colbegin}} and {{colend}}. -Freekee (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That is worth a guideline, we could specify that when a personnel section reaches, i don`t know, 35 members shall be divided into colums, i know a lot of articles (especially compilation ones) will look better.Zidane tribal (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

←Speaking of browsers, the "show" tab for Short Music for Short People is totally buried in the infobox for me. I have that problem a lot with the tracklist template. I use Mozilla and don't know what individual settings I may have that break it for me. I presume that it looks okay to all of you? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK to me in IE. I went back & forth on whether to hide it or not, since it makes up the majority of the article's current content, but I came to the conclusion that being 101 tracks long, if the article were expanded with some body paragraphs it'd be better hidden anyway. So I went ahead & did it. But yeah, I see the "show" button right where it should be, not buried in the infobox in any way. Browsers are wierd. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK to me too on firefox bot lots of times when looking trough userpages, the userboxes and other section looks on top of others. Zidane tribal (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel cruel for saying so, given how much time it must've taken, but this is pointless. It's a directory. Flowerparty^☀ 06:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've put it in columns and collapsed it. :) I like collapse boxes, but they don't seem to work when there are too many wikilinked items on a page. If those names were wikilinked as they were supposed to be, I don't think the collapse box would function. But I think that the greatest use of such lists is when the names are wikilinked, since it helps form a more complete picture of who has been working on what. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Presentation's not really the issue. The list is useless, particularly since it's in alphabetical order and it's therefore impossible to connect the names with the bands, but even if it was presented in a meaningful way it would still fall under the aegis of WP:NOTDIR. We have an article here consisting of one line of prose and 20kb of data. No information about who compiled the box or the idea behind it, no critical response section, no explanation of the title even. The fact that we have pages like this consisting of nothing but lists - and that this talk page is full discussion about how to format these lists - is symptomatic of a misplaced emphasis here on detail over substance. Flowerparty^☀ 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the presentation is not the issue, but I would say that the article in that form was merely unfinished. I don't think we should avoid adding info, just because it's not yet balanced with commentary. And I agree that such lists need to be presented in a meaningful manner.

This project is very detail-oriented - or at least seems that way. Note that there is much less to discuss about substance, than there is about formatting. Nobody ever comes here to ask questions about how to write a section of prose.

Personally, I'm not very good at researching and writing. It takes me forever. I spend most of my time on WikiGnome tasks. And I'm strongly interested in getting articles improved to Start class (see above), which doesn't necessarily include brilliant prose. -Freekee (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Tracklist

I was under the impression that the Tracklist template was, while not mandatory, preferred to simple formatting when editors were willing to invest the time (as it can easily take 10-15 minutes to set up sometimes). But then I was reverted for implementing it on the Amnesiac article for it being "unnecessary". I browsed over some of the previous discussion on this page and don't understand the rationale for simple formatting. Some people argued that the template is more complicated and harder to edit, but track listings shouldn't need editing (unless they happen to be incorrect). I find that using the template makes the article a tad bit more presentable, and really see no downsides appearance-wise. If nothing else, it lines up the track lengths and makes it easier to see the flow of an album. I just don't see why a more structured presentation is less preferred.--Remurmur (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I use it a lot because I happen to like the way it looks, with the rows alternately shaded, the lengths lined up nicely on the right, and the small text for notes. However, I can see why some people object to it in cases where the tracklist is uncomplicated; some editors just plain don't like templates because they're "complicated". The one problem I have with it is that, at least in IE on the computers I use, if there isn't much text in the lead or first paragraph such that the "Track listing" header appears next to the infobox, then the template automatically gets shoved down below the infobox. This happens to me in a lot of stub/start articles and looks bad, as you have a big gap of whitespace between "Track listing" and the actual list. But I figure the easiest solution to that is just to expand the prose. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

For me, on the contrary, it runs right into the infobox, overlapping with it. I've never seen this happen with a list. (And sometimes tracklists are incorrect.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be kind of an article ownership thing. The best compromise I can think of is to leave the articles however they started. -Freekee (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think if an article already uses a regular table or a bullet list (where a table isn't needed) , there's no reason to switch to the template. The switch is, in fact, unnecessary. — Σxplicit 01:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Remurmur, if an editor is willing to walk the extra mile for a more sophisticated presentation, they should be able to do so. And while a note in the template manual, urging editors to get it right the first time around might be something to consider, I'm not sure it would resolve a whole lot of issues. As per WP:AGF, we have to assume that all editors strive for factual correctness anyway and grave departures from the manual's code presets seem few and far between.
Anyway, could I ask the editors who still experience visual glitches with the template to leave a respective bug report at the template talk page? Helpful information would obviously be browser and version, but also special configurations (e.g. font size), screen resolution/browser window size and operating system. Screenshots would be good too. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 11:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if I knew how to give you all of that, I could probably just change whatever setting is causing the problem. Tell me how to make a screenshot, and I'll be happy to supply one. :) I use Mozilla Firefox 3.0.10. If it helps, the only element that I can think of that probably isn't "factory standard" is "default font", which is set to Times New Roman 17. It's always possible that somebody has changed something else that I'm not aware of, tho. We've used Firefox for years, and I would presume at each update it matches prior settings. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you're using Windows, I believe pressing the Print (or Print Screen) button will copy the current content of your screen to the clipboard, which you can then insert (i.e. via CTRL+v) into a new file in MS Paint. You could use ImageShack to upload it, though for our purpose, Wikipedia itself is probably just fine. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 23:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have Paint, but I have Photoshop Elements. I did one screen; it's available for viewing File:tracklist screencap.jpg. I had a horrible time with this. :) On my first go, I forgot that I couldn't include the cover, which is copyrighted and which would make my screencap a copyright infringement. (How embarrassing would that have been?) Then I got the original article's name wrong. :D But it's there! Hope it helps. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I already got an idea of what might be causing the glitch. :) Could you check my sandbox, to see if things have improved? – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 11:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Looks great. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Replacing a static value with a relative one did the trick. I'm still pondering the "shoved down" issue described by IllaZilla. It appears to occur in Internet Explorer 6 and below, so a workaround might proof difficult. Conversely, I do wonder if this aging bit of technology is still worth supporting, especially since its successors render the affected pages well. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 02:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. The computer I'm currently on was recently updated to IE 8 and I'm no longer seeing the problem. My home computer uses an earlier version (I don't recall which), but I have a widescreen monitor so the problem does not present itself there either. I think it may be a function of earlier IE versions not adjusting the template's width to fit in next to the infobox template. On my wider monitor the problem is probably nulled because the the tracklist template has a max width that is less than the space between the infobox & the left article border. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be an arse, but I actually think the simple text presentation is best. I dislike the chart that is currently on the page and do not use it myself. I agree with Moonriddengirl above in that sometimes track listings are incorrect and need to be fixed; a quick copy-and-paste is simplest. CycloneGU (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Value of The Astaire Story, 1952

We have a this beautiful album, signed and numbered. Does anyone know its value?

(76.251.75.73 (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

No. If it doesn't say in the article, we probably don't know. And the value isn't something that is often found in album articles here. -Freekee (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You should have it appraised by a professional. Its value will depend in part on its condition. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding Website To Professional Music Reviews Section (www.strangeglue.com)

First of all I would like to apologies for being a newbie and just editing before anyone had discussed the matter in hand.

I've been reading Strange Glue for a couple of years now and in my eyes they have one of the best opinions on the web when it comes to music. I'm fed up with reading Pitchforks genre-biased reviews or any of NME's indie dribble. Strange Glue are honest and don't care what the masses think, exactly how a review site should run. They recently upgraded to a nice new website and I think they've taken on a few new writers so they must be doing something right. I strongly advise that you all take this one into consideration, especially music lovers. Susan.beak (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The list of professional review sources is not exhaustive. Generally if a source is reliable and independent from the article's subject you can refer to it. Flowerparty^☀ 17:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried linking some Strange Glue reviews to their according wiki pages (Under the Professional Review section) but they were removed almost immediately. I was then contacted by someone from the Wiki community who informed me that all reviews used in articles must meet Wikipedia's standars for reliable sources. Therefore I assume that people are deleting the links because Strange Glue are not on the Professional Review Sources list and not yet a reliable source according to Wiki. Susan.beak (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That was me. I only removed it from 1 of the articles you added to (Merriweather Post Pavilion), because as you can see there are already 10 reviews listed in that infobox. The guidelines on this project page ask for no more than 10 in an infobox, and there is a hidden message in the edit window asking for futher reviews to be discussed on the talk page before being added. I didn't remove any of the other ones you'd added; I only removed the internal link to Strange Glue since it links to a song article (there is no article about the website). The other articles you added to (Tonight: Franz Ferdinand, Ghosts, Ray Guns Are Not Just the Future, and Grand) all still have the StrangeGlue reviews in them, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they "were removed almost immediately".

If the site has a paid or volunteer staff of professional music journalists and has editorial oversight, then I see no reason why it couldn't be added to our list. Of course, as Flowerparty says, even if it isn't on the list it's still appropriate as long as it meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, so you can probably keep on using it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Zilla, I'll take note of everything you said next time I'm editing. I have linked Strange Glue reviews to quite a few Wiki pages in the past, but i've only just got an account here. So when I talk about links being removed its from past experiences as well, sorry for the confusion. Thanks for changing all the internal links, I didn't realise I was linking to a Catatonia song! On that note: can I create the Strangeglue.com wiki page? I figured it would be good practice but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to just make the wiki page without any form of discussion?

Regarding Zilla's comment "If the site has a paid or volunteer staff of professional music journalists and has editorial oversight, then I see no reason why it couldn't be added to our list" I checked the website and in their list of staff they have 2 editorial roles, a techie and 5 or 6 writers so they seem well established.Susan.beak (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to start an article, I recommend following the steps at Wikipedia:Your first article. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Although this discussion has found the website to be reliable, that doesn't mean it is notable. There needs to be significant coverage of the Strange Glue website from reliable sources that are not affiliated with Strange Glue. And you can make articles on any subject, as long as you think the subject is notable. There is no need to discuss it first. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the advice. I've had a look through the Wikipedia:Your first article wiki which was very helpful, I'm going to try and create a Strange Glue wiki in my user space via a sub page. I will also research any info about Strange Glue thats publicized elsewhere on the internet. Would it be a good idea to e-mail them and ask for some info? Susan.beak (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That might be helpful. I'd ask if they can provide you with any secondary sources that have devoted coverage to their website. See if they can give you leads on any magazines, journals, other notable websites, etc. that have written about StrangeGlue, and then use those as sources. Primary source info (ie. a press release or the like) would be useful for basic facts but I don't imagine much else. Wikipedia:Notability (web) gives some good guidance on notability and useful sources with regard to web content. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation of album titles

I'm aware of WP:ALBUMCAPS, but I'm not sure whether that applies to album titles which, presumably on purpose, do not follow those rules at all. Case in point is The Short-Tempered Clavier and other dysfunctional works for keyboard which was moved by Koavf (talk · contribs) on May 14, 2009 to The Short-Tempered Clavier and Other Dysfunctional Works for Keyboard. No other follow-up changes were made, although one would think that changes in the article itself as well as in the template {{P.D.Q. Bach}} would obviously have been necessary. I made some of those, but then I was unsure whether this page move should stand.

The record cover and the web site clearly state the name of the album, and it's without the caps, so the previous title of this article seems perfectly correct. What's the Albums Project's position? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The project generally abides by these standards – although some of us have long given up trying to argue the toss, so to speak. :) – B.hotep •talk• 13:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. We generally assume that non-standard capitalization is an affection of type face. I prefer to have all cases match, but the title of the article is the most important place. -Freekee (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't get the gist of these comments. Should the title of the article of this particular album be as shown on the album or be capitalised? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, all words should be capitalised apart from, in your example, "and" and "for" – so, in essence, where it has been moved to is conventionally correct. In the body of the article, however, I suppose you could write it as it is on the album cover. As for the second part of my comment – I personally feel all words should be capitalised; (a) because they are on almost every other website/music player in the world (including my vast 50Gb collection of music); and (b) because it saves having to think about it too much! Hope this helps. – B.hotep •talk• 09:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd capitalize always. If there is any reliable proof of the artist specifying that the title is to be represented in a particular case, then i'd represent it in that way in the bold page title in the first sentence. Otherwise it shoud be considered part of the design. --neon white talk 11:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Which reviews?

I want to propose a little more guidance for the line "Include no more than ten reviews. When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view. For older albums, try to include not just contemporary but also some more recent reviews." It's often a contentious issue which to include and is plagued by editors attempts to biasing the range. Considering 'notability' is fine as a start but as wikipedia policy dictates that either notabilty exists or doesn't and there really isn't more or less notable it's only useful up to a point. I think we could guide further considerations as follows.

• Consider specialist music publications and major newspapers with reputable arts sections first (e.g. Rolling Stone, Spin, New York Times etc) (obviously specialist music publication specialize in this area)
• Consider publications with national and international scope over local publications. (on the basis of them being more likely to be peer reviewed)
• When deciding what to cut consider removing if there are multiple similar ratings and keeping the highest and lowest (to represent all views per WP:NPOV)

I think there should always be the freedom to go over ten by one or two if neutrality cannot be achieved with ten and if it leads to a solution to a dispute. --neon white talk 12:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Some might argue that, if there are many reviews with the same rating, then we should them precedence over the minority a different rating. NPOV states we should not give undue weight to minority views. Of course, this depends on just how much of a minority the other reviews comprise. If we have, for example, 20 good reviews and 3 bad, then it would be fine to include one or two of the bad reviews. But if we have, say, 40 good reviews, and 1 bad, then the bad review shouldn't be added since it is a tiny minority. (These examples assume all of the other criteria you mention—e.g. reputability of the publication—are equal.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a fringe view if it's from a reliable music publication, it would be ludicrous to disregard a review in rolling stone by a very well known critic because it's different to all the others. That's why reliability should be considered first as i wrote it. As the number of reliable specialist music publications is limited, it's highly unlikely that there will ever be enough to cause such problems that you suggest. It's impossible to give any review any more weight that any other so that's not really relevant in this case. Representing all significiant views is more important in avoiding bias. --neon white talk 14:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE may be the answer. A ten-limit rule is probably a good idea for most articles, but if you have one that should be an exception, explain why on the article's talk page. Get agreement, then add the 11th. We don't need to change the guidelines to say there can be rare exceptions; this is implicit for most rules. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your main point, which is that certain publications are more suitable than others for the infobox reviews. On the other hand, I don't think we need to expand the already-swollen WP rule set. It also raises the question about which publications are more reputable (nearly the same problem as you mention with which publications are more notable).

If the editors can't decide on 10 reviews to aptly summarize the press' opinion, then perhaps that article ought to exclude the infobox review section altogether and just cover reviews in the article body. I think the problem is not that 10 reviews are not enough to offer a neutral point of view; the problem is that editors wish to impart their own biased point of view on the article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliability is not really the same of notability, many of the 'banned list' are notable and some blogs as well, whilst removing the non-notable first seems logical. In many cases there may be far more than 10 reviews from notable sources (think how many notable local newspapers may review an album worldwide, the reason i proposed publications with a larger scope should be prefered) which is why i'm suggesting some simple guidelines to consider when judging which to keep. I agree that bias is often a problem and is the primary reason why i proposed these. It seems that often editors either remove reviews randomly thus potentially removing the most reliable and reputable reviews or remove them with a bias because there are no clear guidelines to judge which should be kept.--neon white talk 16:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Number-one albums categories

Up for CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 12#Category:Billboard 200 number-one albums is a category I created (technically, recreated) for number-one albums on the Billboard 200 chart. Number-one albums categories had been deleted by previous consensus in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 15#Number-one album categories). And yet, there are dozens of "number-one songs" categories. I think there should be similar categorization of both number-one songs and number-one albums, or the songs categories should be removed for the same reason as the albums categories. I'm seeking input from knowledgeable contributors at the WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Songs organizations. Thank you for your time. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Digital Spy...

is being used as a reviewer in many pop related articles. DS is a terrible celebrity gossipy site and are certainly not "professional" in any capacity. Can we do something to stop people using it as a reviewer? — R² 02:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely being owned by the magazine publisher Hachette Filipacchi Médias[1] shows it is professional. I agree that their music reviews should be replaced by better specific music sources if available and the 10 review rule has been reached. But otherwise, it seems fine to me. --JD554 (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree it has a decent enough reputation. --neon white talk 00:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User friendly features?

I looked all over this discussion page and can find no "search" feature even though there's more than 2 dozen pages of comments!

Also, why is the discussion page broke on the 'Dopes to Infinity' album's article? It's kind of hard to discuss a specific album with these two issues. Either putting up a specific article discussion page, or adding a search feature to this one would make this actually feasible. The problem is that people will keep bringing up the same issues over and over instead of noticing that the 5th out of 7 topics covered it already. It's a lot of noise to go through when it's more like 200th/700th/1000th/... out of 5000. <evil grin> JWhiteheadcc (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. To my knowledge Wikipedia does not have a search feature for talk pages; the search feature only works in the article mainspace. If anyone has developed such a thing I sure would be interested, especially if it could search archives as well. As for Talk:Dopes to Infinity, I'm not sure what your problem is. Seems to be working fine. It shouldn't be at all difficult to discuss a specific album, as each article has a corresponding talk page and that one seems to have no problems. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re the search box, there is such a thing. I've nicked the one from wt:film. Flowerparty^☀ 03:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I restored the talkheader; I think it's pertinent on such a high-use page and it's served us pretty well for a long time. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What about the standard {{archive banner}}? It includes the search function and lists out the older archives. Doesn't have the "play nice" advisory, tho. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Request: Inserting sound into an article

I would like to insert sounds from songs performed by an artist into an article. But as is stated above I don't have the capability, so I would like to know if anybody would be kind enough to help me out. Thanks. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

project banners - status indicator

What about a status indicator on project banners? Inactive, active, gearing up,...It bites to get excited about something that isn't extant. Inactive projects have info. Links to others with shared interests,... The link should stay, since the info is valid and welcome.Romanfall (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Production Credits

I believe we need to rehash the discussion on the Production Credits section of the album article. I personally feel that the method described on the page can prove to be messy.

Let me give two examples from editing Bonnie Tyler's discography. I went to edit Hide Your Heart and placed the credits in as the guidelines indicate. Here's how it looks currently:

Sample Lists

Hide Your Heart Prod. Credits (sample, as in article)

• Sir Arthur Payson – engineer
• Chris Isca – engineer, assistant engineer
• Thom Cadley – assistant engineer
• George Cowan – assistant engineer
• Jay Healey – assistant engineer
• Chris Laidlaw – assistant engineer
• Danny Mormando – assistant engineer
• Louis Cortelezzi – saxophone, tenor sax
• Lawrence Feldman – tenor sax
• Ronnie Cuber – baritone sax
• Tony Levin – bass
• John Regan – bass
• John McCurry – bass, guitar, bass guitar
• Seth Glassman – bass, rhythm guitar
• Chuck Kentis – organ, synthesizer, keyboards
• Holly Knight – keyboards
• Gregg Mangiafico – piano
• Bette Sussman – piano
• Bette Sussmann – piano
• Jerry Marotta – percussion, drums, choir, chorus
• Keith O'Quinn – trombone
• Bob Rock – mixing
• David Thoener – mixing
• Ralph Schuckett – conductor, horn arrangements
• Joe Shepley – trumpet
• Joseph J. Shepley – trumpet
• George Marino – mastering
• Audrey Bernstein – illustrations
• Steve Byram – design
• John Swannell – photography

My point: this doesn't work. I've actually truncated about 14 additional vocalists and chorus/choir members from the list and given them a sub-scetion in the article.

(As a footnote, the American title has the credits in AllMusic, not the international one. The American title is Notes From America.)

Let's move on to an example from Bitterblue, her next album following. The list appears as such:

Bitterblue Prod. Credits (as in article)

• Acoustic Guitar - Tim Pierce
• Arranged By - Dieter Bohlen, Roy Bittan
• Backing Vocals - Debbie McGlendon Smith, Joe Pizzulo, Marietta Waters
• Bass - Randy Jackson
• Co-producer - Luis Rodriguez
• Drums - Kenny Aronoff
• Engineer - Brian Reeves, Phil Kaffel
• Guitar - John Pierce, Teddy Castellucci, Waddy Wachtel
• Keyboards - Roy Bittan
• Mixed By - Brian Reeves, Dieter Bohlen, Giorgio Moroder, Luis Rodriguez, Phil Kaffel
• Photography - Jeffrey Weiss , Markus Amon
• Producer - Dieter Bohlen, Giorgio Moroder, Roy Bittan
• Programmed By - Giorgio Moroder, Scott Greer
• Recorded By - Dieter Bohlen, Luis Rodriguez, Phil Kaffel
• Saxophone - Gary Hergib

This works much better for one simple reason: there are limited numbers of activities that can be done on a single album. Meanwhile, it's possible that we can have seven different people playing guitar on the album, and we would need to have seven entries compared to, say, three (allowing for examples like bass guitar, acoustic guitar, electric guitar). Also, the number of lines for Bitterblue is 15; to list by names requires 21 lines, a longer list and unnecessary.

Let's take the Hide Your Heart list and reformat it:

Hide Your Heart Prod. Credits (proposed, as in Bitterblue)

• Engineers - Sir Arthur Payson, Chris Isca
• Assistant Engineer - Chris Isca, Thom Cadley, George Cowan, Jay Healey, Chris Laidlaw, Danny Mormando
• Tenor Sax - Louis Cortelezzi, Lawrence Feldman
• Saxophone - Louis Cortelezzi
• Baritone Sax - Ronnie Cuber
• Bass - Tony Levin, John Regan, John McCurry, Seth Glassman
• Guitar - John McCurry
• Bass Guitar - John McCurry
• Rhythm Guitar - Seth Glassman
• Organ - Chuck Kentis
• Synthesizer - Chuck Kentis
• Keyboards - Chuck Kentis, Holly Knight
• Piano - Gregg Mangiafico, Bette Sussman, Bette Sussmann
• Percussion - Jerry Marotta
• Drums - Jerry Marotta
• Trombone - Keith O'Quinn
• Mixing - Bob Rock, David Thoener
• Conductor, Horn Arrangements - Ralph Schuckett
• Trumpet – Joe Shepley, Joseph J. Shepley
• Mastering - George Marino
• Illustrations - Audrey Bernstein
• Design - Steve Byram
• Photography - John Swannell
• Choir and Chorus - Elaine Caswell, Desmond Child, Diana Grasselli, Jerry Marotta, Louis Merlino, Steve Savitt, Joe Lynn Turner, Myriam Naomi Valle
• Other Vocalists - Patricia Darcy, Patty d'Arcy, Janice Payson, Al Scotti, Bernie Shanahan, Melanie Williams

Line count: 25 lines in this example. Earlier, I needed 30 lines to exclude the choir/chorus and other vocalists from the list (currently a separate section in the article).

When I personally look at the production credits for an album, I want a list of tasks and then who does them; not a list of people followed by tasks. It's easier to hear a riff and wonder, "Who played that?" and look up the electric guitar; I don't want to hunt and peck among the names to see which ones say "electric guitar". I would like to initiate a strong push for this process in the future. I'm interested in your thoughts. Thanks for reading! CycloneGU (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Replies

As always, the guidelines described on the project page are just that: guidelines. Obviously there will be articles that are better served by different formats, and there is nothing wrong with that. Editors at a particular article can come to a consensus on whether the project's standard format works, or if some other format works better. This is a good example. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally think it's a better all-around example - I am sure there are cases where a list of names followed by activities is shorter, particularly if three people do seven or more tasks. =) CycloneGU (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with IllaZilla. I tend to be a slave to the habit but it doesn't mean you can't change things up if it looks neater. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)\\

I agree with the above. People's names should generally be first IMO, but with a very large list where multiple people do the same job, listing the job first is fine. However, in looking at your list on Hide Your Heart, it doesn't seem any better. It's only slightly shorter. There are several artists who play different instruments, that the same person is listed in different places. I don't find this to be any more readable. I think the above responses were made from the standpoint that whatever makes the list more readable is best, but I think the basis of your question is that you simply prefer the jobs listed first, because that's what you're interested in. I urge you to list the people first, whenever possible. There are times where it's definitely a good idea to list jobs first. This one is borderline, IMO.

I will say, though, that in the first example, the info is arranged in the worst possible way. It could be broken up into subsections. Generally, I always list band members first, followed by guest/session musicians, followed by ensemble musicians (horn section or chorus). Then technical personnel, listed in order of importance ( producers first, then engineers, etc.). This would look like:

• Bonnie Tyler - lead vocals
• John McCurry – bass, guitar, bass guitar
• Seth Glassman – bass, rhythm guitar
• Tony Levin – bass
• John Regan – bass
• Chuck Kentis – organ, synthesizer, keyboards
• Holly Knight – keyboards
• Gregg Mangiafico – piano
• Bette Sussmann – piano
• Jerry Marotta – percussion, drums, choir, chorus
• Louis Cortelezzi – saxophone, tenor sax
• Lawrence Feldman – tenor sax
• Ronnie Cuber – baritone sax
• Keith O'Quinn – trombone
• Joseph J. Shepley – trumpet
• Choir and Chorus - Elaine Caswell, Desmond Child, Diana Grasselli, Jerry Marotta, Louis Merlino, Steve Savitt, Joe Lynn Turner, Myriam Naomi Valle
• Other Vocalists - Patricia Darcy, Patty d'Arcy, Janice Payson, Al Scotti, Bernie Shanahan, Melanie Williams

• Desmond Child - producer
• Bob Rock – mixing
• David Thoener – mixing
• George Marino – mastering
• Ralph Schuckett – conductor, horn arrangements
• Audrey Bernstein – illustrations
• Steve Byram – design
• John Swannell – photography

Not quite as bad, and notice I still listed the backing vocalists in a group. But in making this list, I noticed some issues with your articles and examples. The producer isn't in the list. Nor is Bonnie Tyler. In your first example above, you listed the same person twice, with two different spellings, twice. So that changes your line count, for purposes of argument. But then in your last example, you have two different instruments listed with the same person. They could be combined. Drums and percussion - Jerry Marotta. And bass guitar is the same as bass. Making all these corrections, it's 25 vs. 30 lines. -Freekee (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What I notice about your example in that you still have a group of people listed in a group headed by the item that they do. It still suggests that the format of leading the activity before the people is the way to go; there is no sense in mixing the two styles of listing within one credits list. There are cases where each method is best, and I don't try to preach one method over another if the other is better.

Thanks for raising the point of me leaving Tyler herself off of the list! There is a definite reason for this. If the article is titled, for instance, "Hide Your Heart" and indicates it's sung by Bonnie Tyler, I think it's erroneous to list information that can already be assumed from the first line of the article. (I may have included her on an example list here; I just copied and pasted what I had at the time and later edits may be different.) The producer, meanwhile, is listed in the infobox; once again, it's erroneous to list this information further down in the body of the article unless there is more information related to it; for instance, a producer's style choices for the songs or something like that. The exception to the latter is that you might have multiple producers (see Free Spirit, where a sub-section indicating which producer produced what song might be more sensible - and clearer to readers than the tables before my edit). CycloneGU (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's erroneous to repeat info in a different section - or two sections, in this case. When I'm looking up personnel, I don't want to have to look in different sections. Tyler herself might not be such a major omission, but if she's left out, I wonder if anyone else is too. Not being familiar with her at all, and not recognizing any names on the personnel list, I actually wondered if she had a permanent backing band, and if those people were so well-known that they were only mentioned in the article body like Tyler was. So I can tell you with certainty, that listing her in the personnel section would have made it more user friendly for me. -Freekee (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely Live

Can someone with music experience please add information to the Toto album Absolutely Live thanks. Do not revert or delete first.Jeneral28 (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Slightly disconcerting (my inuse template was evidently overlooked; I've not often had the experience of working on an article simultaneously with others), but I've expanded the tracklist and added personnel, as well as standardizing the lead. :) Meanwhile, you and another have added an infobox. Technically, it's a start. It does need more information, though, if reliable sources can be located to expand it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

GA without personnel

According to our assessment guidelines here, isn't a personnel section needed to get an article above start class? Today I noticed that Faryl was elevated to GA, but is missing a personnel section. The editor who brought it through GA reverted a stub assessment edit and assessed as a GA so I changed to start as the guidelines say, but then reverted myself and thought I would ask here first. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too. It shouldn't be a GA without that info. That's like giving a band article a pass without explaining about everone who was in the band at points. Other GA's do this as well however, such as Neon Bible. Should these be corrected? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions can be made. But if you bring this point up at the talk page, I'm sure someone will fix it soon. If it's not addressed within a week or two, then submit it to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Added Personnel section to both articles so now they meet the GA criteria, if you find any other supposed GA lacking personnel section and don`t feel like placing it yourself please let me know and i`ll take care of it. Zidane tribal (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You're pulling these lists directly off allmusic, right? Is this information reliable? I find it hard to believe Stephen Sondheim was personally involved in this record. Flowerparty^☀ 02:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A while back there was a guy who reverted attempts to add a personnel section. It was pretty annoying because the band switched bassist around the time of the album, and the article was so long, I had trouble determining the basic band members who played on it, let alone the technical people. He argued that the article made it to GA status (or was it FA?) without us (he wrote most of the article by himself), so we could fuck off. He never did explain what his problem with the section was. Anyway, GA/FA status is a WP thing, not a WP:ALBUMS thing, so if that's what they want to call it, let them. But if it passes without our blessing, then we have to either ask them to fix it, fix it ourselves, give it a WP:ALBUMS rating of Start, or just go with their assessment. It's not worth fighting about, like with that guy I was talking about, but let's make an effort to bring it to compliance. -Freekee (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone had rated the article I linked as stub and I noticed that it was reassessed as GA for Albums so I part-reverted and reassessed as start because of the lack of a personnel section. But then I was just like no, this is going to get ugly, so I brought it up here. I think a missing personnel section would be too minor for a GA reassessment. I agree that a little mention on the talk to get it in would suffice. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much it - too minor. Technically, it should have the GA for the general thing, since that's how their little committee rated it, and Start for the albums project, because it doesn't meet our criteria. But if we did that, we'd look kinda dumb. -Freekee (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the point in insisting on a personnel section here, exactly? This is a list of nobodies and session musicians, none of whom appear to have their own article. It's worth considering that it might be the guidelines that are inadequate rather than the article. In fact why do we even have our own assessment guidelines? What's wrong with going by the general ones, which at least have the virtue of not being doctrinaire and insistent on the inclusion of trivia. Flowerparty^☀ 02:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the particular musicians that played on that album are "nobodies" is irrelevant. I'd be reading that article, and wondering who played on it. That's probably half the reason I'd look it up in the first place. And if there were no musicians I'd ever heard of, so be it - I need to know that. The basics of information need to be covered, to meet the basics of assessment. Who, what, where, why, when. Okay, maybe "where" isn't all that important, and "why" is beyond the scope of a start, but the musicians that created a musical work are pretty integral to an article about that work. Most definitely not trivia.

As for why we have our own guidelines... The general assessment guidelines are just that - general. It's hard for people to come to agreement about whether an article meets the somewhat vague criteria. People need to be somewhat experienced to make good assessments. On top of that, many people feel they're not experienced enough to do it. Since albums have a certain amount of consistency, we're able to codify things, to make it easy for all of us to assess album articles. Look at the general guidelines for C class:

The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.

The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research.

Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.

How does that apply to albums? Look man, it's got all the songs, all the band members, and the infobox is complete. So it's not missing ANY important content. It should be *at least* a C." "Sure, but there's no prose. Tell me something about the songs or something." We're trying to remove some of that ambiguity. And really, the less argument around here, the better. :-) -Freekee (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Album Charting/Rankings/etc.

Time for a non-controversial subject from me. Is there a list of every single possible chart somewhere that we would use when referencing chart info, sales figures, and such in each individual country? I just realized I was looking for a source for Belgium, and I haven't found it yet. I presume we have a list. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:GOODCHARTS is a list compiled of various charts and sourcing information. — Σxplicit 06:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Would there be a problem if I edit that into WP:ALBUMS? CycloneGU (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm surprised it's not on there already. I don't see a problem adding it. — Σxplicit 03:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Did that this morning - surprised it hasn't received enhancements yet. How does it look as I've done it so far? I created a section for it between Personnel and Certifications. CycloneGU (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Acceptable Review Sites

I wanted to let my fellow editors know I added Stereo Subversion (www.stereosubversion.com) to the list of acceptable review sites. The site uses a staff of writers to produce reviews, and all reviews are edited for quality control. It is a legitimate site. In the past our editors have tried to add links to their reviews on relevant pages, and have had them deleted arbitrarily. So I wanted to be clear that this is why I've updated the list to include Stereo Subversion, to avoid future confusion. (Kroessman (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Could someone tell me why the link I just added got deleted? Stereo Subversion has been around for several years now and posts album reviews daily, reviews that are almost always 700 words or more in length, professionally written and edited. I don't understand why the list of sites can't be added to (do Pitchfork and All Music Guide have a permanent leg up here?) (Kroessman (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Apart from your word, what evidence do we have that the site is a reliable source? --JD554 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I got off on the wrong foot. What would prove by Wikipedia standards that a site is a reliable source? The site's reviews are professionally written and edited, they feature regularly updated content, they are not a blog, and the reviews are of consistent length / depth in their evaluation. To my knowledge there are no "online review site accreditors," so I'm unsure what more would be required to prove it's legit. But I will go about this the right way and leave this as a debate for overall approval. I will not revert any more changes to this article.

That said, the only major "online" sites listed are All Music Guide and Pitchfork Media. Both are unassailable as sources, but I'm unsure what would prove Stereo Subversion is equally reliable. This is my opinion, but I think Wikipedia's acceptable sources (for reviews) should be able to include more variety, admitting that a source can be reliable without necessarily being as omnipresent as Pitchfork or All Music. There should be room for smaller, less distributed voices to still be seen as "reliable."(Kroessman (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made."

1. Stereo Subversion is a site with a team of editors who report to the site's official editor, Matt Conner, who has sole ability to post material, under writers' names. That meets the first criteria.
2. I'm not sure what would prove that our writers are "trustworthy" or "authoratative," so I'd argue that context should uphold this. Is there a Wiki review process to examine the site's reviews in general to determine authoritativeness? "Trust" is more difficult to argue in any review case, since some readers might not trust a bad review, while others might distrust overly good reviews.
3. All our reviews relate back to the music itself, stating an opinion regarding the works critiqued. That should meet the "direct support of information" criteria.

If there's something else to be considered, please let me know. Sorry for the multiple posts, I am new to this. (Kroessman (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

"Our writers", "our reviews"... – with all respect, your request could easily be interpreted as an attempt of self-promotion. Please remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Besides that, on your websites "About Us" page it reads "We are always open to new voices here at SSv. If you are interested, the best place to start is in CD Reviews." In other words, it sounds to me like your reviews could be written by anyone, not necessarily a professional writer. – IbLeo (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just found that Kroessmans request has been reviewed over at Noticeboard for Reliable Sources and that the site has been deemed an unreliable source. – IbLeo (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an attempt at self-promotion to me considering the edits consist only of adding links to this site. Site appears no more 'professional' than a thousand other similar wordpress template created sites and blogs. --neon white talk 21:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Heck, my friends and I have a wordpress-based website on which I've published dozens of reviews, but I certainly wouldn't use them here. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Album tours

I see that editors with an interest in certain groups have now embarked upon creating articles detailing tours, specifically listing sets and dates played (eg A Night At The Opera Tour, see Category:Concert tours by artist). Is this in danger of being construed as fancruft? If not, what is the policy for including this information in album articles given that, certainly in the UK in the past, groups would tour either to promote or on the back of an album? – Drwhawkfan (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed in the past that either A) these articles get deleted on the basis of notability; or B) they get merged into a "list of <artist> tours" article. I would recommend the latter; the information is generally verifiable but typically there is nothing more to say about a particular tour other than to list dates and supporting acts, which is hardly worthy of an independent article. My own opinion is that, yes, these type of articles tend to be very fancruft-y, but the basic idea of a list article of tours seems to be a valid one. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but is it pertinent to include this information in the album article? — Drwhawkfan (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I think that it would be pertinent to include a prose section in the article about tours that are specifically in support of an album, however I don't think that just a list of dates & sets is pertinent. Referenced prose is generally a fine idea, but it doesn't seem to me like an album article is a place for a list of tour dates. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Uncategorised albums

As of now, has 96 articles there waiting to be categorised! Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, A) the category doesn't exist, and B) it only has 1 article in it. Did you perhaps mean a different category? --IllaZilla (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Try Category:Uncategorised albums. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I see we are dealing with very intelligent people here who can't realize I made a typo and go with the point and not the spelling. It is now up to over 130 articles. Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense intended, I didn't notice the spelling error typo and was therefore understandably confused. BTW, when you link a category, put a : in front of it, like this: [[:Category:Uncategorized albums]] - otherwise it doesn't give the link but instead puts this page in that category, which is what happened when you linked it in your topic header. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a spelling error, just a difference of British and American spellings. Why are you making sarcastic jabs at others' intelligence when you could simply have acknowledged that you made a silly mistake? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There are now 310 articles there. I guess you will get to it when you get to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy (talk • contribs) 7 June 2009

Personnel question

In my opinion, album articles should not have a "personnel" section if the album contains no newly recorded material. For instance, The Best of The Kentucky Headhunters: Still Pickin' had a personnel section that I just removed, since all of its cuts are from previously released albums, and those albums' articles already list the personnel for those songs. Almost every compilation album I've ever seen that has also included new tracks has had a special section listing the personnel on the new tracks, and when I write an article on such an album, I clarify that the personnel are only listed for the new tracks in question. Does this make sense? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for that kind of exclusion. On a compilation album by a single artists (say, a "best of" or "greatest hits"), I don't see anything wrong with listing the personnel...at least the performers. It's the various artists compilations where it seems unnecessary. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In compilation albums, listing personnel saves readers from having to run to each album article to check. Tedious, but good information, and I wouldn't support removing it if somebody's gone to the trouble of putting it in. On various artist's compilations, I would think that a personnel section listing technical personnel would be appropriate, and possibly also the primary musicians. This is particularly useful when bands have shifting line-ups, to quickly identify which iteration of a band we're dealing with. Say, David Lee Roth? Sammy Hagar? Mitch Malloy? And no offense at all to Paul Rodgers, but I'd rather listen to Freddie. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What if there're several iterations on the same compo, as is the case with Still Pickin'? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always gone with this approach for that situation. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hammer, I disagree somewhat with your removal of the personnel section. I might be interested in who played on the songs, and then would have difficulty finding that out, especially since the article doesn't say which songs are from which albums. So the personnel section is just fine. Except that it doesn't say which people played on which songs. I notice there are two bassists listed, so which one played on which songs? I recommend the approach IllaZilla mentioned, for this album. If the personnel section in question really didn't tell you anything useful, then it would be okay to delete it, but I would prefer it were fixed, rather than deleted. -Freekee (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I've got a good solution here. (Note that the liner notes to Rave On! don't say who played piano and tambourine on what, but there is definitely no piano or tambourine on the three tracks from that album.) The liner notes to Still Pickin' don't list the musicians at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of using notes to cross reference the personnel with the tracks. This is something we don't handle today in our guidelines, although it happens pretty often even on studio album that a given musician only plays on a couple of tracks. I do however find your current presentation slightly ambiguous:

• Ricky Lee Phelps – lead vocals, harmonica, percussion^A
• ^APerformed only on tracks 1-9.

With the "A" placed on "percussion" I would at a first glance interpret it as "Ricky Lee Phelps played percussion on tracks 1-9 but he sang and played harmonica on all the tracks", which I suppose is not the intention. Why not place the note directly on the performer if he performs only on some tracks, and on an instrument if that particular instrument is only played by that particular performer on certain tracks? For example:

• Ricky Lee Phelps^A – lead vocals, harmonica, percussion
• Richard Young – rhythm guitar, cello^C
• ^A Only on tracks 1-9.
• ^C Only on track 7.

– IbLeo (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks good, and I agree with IbLeo's suggestion. Personnel sections can be problematical on compilation albums. I often IAR and promote them a step, without personnel, if there is enough other material to outweigh the lack, if it would just plain look dumb. You've illustrated that it shouldn't be too tough to include the info on your average album. Note that on very complicated lists, it works well to list the personnel separately for each track (though it's a lot of work). -Freekee (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:FFD query

I've noticed a sizable quantity of nominations at WP:FFD with regards to alternate covers of albums/singles. Is there any guidance out there with regards to alternate covers and how it pertains to WP:NFCC? I can certainly see a valid use, but at the same time WP:NFCC#3 weighs heavily on my mind. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think minor variations would be difficult to justify. Minor variations would include the same image cropped differently, a change of background colour, or some wording like "special edition" added. If there are two completely different covers, it might be difficult to determine which one to use if only one were allowed. Gimmetrow 16:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few which have two covers on the page. Is there any guidance on such usage? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the discussions, I see a lot of arguments for deletion like, "Alternate cover that is close to identical to the one already at the top of the article. The only differences (cover changed to black and white) can easily be described with text." I don't have a problem with such covers being deleted. I often disagree with the rationale of "purely decorative". -Freekee (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Up til now NFCC and our own project guidelines have allowed the use of alternate covers so long as they are significantly different from the original, hence the difference can't be expressed using words alone. For example, a while back Walk Among Us had something like 6 alternate covers, and the only difference was color variations. Clearly excessive and not in line with fair use. However with cases like Coaster (album), Ritual de lo Habitual, or The Offspring (album) there are clearly differences that cannot be adequately conveyed by words alone. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"...our own project guidelines have allowed the use of alternate covers so long as they are significantly different from the original, hence the difference can't be expressed using words alone." And where exactly is that stated? I can't seem to find it. I'd just like to be able to point at it for reasons of deleting/keeping images. Thanks for y'all's help! — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe not guidelines per se, but longstanding practice and general consensus. Template:Infobox Album#Template:Extra album cover 2 says "If the album has been released with different album covers, they can be added to the infobox using this template. However, please ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria." So we're encouraging compliance with NFCC. See also this archived discussion from January, where it was generally agreed that if the covers were significantly different then their use was justified under WP:NFC#Images #1. That said, many alternate covers that weren't significantly different were removed. Common sense dictates that if the difference in covers is discussed in the article, particularly with sources, then the use clearly passes NFCC. Barring that, there are still arguments to be made that NFC allows it, and that if the covers are significantly different then disallowing them hampers the reader. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds well-reasoned to me! Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. If there are significantly different covers, automatically restricting an article to just one of them would cause problems. Therefore, generally, significantly different covers should be allowed. Gimmetrow 18:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

BQZip, in regards to you question, "I'd just like to be able to point at it for reasons of deleting/keeping images." Please be aware that you're talking about NFCC policy, when dealing with these image deletions. WP:ALBUMS is only a group of people working on a small subset of WP articles, and the rules we have put up are only guidelines to help our editors interpret broader Wikipedia guidelines and policy. If project guidelines disagree with WP policy, we lose. If our guidelines disagree with broader WP guidelines, we're going to be fighting an uphill battle to change those broader guidelines. Just to clarify where we all stand. -Freekee (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm clear. No worries, but I was wondering what the general consensus was within this group. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

iTunes

Hey, it was great if it was added to the section of Unproffesional reviews, that reviews on iTunes shouldn't be added. Yes, I have seen them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvareo (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming question

The recommendations here don't have even the force of a guideline, but an issue has been raised about the phrase "For multiple albums with the same title, use the artist name to distinguish the different albums". Is that intended to exclude situations like Revolver (album) and Revolver (The Haunted album) where one album is more well known and could be considered the primary meaning of the album name? Or must these in all cases, without exception, be written as Revolver (The Beatles album) because someone else released an album with the same name? Gimmetrow 15:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my interpretation WP:DAB does not consider notability as a factor with regard to disambiguation. Yes, we all know the Beatles album is more well-known, but that really doesn't matter with respect to disambiguation: we have to assume that readers could be searching for any album by the title Revolver. So yes, I would say move it to Revolver (The Beatles album) due to the existence of Revolver (The Haunted album). That's just how disambiguation works, in the interest of aiding readers in their search for articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Gimmetrow 18:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't apply to this situation, as Revolver is the primary topic in this case. Note also that there is Revolver (Lewis Black album); the fact that there are 3 articles about albums by the title Revolver further necessitates disambiguating each as "Revolver (<artist> album)". --IllaZilla (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The "topic" here is "Revolver (album)". Let's assume for the sake of argument that someone looking for an album named Revolver will primarily be looking for the Beatles album. Under that assumption, why would it be necessary to disambiguate further? Gimmetrow 18:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, IllaZilla, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies at different hierarchies. In this case, the first is Revolver, and the second is Revolver (album). As Gimmetrow says, the primary thing people will be looking for when they type "Revolver (album)" will be The Beatles album. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the primary topic is the gun. If the album were the primary topic, then it wouldn't need a dab. That's why revolver goes straight to the article about the gun, and not to Revolver (disambiguation), then off to "Revolver (weapon)" or somesuch. Even if it were heirarchical, it would only affect this situation if the other albums were in some way subordinate topics of the Beatles album, ie. if they were cover versions, which they're not. These are 3 unrelated albums by 3 unrelated artists. You're running under the assumption that a reader will primarily be looking for the Beatles album, and it isn't appropriate for us (from a dab persepective) to assume what readers are or aren't looking for. Our job is to set things up in such a way that readers can find whatever they might be after as quickly and efficiently as possible. Sure, rock & roll fans (and probably most folks over 30) will likely be looking for the Beatles album, but chances are most metal fans would be looking for the Haunted album, and most comedy fans would be looking for the Lewis Black album. Disambiguation is a lot like categorization: notability of the topic doesn't really come into play. When there are 3 unrelated albums titled Revolver, then Revolver (album) ought to redirect to Revolver (disambiguation). Sure, it's 1 more step for readers who are looking for the Beatles album (dab page→article, instead of straight to the article), but it's 1 less step for readers who are looking for the other albums (dab page→article, rather than Beatles album→dab page→article). In the end it's the best service to all readers, regardless of our own POVs as to what they might be looking for. Remember, the majority of internet users are not Wikipedians and therefore don't know about WP dabs in the first place. They're most likely to just type "revolver" into the search box, no matter what "Revolver" it is they might be looking for. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I'm saying the gun is the primary topic for "Revolver", and The Beatles album is the primary topic for "Revolver (album)". Thus, we apply the "primary topic" rule in the same way to both. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And my point is that "Revolver (album)" is not a primary topic for anything. If it were, it wouldn't need to be disambiguated. The primary topic is the root word from which all of these other titles are derived, revolver. You can't say "there's a separate primary topic for music-related articles called Revolver"...that assumes that all other Revolver-named music articles are in some way subordinate, and directly related, to the Beatles album. They aren't. If they were cover versions of the Beatles album, then I'd agree with you, but they're not. They are unrelated except for sharing the same title. Hence each should be disambiguated by the artist's name according to WP:DAB. Revolver is, and remains, the primary topic. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Revolver (album)" is the primary topic for albums named Revolver. This isn't an isolated example of disambiguation applied in a hierarchy; there are others. Gimmetrow 22:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not following your line of reasoning here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

<-- I agree with the hierachical structure – that "Revolver (album)" serves as the primary topic for albums named Revolver. Illa, when you said, Sure, it's 1 more step for readers who are looking for the Beatles album, but it's 1 less step for readers who are looking for the other albums, you were incorrect. It would be one click to get to any article, but the current system means no clicks for anyone searching for the Beatles album, which would be most readers. Given the search "Revolver (album)", the Beatles article has a hatnote directing them to the one they really wanted (or would, if the Lewis Black article were included). -Freekee (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to come to the party late here, but I agree with Illa here. I edit music articles primarily (with occasional small edits elsewhere), and every time I find an album title that is used by multiple artists, I always use the format including the artist's or group's name, including moving others and doing DABs when necessary. Since Revolver could be a reference to any such album by any such artist, it really ought to be DABbed further. Revolver is not at dispute here; Revolver (album) is. Maybe I'm a Lewis Black fan, or working on his discography (like what I'm doing with Bonnie Tyler recently); I don't want to waste time reading about the Beatles album, realizing I have the wrong one (having missed any note at the top), and then having to click around to find the album I want. Wikipedia is for ALL users, not just Beatle's' fans, and we have to treat it as such. CycloneGU (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not about what you prefer, it's about what most people would expect when they type "Revolver (album)". Just as most people would expect the article on the gun when they type "Revolver", they would primarily expect The Beatles album when they type "Revolver (album)". Yes, some people will expect to find the Lewis Black album or The Haunted album. This is true for any case where there is a primary topic and then other identically-named subjects. To wit, some people will expect to find The Beatles album when they just type "Revolver". Anyway, if "Revolver (album)" was a disambiguation page, you would still need to do all that ungodly clicking around in order to find the Lewis Black album. And what about people who only type "Revolver", expecting to find Lewis Black album? They start wasting time by reading about the gun, and only after they realize this isn't the Lewis Black album (which usually occurs between the sections "Fixed cylinder designs" and "Swing out cylinder"), they need to "click around" to reach the disambiguation page... and then they have to click around again from the disambiguation page! Such a horrid ordeal to put these readers through! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your preferences don't match the WP rule. The WP rules say the primary topic ought to be the first page a user sees. The user should only see a DAB page when there is no primary topic. In any case, the issue here is not really the specific example of Revolver, the issue is whether or not there is a hierarchy of primary topics. So, for example, someone searching for "revolver" should see the gun article because that's the primary topic for that search. The top of that article should have a DAB link to a page of related topics. Most editors interpret the primary topic rules to hold true for sub-topic searches like "revolver (album)" where the qualifier ("album") is generic. The primary topic within albums is the Beatles album because by far the most searches are for that album and so it's the primary topic in the album sub-topic. John Cardinal (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

←I see the validity of all these points. Remember, however, that the majority of internet users are not familiar with Wikipedia's dab syntax. Only experienced WP users are likely to type "Revolver (album)" into the search box...average readers do not type dabs into their searches, they would only type "revolver". Your argument seems based on the idea that "when people search for 'Revolver (album)', they're probably looking for the Beatles album", but part of my point is that a vast majority of WP readers wouldn't search for "Revolver (album)", they'd merely search "revolver". That is why the article revolver, without any dismbiguation, is considered the primary topic. By definition none of the other articles can be considered "primary topics", because they all carry disambiguations. The primary topic is whatever article carries the bare title with no dabs. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The majority of Internet users may not be familiar with WP's DAB syntax, but that's not very important. What is important is how many WP users know the WP DAB rules. That is a minority, but it is not zero. I know lots of people who refer to WP daily but never edit articles. They know how WP works at a user level, and that includes DABs and how to search effectively. In any case, both solutions can co-exist. If someone wants the album and types "revolver", they'll go to the gun page and (probably) click the hat-link to go to the DAB page to find other topics. A more savvy user may type "revolver (album)" and go directly to the right page. For people who want to know about an album of outtakes made during the recording sessions of Lewis Black's first album, they'll be one click away if they type "revolver" or "revolver (album)". — John Cardinal (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC on using "Italictitle" template

The template {{italictitle}} can be used to italicize the article title at the top of an article. It has been used for articles that have scientific names. You can see it at Allosaurus, Coffea, Thiomargarita namibiensis, etc. There is currently an RFC on whether (and where) this should be used. One potential application is on album articles, while other applications include titles of books, films, video games, and so on. The RFC discussion can be found here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Hilary Duff (album)

I did the GA Reassessment of Hilary Duff (album). I found the article to nearly meet the GA Criteria. The main problem was several dead links. My review can be found here. I have put the article on hold for a week pending work and I am now notifying all the interested projects of this review. If there are any questions please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

New Template:Discogs master

For the external links of your album articles, there is the new {{Discogs master}} for linking to Discogs' master list of all releases of an album (as opposed to {{Discogs release}} which only links to a given release). — Ekans ^talk @ 05:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotation marks in album titles

The suitability of quotation marks in an album title is being discussed at Talk:Love and Theft. Since this may have broader implications for album titles, please discuss it there if you care. — AjaxSmack 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

21st Century Breakdown

The article has been awaiting its GA review for nearly 2 weeks. Just wondering if anyone's interested in commencing proceedings. Cheers. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment a category for deletion

See here Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson articles for GA/FA

I think we should make a real effort to get all of the article related to Michael Jackson to at least GA, and preferably to FA, in the near future. I will make a start on one of the article. Post a comment here or on the WP:WikiProject Michael Jackson page if you are willing to help. Look through the current articles and take as many as possible to Peer Review in their current state. We will then have some concrete issues to address. Thanks. 03md 07:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Discography FLCs

These aren't strictly under the scope of this project, but if someone could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dream Theater discography/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Devin Townsend discography/archive2, that would be great. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of The Velvet Underground & Nico

I have conducted a reassessment of this article and have found a few referencing concerns, which need to be addressed if the article is to maintain its GA status. The reassessment is at Talk:The Velvet Underground & Nico/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Have updated some of the refs and added comments. I think you're right to reassess but feel some of your criticisms are a bit harsh. Certainly needs more refs though. Cavie78 (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

No offence to those that allowed this, but the new format for reviews in the infobox is retarded.

Dan56 (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan either, it's much less user-friendly but it makes wikipedia better with less chance of links dying. I went through several FA's updating their infobox's finding several links dead. I was able to ressurect some with webcite and archive.org. It's the right thing to do in the long run I think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The rationale behind this change can be found here. In a nutshell, it was a measure taken to prevent link rot. — Σxplicit 06:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a permanent change? Or something that is gonna be revised after a lot of articles were edited for this, kinda like the past decision to remove the infobox's genre section.

Dan56 (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is ever permanent. If you can think of alternatives, you can always bring them up here or on the template's talk page. — Σxplicit 17:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Desolate North GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Desolate North for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Have hopefully dealt with the issues, think I have it under control. J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ray of Light GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Ray of Light for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Language

Given that this is the English language wikipedia, would I be right in thinking that the language field of the infobox only needs to be completed if the album is sung in a different language? It seems obvious to me that the album would be in English unless otherwise stated. --JD554 (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a sensible assumption- that's how we work the citation templates. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This should also apply for adding Category:English language albums to articles. indopug (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

When would we ever use that category? J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

English-language albums cat This was discussed in its deletion proposal. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that there is no need to specify the language when all songs on the album are in English. However, please take note that it is not unusual for some artists to release songs in several different languages on the same album, e.g. Gas 5 or Engelberg. In that case I would explicitly list English together with the other language(s). – IbLeo (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to fill in the field with "English" if the artist records many of their albums in other languages. And to address JD554's statement, just because this is the English WP, one should make no presumption of the language of the subject of our articles. -Freekee (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

English WP We don't assume that all books or films are in English until we know otherwise, so why would we do so for albums? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty useless as an infobox field, for reasons pointed out above. Additionally, most languages would be common terms, and shouldn't be wikilinked. There's no reason to direct people English language in music articles, such as there's no reason to direct people to England or United States. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Common terms While "English language" is a common term, when discussing languages, it should be linked. Casually mentioning that someone spoke English is not a justification for linking it, but if one is comparing grammar in English and Japanese, it is appropriate to link to those two languages. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not like the focus of album article are languages, so why devote space to it? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In what way would having English in the infobox (and I'm still not advocating that) be comparing grammar to another language? --JD554 (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Food for thought: tracklistings

Now, here's something controversal to consider that popped into my head while walking around town today. Please bear in mind it's not something I propose we outright act on, but it is worth pondering since we all just take it for granted (including myself):

Consider this: should track listings even be mandatory? It's not like novel article give chapter lists, or film articles indicate DVD chapters, or video game articles provide a list of levels. Most albums only have a few notable songs that warrant their own pages, so it's not even like we need a separate section every time to provide links to them all. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're right – that is controversial! If I were to think about an answer to that while walking around town, I would probably get run over by a bus! :D My first reaction is: they should be included because without a track listing, an encyclopedia article about an album would be pretty unencyclopedic (i.e. complete) – but as for mandatory? Anything is optional, I suppose, but for what reason? – B.hotep •talk• 07:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Hmm, worthy of a ponder no doubt. My initial thoughts are that whereas a book article may not include a list of chapters it does include a plot, as do film and video game articles. Apart from concept albums, albums don't usually have a plot, but a tracklisting is a summary of what the album is about. --JD554 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Then again, my English friend, wouldn't we discuss the music itself (particularly notable songs) in the prose with citations from secondary sources explaining their importance anyway? Wouldn't this accomplish the goals of various Wiki quality criteria better, instead of just throwing out a list of songs, times, and authors that one could get anyways if they looked at the liner notes from the primary document? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We could tell the "story" of an album incorporating the names of the tracks in prose. That would be both interesting and challenging to the creative juices. But probably original research. :) – B.hotep •talk• 07:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for comparison's sake, if you took the tracklist section out of In Utero, you wouldn't necessarily lose anything essential to understanding the topic of the article, and the page would still fulfill the Featured Article criteria. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But you would lose the fact that "Radio Friendly Shifter Unit" was a track on the album. While all the other ones are discussed in the article, they are variously discussed in different sections, such as "Recording", "Music and lyrics", and "Release and reception". A "Track listing" section neatly summarises them all in one place making it easier for the casual reader to find the information. While "Radio Friendly Shifter Unit" may not be noteworthy enough to have been discussed in secondary sources, and therefore has no prose about it in the album article, it is an essential element of the album – without the track the album isn't In Utero, after all an album is simply a collection of the songs on it. We could direct the reader to the primary source for the track listing, timings and authors, but while we were at it, we could also simply direct the reader to the secondary sources that discuss it rather than have an article at all. Kind of defeats the object of having an encyclopaedia ;-) --JD554 (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the "background" section. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the difference is that songs exist in their own right- songs are chopped and changed, released separately, covered, released on other albums and even have their own articles- I think a more accurate comparison than "chapters in a book" would be "short stories in an anthology", and I certainly think listing short stories in an article on an anthology would be interesting. However, I certainly admit that tracklistings are not the most important part of the article. J Milburn (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the best argument for tracklistings I've heard so far. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I just see a track listing as simple, useful, factual information, and the more relevant & useful facts that we can provide to the reader the better, IMO. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I can hardly think of a more basic piece of information about an album, than what are the songs on it. More importantly, the fact that the name of a song is listed in an album article, means that if someone wants to know something about a song that doesn't have its own article, they can find some info about it, including who wrote/recorded it, and what album it's on. Mandatory. -Freekee (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming details about the song are notable. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability does not limit article content. Details about individual songs should be included as long as those details are verifiable; the song does not need to be "notable" in and of itself in order to receive detailed coverage within an article about the album. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree; that's what I was saying. But what does that have to do with reproducing the tracklist? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that not all bands have had the benefit of having their albums written about to the extent that it is possible to write something in prose about each of the tracks on an album. Also bear in mind that (at least according to Chambers dictionary) an album is "a record, CD, etc which contains multiple tracks"[2]. If we don't say what tracks are on an album, we're excluding the fundamental purpose of it, and any such article would fail 1b of the Featured Article Criteria: "it neglects no major facts or details". It would also be likely to fail 3a of the Good Article Criteria: "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". I still can't see "Radio Friendly Shifter Unit" anywhere in the In Utero article apart from the track listing, it would also fail FAR if the track listing were to be removed. --JD554 (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

But books and even some movies have chapters. Do we necessarily have to reproduce what is essentially the musical recording equivalent of a table of contents? Because that's ultimately what a tracklisting is. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not at all what a tracklisting is, this is a bad analogy (no offense). I can pick out one song from any album and listen to it though, it is a standalone object. Just listening to, say, Heart-Shaped Box doesn't mean I'm missing something by not listening to the rest of In Utero. Can you say the same if I thumb to Chapter 23 of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone? Tarc (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See my analogy and explanation above. Tracklistings are more akin to lists of stories in an anthology. J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I should probably explain my reasoning behind starting this discussion. I basically feel we should establish exactly why we need tracklistings in articles (preferrably in the Album WP guidelines). We've long been inserting them into album articles because, hey, that's what we do, and I don't think anyone has really thought about exactly why we do it in a long time. We all work with album articles here, and it can get a bit hard to see the forest from the trees if that's all you do. I'm not sure about everyone else here, but I like to read and work on a large range of topics areas in Wikipedia, and various subject areas and WikiProects have their own long-held quirks they implement because, hey, that's the way it is and no one outside of our shpere has questioned it before. I'm not necessarily arguing for removing them or making them optional; I do like them after all. But think about the book chapter/anthology analogies, and the notability aspect, and just about reading articles form the view of the general reader, and really ask yourself: why do we need tracklistings? if you come up with a valid, logical reason based on Wikipedia's policies whether or not we need them (and not just because Music Wikiproject conventions), that's great. If you can't, then we have a problem. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think tracklisting are a pretty essential piece of information for an album, but I understand your "forest for the trees" perspective. I feel the same way about the "professional reviews" in the infobox...I have no idea why we have that, but that's another can of worms... --IllaZilla (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WesleyDodds, track listings are not a quirk. Start from the point of view of the reader: we need track listings to fully explain the most tangible content of an album, a valuable part of the content that a reader would want--and expect--to find in the album article. The reader might be working backwards from a non-notable song back to the album, and unable to find information about that notable album because the album article didn't mention the non-notable song. It's not always the case that all the songs on an album will be discussed in the article prose, and even if so, the track listing present the information is a logical fashion that is easy to find and read. If WP policies don't explicitly require them, that doesn't matter. WP policies don't explicitly disallow them, and WP doesn't have policies that explicitly identify all the types of content that an article should contain. Projects like Music Wikiproject are supposed to define/refine/extend guidelines to cover this sort of thing. ‐ John Cardinal (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Illazilla, in a way we have professional reviews as a means to supply third party references, and in another way prove notability – that is to say, otherwise where else would we get reliable, verifiable sources that confirm the existence of the album – other than being able to buy it from some commercial outlet – it could be the only reason an album is mentioned. – B.hotep •talk• 22:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it for a separate discussion; I merely meant it as a comparison to the issue at hand. Sticking to the topic of tracklistings, I think they're pretty essential. As a reader who frequently uses Wikipedia to look for information about albums, I'd think an article was woefully incomplete if it didn't include a list of the album's songs. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You could just look at the album itself for that, though. There's a difference between simply listing the contents of an album, and describing what secondary sources say about those contents, which is supposed to be our focus on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and indeed yes! :) – B.hotep •talk• 22:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

One more vote for tracklistings. The better question is: why do we need articles devoted to "albums"? In the vast history of music -- and even if we were to limit ourselves to the modern era -- the most common reference point has been the song or instrumental work. The album -- a separate and distinct artistic form comprised of a number of songs -- is a relatively recent concept, dating only to about forty-odd years ago. And many would hold that the album as a meaningfully distinct artistic form is long since dead. Relatively few albums are noteworthy. The song is king. Notable songs deserve articles, as do notable albums. Somewhere along the way, however, it appears to have become a pretty widely held presumption that virtually anything that is called an "album" deserves an article. Cloonmore (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The simple answer is because there's scores of books, documentaries, articles, and so on devoted to specific albums, that deal with the album as a work of art. Keep in mind novels are relatively recent inventions, too. So are long-form comic book storylines that can be regarded as works in their own right. However, keeping your closing comment in mind, I'd have no problem if scores of slap-dash insignificant compilations with little third-party information about them were to be nominated for deletion. I think too many of those have articles just for the sake of it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. -Freekee (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

True as to novels, but they've been around for ~300 years, and while sickly, the novel is not in its death throes to the same extent as the album. The "album" was dictated by mid-20th century form, i.e., the 2-sided LP. The CD extended their life for a few more years, but we're near the end of that era as well. Anyway, no disagreement that if scores of books or articles have been written about a "specific album," then it's notable. But I'd venture that those are the exception, rather than the rule. Cloonmore (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not uncommon at all, actually. Hear about the 33⅓ series? Also the Classic Albums documentary program? People love writing about/discussing albums; music journalism since the late 60s has been primarily album-oriented, and still is, despite declines in albums sales. Finding info for song articles is definitely tougher than finding it for album articles, not the least because very few reviewers review singles. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wesley, I understand what your saying about not seeing the forest for the trees. Cloonmore, I think we certainly need articles about albums. I sure look up a lot of them, and this is the place I come to do it. Here's another question: do we need project guidelines? Do we need any minimum requirements for album articles? I think the answer is yes. As I said, I come here a lot to look up music, and it's kindof annoying not to be able to find a certain kind of info, or not to find it easily. As an example, some people are opposed to having personnel lists, but I hate having to sift through sections of prose to find out who played on the album. I rewrote the entire project guidelines once, and they've been rewritten since then. I like to see these questions asked, because there's always room for improvement. Well, some of these questions. ;-) -Freekee (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here