Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Promo Singles

I have seen multiple times where "Promotional Singles" were released for the album but editors have not allowed in the infobox. Is there anything that says promo singles are not included in the infobox and Im talking about promo singles where the song was featured on the album as well. For example for Relapse (album) three "official singles" were released "3 AM", "We Made You" and "Beautiful. "Crack A Bottle" and "Old Time's Sake" are "promo singles". STAT -Verse 20:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Promotional-only singles are not 'released' in the normal sense (i.e. commercially released for sale), so I can understand why there's a differentiation. These days though, such tracks can be available for (charged) download which makes it less clear cut. A 'promo single' could be simply one track on a cd sent to radio stations to try to get some airplay, although sometimes there can be more to them than that. --Michig (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well "Crack A Bottle" was said to be a promotional single but for "Old Times Sake" it got radio play and was avaible for iTunes download before the album was released. STAT -Verse 20:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

moved article

Some user moved The 18th Letter to The 18th Letter/The Book of Life, which is wrong as the Book of LIfe album was included on the original 18th Letter's rerelease. How can I undo this move? Dan56 (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Tag the redirect The 18th Letter with {{db-move|1=The 18th Letter/The Book of Life|2=REASON FOR MOVE}}, replacing "REASON FOR MOVE" with a brief explanation of why the article needs to be moved back to the original title. An admin will delete the redirect and either move the article for you, or once the redirect is deleted you may move it back to the previous title yourself. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanx Dan56 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

consensus on reviews

I am looking for editors to help make a consensus on review-related edits I made for the No Line on the Horizon article. I argued that two reviews are more notable/professional than another two, but a more notable issue is with a review by the Herald Sun, which according to wikipedia is a tabloid publication. From other experiences on album articles, I see editors removing tabloid publications' reviews and commenting that such publications shouldnt be used as reviews. Anyone interested in adding to a consensus for this?, the discussion is here. Dan56 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

EP or single?

It has been proposed on the talk page of Ayumi Hamasaki's H (EP) that the article should be moved to "H (single)". There is no song titled "H" on the CD, but her company (Avex Group) categorizes the CD as a "single". Is it a single?--ACSE (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I commented on this matter but I just caught hell for opposing the move. Sheesh! Maybe other editors might like to take a look at this discussion. I don't believe disambiguating a release as (single) is a recommended or recognized standard on Wikipedia. The favoured disambiguation seems to be either (song) or (EP), as far as I can see. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought that '(song)' as a disambigation is particularly inapt for articles about singles. If an article is about a song, fair enough, but if it's about a single (i.e. one song on each side, cover art, etc.), use '(single)'. Whether this particular case is a single or EP can only be determined by how it is/was marketed, since there are no firm criteria for separating the two. Moving the article to H (song) would be a complete nonsense as there is no song on it called 'H'.--Michig (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be the classification "EP" in Japan. If the disambiguations are determined by those marketing, Japanese EPs would have to be moved to "article title (single)" or "article title (mini-album)". There are many works titled "EP" in Japan such as "Starcamp EP" (Nana Mizuki), "Matsuken Samba II: Ole! E.P." (Ken Matsudaira), "Ashes.EP" (Glay), "Discommunication e.p." (9mm Parabellum Bullet) and "The Quantum EP" (M-Flo). Those works are a few examples of Japanese "singles".--ACSE (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

extra chronology

Is there anything in WP:Albums policy about adding an extra chronology for collective/group work in an article on a solo album of a group member, sort of like all those Wu-Tang album articles? I am thinking of making one for Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty, the solo album of Big Boi from OutKast. Dan56 (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Rock Hard

I think we should add Rock Hard (magazine) and Lords of Metal to the review list. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Rock Hard looks ok to me, as a print magazine with a decent history behind it. Not convinced by Lords of Metal, though - one of many webzines of unclear status regarding their professionalism and the regard in which they are held.--Michig (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ready (Trey Songz album)

Can the Rolling Stone review for this album be added to the reception section and rev template (edit history) if its link is dead? With the Metacritic link (which shows its score and criticism) used instead in the citation for the review? Dan56 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as long as you only use what is on metacritic's site and you say where you got it. --JD554 (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer/tabloid

Should tabloid publications such as People (magazine) and Us Weekly be incorporated as reviewers for an album article? Dan56 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion US Weekly is less tabloid that People. Album reviews should always try and be industry related e.g. All Music, The Times (its entertainment section is renouned for reviews) for added integrity. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Discography RfC

Hello. If you can spare a few minutes your opinion would be appreciated at: Wikiproject/Discographies#Do music videos and other charted songs belong. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Album streams in EL

According to WP:ELYES, "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the 'Links normally to be avoided' criteria apply." Would that make it acceptable for a link containing a free and legal stream of an album to be included as part of an album article's EL section? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not if it comes from a social network site. BOVINEBOY2008 18:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes yes, I already know your response to the question. Could I get some responses from other editors too please? The reason I came here was for some third-party input in a dispute between Bovineboy and myself at Talk:Meridional (album). Fezmar9 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no blanket ban on social networking sites. WP:ELNO says to avoid them but "a link to an official page of the article's subject" may be excepted. So if the page is verified to be controlled by the artist it it may be linked. ... And I just read the discussion on Talk:Meridional (album). ... I agree with Fezmar9. External links are about providing links which contain information that cannot be included in the article. And what better way to let readers know what the album sounds like than to let them hear it. I say if it is free and legal it can be link to. - Kollision (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If we can be sure that it's (a) a legit site, that (b) it isn't a shop website, (c) the page being linked to isn't full of advertising and (d) the page being linked isn't only going to be there for a short while, then it may be acceptable. This probably makes such a case quite rare though.--Michig (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree w/ Michig; we ought to make sure that the site hosting the stream is "official" (ie. sanctioned by the artist or label), not a retailer, and that the stream isn't just a temporary promotional thing; to be useful to readers, we'd want it to be sure the stream is going to be active for some length of time. For a lot of recent albums, I notice that official streams are often mentioned & cited in a "promotion" or "release" section of the article. In that case we're already letting readers know that there's a stream, and linking to it, so putting it in an EL section as well is rather redundant. I'd actually rather have it mentioned & cited in article text, as part of coverage of the album's promotion, than in an EL section. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz (continued...)

Continuing the question two sections before, this Q&A interview with producer Russell Elevado be used on the article "The Root" to support information only regarding Elevado and the techniques he discussed about producing the song "The Root"? Dan56 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Two seperate albums released but both are marketed as her second album.

Ok here's the main problem. Natasha Bedingfield released her debut album Unwritten worldwide. Then in the UK she released N.B. (2007) as her second album. However in the U.S. she released Pocketful of Sunshine (2009) which contained some of the songs from N.B. but also new songs and was packed completely differently as well as being named different. Her next release is called 'Strip Me' and according to three reputable sources including 2 from her record labels 'Strip Me' is her third studio release even though three albums have already been released. Those sources are: NY:prnewswire from Epic Records, artist's official website and Press International (mini press release).

On wiki currently it says:

• Debut album: Unwritten
• Second album: N.B.
• Third album: Pocketful of Sunshine.

My opinion is that the two albums (N.B. and Pocket of sunshine) should be merged into one page because they are effectively ONE studio release according to her official website, record label and media. The page could be named:

1. N.B. (album) - this is one of the pages already existing and since Pocketful of Sunshine contains songs from N.B., it should be merged here.
2. N.B. / Pocketful of Sunshine - reflecting both releases
3. Natasha Bedingfield's second studio album - my preferred option where both pages would be merged.

What do people think? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the merge is a good idea. I think common name should prevail, though, over the unworkable Natasha Bedingfield's second studio album, and the article should be titled either N.B. (album) (and Pocketful of Sunshine redirect to it) or Pocketful of Sunshine (and N.B. (album) redirect to it), whichever. Of those two, I'd lean toward N.B. (album), as having been released first, but it really doesn't matter much. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If left separate, then noting that Strip Me' is the third album released in the UK and the third album released in the U.S., and the fourth overall, would also work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes more sense to me. Since the two albums contain different tracks and have different names, I think they should stay as separate articles. The same is true of some Beatles albums, where Capitol put together different albums in the US containing some tracks from UK albums. (See Yesterday and Today, for instance.) Any chronology we give in these cases needs to differ by country, as JHunterJ suggested. PL290 (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AlbumCaps

"With" is a preposition; should this be included in the list of words to not capitalize? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Prepositions are already mentioned as words not to capitalise, the list after it are examples rather than an exhaustive list. --JD554 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: italic article titles

An RfC has been raised concerning the use of italics in article titles (i.e., rendering the main title in italics on the Wikipedia page). A guideline currently restricts the use of this feature to "special cases", but there is now a suggestion that it could be more widely used, wherever appropriate to the article's title. Opinions are invited at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. PL290 (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Article titles § Wikipedia:Requests for comment:Use of italics in article titles

 – Gyrofrog (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

His Band and the Street Choir FAC

I nominated His Band and the Street Choir as a Featured Article candidate about a week ago and has received little interest in terms of reviews. If anyone would like to review the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/His Band and the Street Choir/archive3 it'd been a great help. Thanks  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When to use the "language" parameter in Template:Infobox album

When should the "language" parameter be used in {{Infobox film}}? The documentation isn't clear, but I would have thought it was relevant for any album that isn't wholly in English. I added the line to the infobox at Hurricane Venus, but it's been removed several times by another editor on the basis that the information is already in the lead (which doesn't make sense to me). Since I don't often edit album articles, some input from other users would be welcome. PC78 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

When the album's lyrics (assuming the music contains vocals) are in a language other than English. For example, English and French or only in Korean, as in your case.--Cannibaloki 17:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So it should go in the infobox? That's pretty much what I thought. I'm reluctant to put it straight back in for fear of getting sucked into an edit war, so I'll leave it a day or so and see if the other user at least responds to the comment I left on his talk page. Thanks. PC78 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I reverted the edit of user YumeChaser (talk · contribs).--Cannibaloki 18:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Cannibaloki, appropriate to use for albums with non-English language lyrics. J04n(talk page) 18:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Any guidelines for this situation?

I'm intending on starting an article for the concert film 7 by Supersilent. As the material is entirely improvised I don't feel that the standard concert film format + infobox would be appropriate.

My options:

• improvise by combining an album track listing section with a concert film infobox
• call it a studio album (pros: the live studio album 6 has this format already; cons: standard album is doubly misleading for 7, a live release with an integral video component)
• call it a live album (pros: slightly less misleading than standard album as it mentions the live aspect; cons: two other Supersilent albums could firmly be called live albums (audio recordings from a concert or concerts), and including a live album with a video component such as 7 could complicate this)
• use the "other" infobox and improvise, calling it a "Video live album" (pros: most correct option; cons: I would be setting a precedent by myself without consulting other editors)

Whatever the album articles are formatted as, I believe the discography and chronology should treat all their releases identically.

I'm currently favouring the "other" option but I didn't want to begin before asking here.

Anybody else have any feelings about this or any other options?

RWyn (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz

I understand that this site's article was deleted b/c of lack of notability, but user Jrod2 has been removing it as a citation for the article The Root, and in his edit summary, he assumes that the deletion of the article suggests that it shouldnt be used as a source. In this case, the source is a forum of the song's (article) producer discussing his production of the song (link), and therefore its valuable to the article. I've seen blogspot, forums and twitter account of artists/musicians used as references on album/song articles before, so this doesnt seem different. Other sites such as RapReviews and HipHopDX have had their articles deleted on wikipedia, but are still used as sources for music articles, with the former noted by Metacritic as a professional review site. Does the article Gearslutz's deletion warrant its deletion as a source? Dan56 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are classed as self-published sources, see WP:SPS. While under certain circumstances, self-published sources are allowed, they are never permitted as sources about living persons: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". As the reference was used for information regarding Charlie Hunter, who is a living person, the source is not permissible. --JD554 (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What if its used just to support information regarding Elevado and the techniques he discussed about producing the song? Dan56 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I been trying to explain this user Dan56 but he won't listen. I been very patient and understanding of his misguided use of our guidelines (been there done that myself) but now he is ignoring me altogether. Perhaps my initial comment in the edit summary was wrong, it isnt bcause of the deletion of that site's article for having problems with non-notability but more like the fact that it's a public web forum where everybody's true identity is always a question of verification and sometimes complete doubt. He wants to use something an audio engineer said at that web forum about someone else and certain events. This is goes against our guidelines for questionable sources and may even be a blatant violation of WP:BOLP. He asks "What if its used just to support information regarding Elevado and the techniques he discussed about producing the song?" The answer is MAYBE that info could be used at Elevado's own biography page though I doubt anybody will accept using Gearslutz as the main third party source. For the last time, if that info doesnt exist in major sites or reputable publications, then WP dont need all that. I rest my case. Jrod2 (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dont get your panties in a bunc, aint nobody gonna respond to this section. As u can see, I posted this question a while ago and the only user that initially responded has not been around to respond to the second question. But jeez, "misguided use"? The article The Root passed B-class assessment with the source your questioning, so I'm gonna feel the need to be sure about its reliability. Dan56 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mind you that Im not the one calling users a "dick" or go reverting without making sure like there is no tomorrow. The user you asked gave you already the answer which is consistent with what i been saying all along. Just show me where you got the B-class assessment to use that web forum as a reliable source and I'd gladly back ya up if someone else tries to delete the ref. fair enuff?? Jrod2 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

U were misguided in reading the last comment, the user has not been available to answer the second question (highlighted that for u). Now I dont see how your opening statement is relevant or productive to this matter either. As for the assessment, its available at the article's talk page, as any assessment for an article can be found at. The specific assessment edit is here. But regardless, I'm just trying to get an answer for this question, since the information that can be supported by the source is notable to the article, and whether WP "need all that" if it doesnt "exist" in a "major" site or "reputable" publication is disputable. What u cited at my talk page (Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material) may support my argument, as it says unless written by the subject of the biographical material. The material is biographical as it, by definition, relates to the facts or events in a person's life. Elevado wrote the blog piece and the content of his work on the album is biographical, as his working on the album was an event/fact of his life. And thats what I wanted to be clear about with User:JD554. Unfortunately, he hasnt be around Wikipedia since last responding the first question in this section. Dan56 (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

U still dont get it Bro, do ya?? The exception "unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material" is meant to exclude material that was written on ebooks or *maybe* on their own personal web sites. It doesn't mean that it makes it OK to use what was written on public forums even if the person who wrote is presumed to be this Eleveado brother, much less if it ain't about his own biography but something that happened supposedly while recording some artist album. Do ya understand now?? You been around for lil' over two years now n' I do appreciate your devotion to making this a good encyclopedia but ya still dont know how to interpret some of our guidelines. That's what I meant by "misguided". Also this user JD554 has basically already told ya same thing, what more do ya want?? Its OK to make mistakes Yo and I think you just wanna understand our complex guidelines and policies (been there too :) Jrod2 (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi dan, my name is Greg and I'm a senior in HS doing a paper on recording and some of my favorite albums. Russell is one of my favorite recorders and that's why I'm here. In doing my paper in summer school over the last few weeksl, the links that you put into russelles recording techniques kept disappearing and then they were there and then gone again. I thought I was going insane lol. My teacher then showed my the history of edits and that's how I found this. There's a whole world of activity behind the scenes lol. I clicked on your user name to ask you what was going on and that's how I found you here. Out of curiosity I clicked on joes name and looked at his history and there's a lot of activity around the gearslutz links. So I kept clicking and there is more to the story. If you look At his history, he's in a jihad against gearslutz. I don't know how to do the wiki links but if you look down his history you can see. He was in a debate with chase and then told him he was banned 3 times from the site. Then he threatened the owner in one post so you have to hit the history button to see that. He is not a good wiki editor from what I've read. I'm going to write wiki to show them. My teacher also read what I found and is going to write them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.217 (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

He may get a little personal at times, but he seems to have good faith with the guidelines. I am not concerned though with him, but the source and the article, and if u would like to help with this matter, u can contact some established editors about this. I'd appreciate it. Thanks Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My response to Jrod2's previous comment: youre right, I dont get "it", and I'm not confident about u gettin it either. Which is why I came to this talk page. Now I dont think this decision has too be rushed, I mean its not there's no tomorrow. Other opinions/interpretations of the guidelines from users cant hurt. As for the piece u offered about what the "exception" implies about excluding material written on ebooks or personal sites, WP:BLP states "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites" and lists some rules, which may be interpretated differently. Now since u and I are the only ones contributing to this discussion, I'd say its not too efficient to just leave it like this. Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi dan, thanks for responding. I like your contributions to wiki and I think they are useful. Joe is not useful and he has a beef with gearslutz, so ignore him. The history thing is very enlightening, you can see all of the behind the scenes stuff. I had a different impression of wiki until my teacher showed me what goes on behind the pages. Now I don't trust it because of people like Joe. Sad. Keep writing good stuff so I can learn, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.217 (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If I had a *beef* with Gearslutz why would I create the article about Gearslutz?? This aint about how i think content should be entered but our guidelines. Jrod2 (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 11:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've requested additional opinions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gearslutz. Perhaps that will bring more feedback than the request here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Moon, I was also thinking 'bout doing just that.Jrod2 (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources of album track data

What's the view of albums project contributors on the types of sources needed to satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY for album track info? I know that independent sources are ordinarily deemed most reliable, but my sense is that there's little reason, as a general matter, to doubt the accuracy of liner notes as to things like track names, lengths, songwriters, etc. I wandered over here to ask b/c a stub I submitted for creation (on Maria Rita's Samba Meu) got flagged as needing more independent sources -- and I'm not at all clear where to look for an independent (much less more reliable than the liner notes) source of that kind of data. I'm wondering whether WP:BURO and WP:IAR are relevant here... Thoughts/suggestions? Many thanks!!! 67.127.53.126 (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Straight factual data such as writing & production credits, etc. Can be obtained from the liner notes, which are a primary source. You can use {{Cite album-notes}} to cite them. The 3rd-party sources should be used to source information on the album's background, recording, themes, critical reception, etc. Merely having the tracklist and track info isn't enough to build a well-rounded encyclopedia article. That's where your independent sources come in. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! Certainly agreed that a good article needs more -- but I figure a good article's likelier to grow from an existing stub than from nothing, and in the meantime, I know that when I'm looking for info on an album, finding even a track listing and credits is better than nothing at all. :-) 67.127.53.126 (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Promo singles

{{Promo singles}} is a relatively recent fork of {{Singles}}, and is being used in the infobox for a handfull of albums. Is this something that should be included in the infobox, or should the infobox be reserved for proper singles only? I was considering taking this template to WP:TfD, but I wanted to get a second opinion here first. PC78 (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I've started a discussion at TfD; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Promo singles. PC78 (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

hip hop genre(s)

Is there a discussion/consensus relating to hip hop regional/sub-genres in the infobox? There are frequent edits to hip hop album articles involving changes to genre(s). Dan56 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review request

Please see here Since there are no peer review volunteers who claim to specialize in album or pop music articles, I would like to request that someone(s) from WP:ALBUM take a look at this article and see if there are suggestions on how to improve it for FA status. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz discussion

I am having some opposition at this discussion, and apparantely one of them has threatened me w/blocking for the recent edits I made to Voodoo (D'Angelo album) and The Root concerning a video interview source and the Gearslutz source (only for Elevado's info on his own individual work). User:Jrod2 said "U cant use what Elevado said about Hunter at gearslutz or any other place period. It makes no difference if ya find another source; ya just cant add that type of content regarding LP". I would really appreciate some help. Dan56 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:CANVASS. Asking people to help you because you're having "opposition" at a discussion is a problem under the section on campaigning. WP:RSN is a neutral noticeboard, and conversations there should be permitted to evolve naturally to find consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesnt seem nuetral with the same two users ignoring comments in my favor with either unexplained claim like "Nope, gearslutz is definitely not usable for any purpose whatsoever" or intense vergiage. But I appreciate the response. Dan56 (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Infobox song and Infobox single

There is currently a TfD discussion regarding merging {{Infobox song}} and {{Infobox single}}. Members of this project may wish to contribute to the discussion, which can be found here. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Eberhard Kranemann - avantgarde music

The wikipedia entry for this self released CD-R got me very interested, particularly as it contains 3 otherwise unavailable tracks by NEU! I would very much like to get hold of this somehow, does anyone know how to get it, or how to contact Eberhard Kranemann?

thanks, slim tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimtimslide (talk • contribs) 10:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussing how to improve album article on Wikipedia. For general questions you would be better directing you question to the Entertainment Reference Desk at WP:RD/E. --JD554 (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Slimtimslide. This is Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. We use these talk pages to discuss how to make articles better. So, unfortunately, this is not the place to ask. You may have better luck going to a forum. BOVINEBOY2008 11:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hip hop sub-genre

Is there a discussion or policy about including hip hop regional/sub-genres (like hardcore, underground, West Coast) in the infobox? Dan56 (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to artist articles, Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre says "Aim for generality (e.g. [[Hip hop music|Hip hop]] rather than [[East Coast hip hop]])." But the album infobox gives no such instruction. Subgenres should be fine as long as they're discussed somewhere in the article's text, where they should be supported by references. As usual, the infobox should reflect the article's contents, which in turn should reflect its sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Singles infobox

The singles part of the album infobox doesnt appear. Dan56 (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's deprecated. There's a separate {{Infobox single}}. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Dan's talking about the list of singles from an album that should appear in the album infobox which are nothing to do with the singles infobox which is meant for actual articles about singles. Anyone know why they're not displaying? Cavie78 (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this edit today stopped it working for some reason. (Add /sandbox to the template markup an article and preview, to see the singles appear.) Page is protected, so someone with permissions needs to fix/revert it. PL290 (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Y Done, give it a whirl. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Working now. Note: I had to purge the article I previously viewed (save page with no changes) before the singles would show up in that article. But they now show up straight away in other articles I try. PL290 (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Templated disappeared?

Is it just me or has {{Singles}} disappeared from infoboxes? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See previous section. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Mini Album" as something other than EP or Studio

For anyone interested in how standard album categories don't always work, see the minor edit squabble over the album infobox and TYPE field at Headlines (mini album). I suspect that the disambig in the article title is also incorrect. After this album appeared several times at Album articles with non-standard infoboxes I changed the TYPE to "ep" (more than once) and someone else tried "studio." Both make a certain amount of sense to me, but the main editor behind the article says it's neither of those, based on non-crucial things said by the band and their record company. Check it out. There is an associated discussion here. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an album to me. The UK Official Chart Company draws the "EP" line at 25 minutes or four tracks, both of which this exceeds, so even in their home country this would be classified as an album. There have been plenty of albums released with only 8 tracks. It doesn't particularly matter whether the group only considers it a stopgap release between their 2nd & 3rd "proper" albums; fact is, they put out an album-length release and it's charted on an albums chart. "Mini-album" seems like a made-up term derived from Mini-LP, and with gramophone records being far from the dominant format these days, I don't see it falling in that category unless it was actually released on vinyl. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Mini-albums are not EPs. If a release is marketed as a mini-album (and obviously if sources support this), then 'Mini-album' would be best in the infobox. If we have to choose between Studio and EP then it should definitely be studio. There are a lot of grey areas these days with a 5-minute single and an 80-minute album on the same physical format, but let's not limit our options unnecessarily.--Michig (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just note that if we follow Michig's suggestion above, the article will appear forever in Album articles with non-standard infoboxes. Some of us check that report regularly as a volunteer clean-up effort for the Albums Project, and it's is how I noticed this whole thing in the first place. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A "mini-album" is still an album, right? Kind of like how a short film is still a film? So as long as it's recorded in a studio, isn't |type=studio still technically correct, and the best fit? "Mini-album" strikes me a bit like the Greek "Maxi-single" thing that's been discussed here before; a regional term that doesn't have widespread use or recognition as a termk or format. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Illa, please consider chipping in at the album article talk page. What you've said would probably make a difference over there. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all there is no edit squabble going on. Let me clarify the situation I worked on the album page in my sandbox until there was enough detail to pass notability guidelines. I put Mini album in the infobox because that's how the album is being marketed. Doomsdayer changed it back to EP even though by the Official Chart Company's rules it physically cannot be classified as an EP. I waited until the album's release (for which i have purchased a digital copy) and changed both the article title and the infobox to mini album. It is incorrect to label the album as studio "because its not a studio album" nor is it an "EP". It is now, currently, labelled accurately. Writing one thing in the infobox and something else in the text/prose is misleading. Hence I provided the internal link for the article about mini albums. Doomsdayer raised the valid point that Mini album is not massively recognised in the industry yet wikipedia has an article on them at Mini-LP therefore I thought it was bold and sensible to add mini LP piped to Mini album to the infobox. Also I think you'll find that WP:Albums does not specifically saythat other names such as mini album are unacceptable. Yes it provides suggestions but there is no specific refusual or unacceptance of names such terms as "mini album". You'll find that WP:Article titles overides any individual project guidelines for titles... and according to that "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Thus if the band are marketing the album as a mini album and the label is calling it a mini album then this move and my actions are correct. Most people when searching for this album will look for: Headlines!, Headlines or Headlines (mini album). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 22:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course I'm open to discussion about how correct this is. But given the album's release and promotion as a mini album it should remain until there is sufficient discussion outlining that it is incorrect. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 22:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever is in the TYPE field will not ruin my life by any means, I'm just bringing up issues of consistency in this discussion, and consistency is useful in a Wikipedia project with more than 100,000 album articles to develop and categorize. And a lot of people have spent a lot of years working on guidelines for album articles for just that reason. And just allow me to point out one more issue: You've brought up the Official Charts Company's rules a few times. Those are their rules, not Wikipedia's rules (guidelines). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the OCC compile the charts it makes sense for wikipedia to follow the industry rules rather than make up their own classification for individual releases because people like pretty maintaintance categories etc. The whole issue needs to be looked at again from scracth because wiki is way off the mark here. I've only just realised that many singles sold on iTunes are classfied as EPs because they often include more than 3 components. Those are classfied as EPs but fall under chart rules as a maxi single (EPs don't exist in the OCC guidelines). Maxi singles (as the name suggests) can only chart on single charts. However it is well known that artists like Usher have released EPs but they're are in fact minature albums. E.g. Versus (Usher EP) exceeds the limitations of a single release and is therefore classified as an album yet we're naming it EP and calling it EP because that's what critics etc. have said. It is factually incorrect. An EP cannot be both a single and an album like wikipedia allows. We need to investigate other chart compilers and clearly define whether an EP is a single release format or an album format. I suspect the latter. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The OCC only make up the rules regarding their charts. They do not make up the "industry rules" in the UK or globally for how a release should be defined. As there is no one source for this, it makes much more sense to describe a release in the way the majority of reliable sources do. --JD554 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think using chart compilers' rules is necessarily the best approach. In the UK we have a singles chart and an albums chart, and OCC necessarily has criteria to determine which chart a release is eligible for. This doesn't really fit with a lot of EPs (there isn't an EP chart) - some will be classified as singles and some as albums. The real world is simplified for chart purposes. EPs have changed in their content quite a lot over the years. While in the vinyl age most were short enough to fit into the OCC's 'single' classification, these days many get classified as albums. There is no universally agreed definition of when something is or isn't an EP, mini-album, or album, so I believe that we can only really go with how a release is marketed (perhaps ignoring this when the marketing is intentionally misleading, e.g. a 5-minute long, 2 track 'album', or a 15-track, 70-minute long 'EP). I don't really see a problem with having as the main categorizations: single, EP, mini-album, album, box-set. The categorization currently seems to be a slightly muddled combination of both format and content - perhaps it would be better to separate the format (as listed above) and the type of recording (studio, live, etc.)?--Michig (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't the option of entering "mini-album" in the type field of the album infobox be added. Make it the same color as EP or something, just so it doesn't show in Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to jump in with my opinion here (better late than never). I can't help siding with Doomsdayer520 and IllaZilla and I am definitely against the usage of the term "mini album" in the infobox (incl. a new value to support it). One thing is that the band calls it a mini-album (probably to cover up that the record company pushed them to release something this year, or whatever, but this is irrelevant for this discussion). This can be mentioned in the article text, no problem. However, in my opinion it does not change the fact that "studio" should be used in the infobox: It is recorded in a record studio, it is more than 25 minutes long (so it's not an EP) and it charted on the UK album charts. Besides, it does not fit the description of the Mini-LP which specifically refers to the vinyl format. If we create a new value for mini-album, then for consistency we should do the same for double album. All the arguments that have been put forward above for mini-album also holds for double album. Hell no. As they say, size doesnt' matter ;-) – IbLeo^(talk) 17:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The value for double albums exists and defaults to studio. The same can be done for a mini. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? Interesting. Do you have an example? – IbLeo^(talk) 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I read it here: Template:Infobox album/color. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, I see. But this just means that you can set type=double album, and it will still display as studio album in the infobox. So it is some kind of foolproof feature that indicates that a double album is really a studio album. If I understand correctly, this is not what is proposed here. – IbLeo^(talk) 20:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I was about to make the same comparison with double albums. "Mini albums", standard albums, double albums, etc. are all still albums; it doesn't really make any difference if the artist considers it on the same level as their "proper" albums or not. That's really just a marketing thing. And if it's recorded in a studio, then it's a studio album. We could add a dozen different options for a dozen different types of releases (mini album, double album, triple album, maxi-single, picture disc, etc. etc.), but that wouldn't improve our articles in any way. Keep it simple. It's album length and was recorded, in a studio, so it's a studio album. If it walks like a duck... --IllaZilla (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm i dont have a problem with using the studio album infobox if that's what people feel is best. However i agree with comments by IbLeo and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. The current system is muddled. There are clearly two different aspects to an album: its type and its physical format. you're dealing with how the album was recorded (studio, live or compilation) then you're dealing with what kind of an album it is e.g. an EP, LP, CD, Double album etc. There are all currently very confusing.

In relation to headlines maybe it would be better using the compilation album's infobox because it includes material which was already released along with newly recorded material and a remix? And I would think that moving the page to Headlines! (The Saturdays album) would then be the next logical step. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 19:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually it should simply be at the title Headlines!, as there is no other extant Wikipedia article by that exact title (with the punctuation). We do not pre-emptively disambiguate; only if there is a clear title conflict with an existing article (see WP:DAB). --IllaZilla (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Background section

Recently, I've been debating the content of a "background" section in an album article. The way I see it, there's two ways to interpret it, 1) the events before the album's release, or 2) the events before the album began production. For me, the second definition makes the most sense, because an album does not have to be released or completed to exist. What happened during production is part of the album's existence; what triggered its creation is its background. However, there have been some logical arguments against this, so I was wondering what the wider community thinks.

Also, the use of "conception" in some articles really bugs me. I interpret "conception" as how/when/why the album was conceived, but most conception sections have no such information. Rather they discus "background" information or production information. See the good articles, Curtis (50 Cent album) and Discipline (Janet Jackson album). I cannot see any "conception" information in either article, and the word does not even properly summarize the section's content. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that a background section—which I believe should be a combination of your points 1 and 2—is a very good thing and something I try to include in all larger articles. This type of section is important in establishing historical context and providing the reader with an idea of where the band/musician was in their career when the album was conceived or recorded. Of course, only stuff directly relevant to the album and its creation should be included, it's not just a general artist biography section, after all. But if handled sensibly, a background section greatly enhances an album article I believe. In addition, in my experience, some kind of background section is pretty much a requirement of an album article GA review. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. If the section also includes point 1, then that would also include production information, which I don't agree with. Could we get a clear-cut consensus as to what to include exactly? Point 1 would basically mean that EVERYTHING should be in the "background" section, like production, promotion, single releases, etc. which doesn't really make sense. I definitely agree with "establishing historical context and providing the reader with an idea of where the band/musician was in their career when the album was conceived", but not the recording part. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 11:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. "Background" is the historical context of the album's development, not the production process. This is the way most album articles use the term. —Gendralman (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(We Get There When We Do.)

Any opinions as to whether this article is at the correct page? Rob Sinden (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should follow MOS:TM and the article should be moved to We Get There When We Do. --JD554 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, agree with JD554. That's what Allmusic calls it as well. – IbLeo^(talk) 17:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, moved it. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good job; it would be even better if you also updated the infobox to reflect the move. Cheers. – IbLeo^(talk) 15:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove succession boxes

What purpose beyond navigational do succession boxes for albums reaching number one in various countries serve such as in the article for Recovery? The table listing chart positions already provides the same information, so this is just repeating that it reached number one. The "Reception" section provides more in depth info regarding the album's chart success, so it seems redundant and unnecessary to have a series of succession boxes that seem only to provide links to entirely unrelated articles on other albums. For those truly interested in the succession of number ones for a particular country or chart, they can be found in Category:Lists of number one albums. If they're going to exist for the sole purpose of navigation between albums, shouldn't the boxes be placed at the bottom of an article per WP:FOOTERS where navboxes are supposed to be. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that they serve any other purpose than easy navigation. I agree with you that the current use of these "number 1" navigation boxes seems quite random (highly depending on the article and the country). But it would be a helluva job to remove them all, since they are all over the place. And yes, I agree that they should be placed at the bottom with the other navigation boxes, per your MOS reference. It will be interesting to hear other opinions. – IbLeo^(talk) 20:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Those boxes are cruft and I'd delete them altogether. No one reads articles that way. —Gendralman (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed in earnest a few different times here on this same discussion page. See Archives 33 and 35 in the navigation box above. The succession boxes were developed through a lot of work at some point back in the past, and even though opinions on their usefulness have changed, it looks like recent discussions concluded with a consensus of "don't bother, they're not really hurting anything by being there." A classic case of institutional inertia, as it were. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Some editors probably didn't notice, but at some point this discussion was copied over to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts)#Remove succession boxes and continued over there, so now we are having the same discussion in two different places which seems completely pointless to me. As more people contribute to the other discussion, may I suggest that we stop it here and let the other live on. – IbLeo^(talk) 11:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC / Name of Kelly Rowland's third studio album

please comment about the album's title at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Kelly Rowland (album) was confirmed but now untitled. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusion between LPs and CD reissues

Music album articles on Wikipedia have an inherent problem. For instance, Ahmad Jamal's "But Not For Me" album was first released on an LP in 1958 on Argo records, but the Wikipedia page says “Released 1995” and “Label: Affinity”.

Presumably the article information refers to a CD reissue of the LP, but it never makes this clear. In this case it’s not hard to figure out, but in a lot of other album articles, it could be extremely misleading.

I think Wikipedia needs to reconsider its template for listing things like this. I suggest having both “LP Released” and “CD Reissue” information fields, with a date field and label for each.

216.73.206.180 (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC) John Payne 30 September 2010

Unnecessary. The instructions at Template:Infobox album already say to use the earliest release date and original label. The mistake is likely because whoever wrote the article didn't have any info on the original release. If the original release date can be verified, then the mistake can be corrected. Easy as pie. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Citing a song

On the Relapse (Eminem album) article, an editor has tried to cite the lyrics of the song "Not Afraid" that convey Eminem's criticism of one of his albums. Since citing a lyrics website isnt reliable, is there a proper way of citing a song? Dan56 (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You can use the album notes (using the template {{cite album-notes}}) if the album notes contain the lyrics. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dan56 (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable Albums (Tube Bar) question

There has been a problem with referencing the Tube Bar prank calls albums. The best I could find from my limited understanding was listings & some reviews at BillBoard which is certainly a third party and a non-bias site. The issue is most of the albums are only the listing which proves that they exsist and but does that qualify for "notable"? Can these be used for some of the albums so they won't be delated?

Thank you kindly, (Tyros1972 (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)).

Asylum

The article Asylum (Disturbed album) has seen constant edits to the release date in the infobox. Many anonymous and beginning users change the release date to August 31, the American release date, versus August 27, the earliest release date. Can I get some help either protecting this page or help explaining it on the talk page? BOVINEBOY2008 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This issue has not been resolved. ips continue to change the release date to the "official" US release date. I don't want to revert more or else I'll be edit warring. Any help is greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 08:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured artist

An editor added uncredited artists to the featured artist/note column in the track listing for Before I Self Destruct, claiming that "Doesn't matter if they say they're featured or not. listen to the song, or read the credit booklet. They're listed there, just not written as "FEATURED." It's called being uncredited". Is this valid? Dan56 (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't quite follow that. If they are listed in the booklet, then they are CREDITED. But just listening and saying, "Yeah, I know who that 'other voice' is and I'm putting it as a 'verifiable fact' on wikipedia." ← DOESN'T cut it!—Iknow23 (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Release dates and vandalism

I wanted to draw some attention to this problem. There've been quite a few issues lately with date changes to release and recording dates on a variety of albums, particularly singles. Some of these have persisted for quite a while, in some cases over a year. It's unclear if this is the work of only a few, or a widespread problem. See for example Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190fordhouse. Those edits combined are well over 500 or so edits, many of them changing (in this case adding) specific dates that are likely inaccurate.

I don't know what the solution is, but one idea is to only specify album dates to the year, unless they're sourced. This would help cut down on this sort of vandalism, and also help sort out helpful editors. Right now I don't personally trust the dates found on these articles unless there's another source verifying it. Shadowjams (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure only using years is the solution, and I'd prefer not to lose information in that way. Regarding "unless they're sourced", in my opinion, we would do well to take more seriously the need to source all such facts (probably in the primary text, since the role of an infobox is to summarize that, but otherwise with an inline citation in the infobox). Unexplained changes to sourced content are likely to be reverted without hesitation. PL290 (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't have any data that isn't sourced. —Gendralman (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually inclined to agree with PL290's argument; removing specificity may be too extreme on second thought. I am just throwing out ideas. At the very least, this project should be aware this sort of stuff is happening, and follow up on changes like this. For instance, simply checking to make sure the editor does other things and not 10 date change edits inside of a minute is a start, and warning if they do. Shadowjams (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Gendralman. I frequently copy and paste: Please remember "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." from the text just above the Edit summary section we see when editing.

Agree with Shadowjams. Anyone discovered doing "10 date change edits inside of a minute" is almost quaranteed to be vandalism!—Iknow23 (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization : What about this case?

WP:ALBUMCAPS

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Capitalization of words in Roman script

Hi. I've edited several Dancemania-related ariticles. Dancemania is a compilation series, originally from Japan, and has released its albums with entirely English titles, as we can see here (official). Its album titles are usually stylized like Dancemania XYZ not Dancemania Xyz (or DANCEMANIA XYZ), like the famous WOW series (i.e. it's an intentional thing like Da REAList, BlaQKout and "C" Is for (Please Insert Sophomoric Genitalia Reference HERE), not a case of random capitalization that WP:MOSJP mentions).

Dancemania EX not Dancemania Ex

Dancemania SUMMERS, not Dancemania Summers

Dancemania SPEED, not Dancemania Speed

Dancemania GAME　Dance Maniax, not Dancemania Game Dance Maniax

Dancemania GAME　beatmania, not Dancemania Game Beatmania / Dancemania GAME Beatmania / Dancemania Game　beatmania

etc

Now, Dancemania and Dancemania Speed (I originally created this as SPEED) articles are available, and I'm going to create a new article, Dancemania CLASSICS, and another new article about Super Eurobeat's sub-series. So what I would like to know is, which way is proper, or more proper? - Thanks. The Wifechaser (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll create Classical Speed soon, per general MOS. Any cons? The Wifechaser (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

An album title is a trademark so it must respect MOS:TM; your second link above says it all: "However, these names and name elements are not excluded from the guidance provided by the main manuals of style for English-language Wikipedia, listed above. Words should not be written in all caps in the English Wikipedia." So it would be Dancemania Classics, etc. – IbLeo^(talk) 04:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 Cool, thanks a lot. The Wifechaser (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Source for "records" sold

A source has been disputed on the Dangerously in Love article concerning the phrase "records" and whether it refers to the album or whatever else it could have sold, such as singles. The statement goes: "Beyonce toured for the first time as a solo artist in 2003 in support of "Dangerously In Love," which has sold more than 11 million records worldwide." To me, the statement signifies copies/units with the term "records" (why would a press release complicate matters by using "records" in the context of singles as well), but the other interpretation is understandable. Dan56 (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

About.com review

Since About.com's reliability as a source has been disputed before, I thought I should ask whether or not its reviews are professional to be included in an album article. For the I Am... Sasha Fierce, an editor claimed that "About.com IS a professional website, it is accepted for reviews since it is published by the New York Times" [1], but the article on Wikipedia on About.com says that its owned by the Times Company. Is it a professional review site? Dan56 (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not all pages from About.com are allowed. The reviews on albums and singles are allowed though since it is a 3rd party professional review. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Citing....production credits off an album

Hello. I created the page on the Souls of Mischief's album 'Montezuma's Revenge' last year, which I bought. I listed the production credits on the page by simply reading them off the inlay. I was then asked to cite a source. Well the source is the actual cd itself and the case/inlay. How do I cite this? Thanks.

I apologize if this is the wrong forum to ask this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeokq (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 September 2010

Have a look at Template:Cite album-notes. Thanks and good luck, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A Fleeting Glance

The article A Fleeting Glance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references did not find independent reliable support for the content of this article as written. The words "A Fleeting Glance" are used widely but on filtering down to the DVD specifics I find it fails WP:V and WP:N

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Flogging the Horses

The article Flogging the Horses has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The name of a single and an album neither of which shows notability. Singles are generally not notable, and the album was produced in only 1500 copies (per article). A search for references found no other signs of notability, fails WP:V and WP:N

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nadia Ali Articles

I have created articles for the singer-songwriter Nadia Ali. Could anyone please review the articles Nadia Ali Discography, Embers, Crash and Burn, Love Story, Fine Print and Fantasy and suggest any improvements I could make to them. Thanks! Hassan514 (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Classical chart

Hey, just having a small problem with working out which chart is which. Is this a record of the UK Classical Chart or the Billboard Classical Albums Chart? I think the latter, but I wasn't certain. J Milburn (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Holiday albums

Are holiday albums considered to be studio albums? In popular culture, holiday albums are usually just referred to as a holiday album, not a studio album. Labels and artists themselves do not acknowledge them as a studio albums. For example, if Mariah Carey's Merry Christmas counted, it would be considered Carey's fourth studio album and the rest of her albums would need to be pushed back — Daydream would be her fifth instead of fourth and so on. In a more curious case, Hilary Duff released a holiday album called Santa Clause Lane in 2002. It wasn't until 2003 that her actual studio album Metamorphosis was released. Which album would be considered Duff's debut studio album? If they are not considered studio albums then holiday albums should have their own type field on the infobox, similar to how soundtracks, extended plays, and live albums have a different characteristics to set them apart. If the former is applied, in discographies, they should be separated into their own section and have their own link in the infobox. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This proposal has come up before, but this is a more convincing rationale than the previous ones that I can recall. I support the addition of this 'Type' for the infobox. J04n(talk page) 22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this was discussed before. Even though the wiki article studio album has no refs, I believe it to be accurate. So my position is that holiday albums can be a 'studio album' or a 'live album'... Holiday album pertains to the subject matter, not the 'recording process' which is studio or at a live performance(s). If an album has a certain theme to the material (holiday or otherwise) that does not determine if it is studio or live.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The sole fact that songs from an album were recorded in a studio doesn't make it a studio album (up to a certain extent). The songs from soundtracks, demos, and compilations were recorded in the studio at one point. The former specially because a soundtrack is composed of songs recorded in a studio. The release is labeled as a soundtrack because they have the theme of accompanying a film, series, or video game. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I consider a soundtrack album to be a compilation of different artists, so that none of them can call it 'their' album. That's why it needs its own category so a wiki page can be made, because no artist can claim it as theirs. It is possible for a soundtrack album to include live performance material as well. It will not show in a particular artists albums at all, but as 'other appearances'. If a single artist does the ENTIRE soundtrack album, then it is THEIRS. Studio album should be better defined as FIRST 'album' release of the material. Subsequent release then is an artist compilation.sorry it is there—Iknow23 (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Holiday albums can be by ONE artist or a compilation of several artists. It can be new material or re-issued material or a mix of both.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the thought...If a holiday compilation of different artists, use 'compilation'. If by a single artist, use Studio, Live or Compilation (by the single artist ONLY) as appropriate.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about this whole Holiday album thing. Correct me if I'm wrong but Holiday albums seem to be an American concept used to describe an album of material which is effectively for Christmas / of a Christmas theme. It is similar to how Greece has maxi singles and CD singles. In essence the 'holiday' part of the type is simply a theme. A holiday album is still a studio album according to the descriptions I can find. In terms of the worldwide music industry (I'm from the UK so I'm speaking from my perspective) holiday album isn't really an industry-wide term. Yes we have christmas albums but it wouldn't really be classified as a seperate release from a studio album. If we start defining albums this narrowly and this specifically where do you stop? Do you end up adding categories for 'Concept Albums', 'Digital-only Albums', 'Various Artist Albums', etc. too? This disucssion was picked up previously when Mariah Carey announced the release of her thirteenth studio album Angels Advocate which although she confirmed herself was remixes of songs from her 12th album, it was her 13th studio album. When industry coverage e.g. MTV, Press releases and the media can't universally label projects why would we think wikipedia could do the same? I really don't think its a good idea to start narrowing things so much especially since the borders of what define different releases are already blurred so much. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Iknow23, are you implying that any release with different artists is a soundtrack? No That is a compilation. And a soundtrack can be done by one artist. For example, the soundtrack for Iron Man 2 is only performed by AC/DC and Jonas L.A. is only performed by the Jonas Brothers and the songs for both albums were recorded for that album in specific. Those are supposedly the characteristics for a studio album, but since they were made to accompany a film and television series, respectively, they are soundtracks. Also, that is your opinion and not a fact. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 02:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is a holiday album. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 02:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A soundtrack is usually merely a compilation of various artists that has a THEME to it...be it movie, TV show, etc. Those done entirely by one artist can list it as THEIR soundtrack album since the category already exists. But do we need to create specific THEME categories, Holiday, Game-Play, etc.?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As with the previous times this has been proposed, I oppose creating a "holiday" type for the infobox. The infobox types refer to how an album was put together (recorded live or in a studio, or compiled from other releases or various artists, or compiled from a film soundtrack, etc.), not why (for the holidays, or as a joke, or as a stopgap release, or to promote something specific like a brand or TV show). It's the same reason we don't have types for "covers album", "side project album", "themed album" or anything like that. Yes holiday albums have a theme and a rather spedific market, and artists/labels don't typically consider them part of the artist's "canon", but that doesn't make them any less of a studio album or live album. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Iknow23, I understand. But it is a rather confusing subject to label Mariah Carey's Merry Christmas her fourth album rather than just a holiday album. When their labels and the worldwide press like MTV don't consider it a studio album, why should Wikipedia? Those you mentioned above are still studio albums per reliable first and third party sources. "Aguilera sings her heart out for her holiday album", says Entertainment Weekly on their review of the album. And Rap-Up, About.com refer to Mariah Carey's upcoming holiday album as such. Even on biography Mariah Carey revisited: her story, it refers to Merry Christmas as a holiday album. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should not use "holiday album" and take the stance that there is more than one use for the term "studio album". For instance, as said above, a studio album is a description of how the album was recorded. The alternative meaning is a "brand new album". The music and media markets aren't as concerned about how they refer to releases in this sense. It has become customary to just call a new album a "studio album". Things don't always make sense, but they happen. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

IllaZilla, what do you mean by a "side-project album". And we do have for those that promote a television show, a soundtrack. And if they are considered studio albums, would Hilary Duff's Santa Clause Lane be her debut album? It just makes more sense to separate them. If no one, artists nor label nor media considers them studio albums why should Wikipedia? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

By "brand new album" what do you mean? Any album that is released is brand new. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that these are just being called Holiday albums to be more specific in talking about them. After all that is what they are about. However, they can still be listed UNDER Studio, Live, Compilation, or even a Soundtrack as appropriate. Holiday albums do NOT need to be elevated to their own category level with the others, since as stated, these are not as important as the others.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because people like to discuss them by what they are about (Holiday) does not make them any less of a studio album, etc. They just don't say it that way. I don't see anything wrong with labeling Mariah Carey's Merry Christmas her fourth album. It is her album between her third and fifth that just happens to have a Holiday theme.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, Ipodnano05, yes Hillary Duff's Santa Clause Lane is her debut album. Why? Because it is her first released album of recorded material. It appears you are using the phrase "studio album" to mean "main album", which isn't its definition. It simply means an album recorded in a studio. As Iknow23 states, if a holiday-themed album is recorded in a studio, it's a studio album. If it's recorded live, it's a live album. If it's compiled from previously-released material, it's a compilation album, etc. They should be slotted into the artist's discography as appropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not up for the addition of holiday albums in the studio albums section. I can't say why because something about a holiday album to me, doesn't count as a studio album. But that is just how I see it. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Holiday albums are essentially concept albums. I do not support this proposal. –Chase (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has digressed a little, it would be good if Ipodnano could respond and say what he/she thinks of what's been said... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So are you arguing that concept albums cannot be studio albums? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I see all of your points and I take back what I said because in fact it would end up being a concept album and I do think concept albums are studio albums. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 02:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought the proposal was to consider holiday albums separate from studio? And no, I did not say that concept albums weren't studio albums... –Chase (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Japanese media and the tilde

There is currently discussion on whether or not to use the tilde/hyphen/etc. as found in titles of Japanese media as it appears in the Japanese media rather than modifying it into another punctuation format on the English Wikipedia. As articles in this WikiProject's purview may be affected, users here are requested to contribute to the discussion here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Promo singles

Should promotional singles be included in the Singles template of the infobox ? Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Depends. If they're released as part of an iTunes countdown then NO. But if they were originally released as full singles but then downgraded because they didn't perform well then yet because they were originally intended as singles at the time of release. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are 'Promo singles' vs. "normal" singles? All singles are 'promo' for their parent project (Album, Compilation, Soundtrack etc.), right? And sorry LilUnique1, I don't understand what you said.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I call any song that has a 'release date' (purchase) that is different from the parent project a 'single' PERIOD that qualifies for the infobox singles template . It doesn't matter if it has a 'radio add' date or receives radio play or has a music video.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't dignify the iTunes presale of Album tracks by calling them 'singles' of any sort. This is just a marketing ploy on their part. Selling one a week. Then they want you to 'complete the album' upon the album's release. It is a piecemeal selling of album tracks ONLY. They call them 'single' because it is just one, not the proper industry meaning of 'single' however. IMO.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Implementing the italic titles

Following a long-running RfC to decide which article titles should be displayed in italics, the policy was recently amended to the effect that it should now be done wherever italics would be used in running text. Album articles are one example. I suggest the simplest way to implement this is to do what the Comics project did, and place the {{italictitle}} template in the infobox. The line they added to {{Infobox comic book title}} (before it got taken away while the RfC ran) was: {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{italictitle}}}}. Assuming that is the correct code, can someone with admin rights add it to {{Infobox album}}, which is currently fully protected. PL290 (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that italic article titles are a classic case of a solution in search of a problem, but if the consensus was to go for it then the infobox seems like the logical place to implement it. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Make sure to include a parameter to disable it, for cases like untitled Korn album. —Gendralman (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done (as soon as the {{Edit protected}} request on the template's talk page is actioned). To disable italics, specify Italic title=no (template doc has been updated to this effect). PL290 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this can work for article titles that include disambiguation. For example, if you want to italicize the title of the article "Trident (McCoy Tyner album)", it should be "Trident (McCoy Tyner album)", not "Trident (McCoy Tyner album)". And you can't just leave the part in parentheses un-italicized, because some album titles include parentheses, for example, "Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Upon further review, the current issue would be with album titles that contain parentheses. As shown by the {{Italic title}} documentation, the italics stop at the first left parenthesis. I just tried it with "Trident (McCoy Tyner album)" to confirm that. So "Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)" would not be handled correctly. A work-around would be for someone to create an "Italic title suffixed" template, analogous to the {{Italic title prefixed}} template. At any rate, I'm not convinced that this idea is ready for implementation. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm suprised this passed, I took the discussion off of my watchlist a while ago and forgot about it. J04n(talk page) 17:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Same here. I didn't think it had a snowball's chance, seeing as it's completely unnecessary & will affect hundreds of thousands of articles (albums, books, films, etc.). I didn't even watchlist it. I wish it had been discussed on a wider level, like at the village pump or something. Like I said, a solution in search of a problem... --IllaZilla (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of italic titles. Perhaps this decision will be reversed now that people are starting to implement it. But see also the current discussion at Template talk:Infobox album#Edit request to protected template. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves

I've recently listed a few albums at WP:RM if anyone is interested, specifically:

• Talk:Charice (album)
• Talk:Claudine (album)
• Talk:Lucifer Rising (album)

Some of these involve multiple moves, so some input from editors more familiar with album naming conventions than I would be welcomed. Regards. PC78 (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Album cover size

What's up with the album cover size? I don't like the new size, it's too big. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the {{Infobox album}} template was changed to display the image at 220 px (the same as a standard Wikipedia thumbnail) instead of 200 px. There's a discussion about this at Template talk:Infobox album#Image size. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Linking CD cover art to article

This is my first attempt at an album article and I'm sure this question gets asked quite often. I have downloaded the CD cover and need to link it to my existing page on the user talk section. Please advise. Thanks. Kenwaditty (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about From Brush and Stone? If you are, you're most of the way there already. (1) In the {{Infobox album}} template for the article, just set "| Cover = From Brush and Stone .jpg". The name of the album cover image file must be specified exactly, including any embedded spaces. (2) Even though the page for the image has the {{Non-free album cover}} template, which is correct, you should also add an {{Album cover fur}} template, with the appropriate parameters. Both are generally required. Have fun. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. I have updated it based on your advice. However, when I went to the Album cover fur link, I could not locate information on how to properly fill in the required spaces or where to position the box. Your help is greatly appreciated. Kenwaditty (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The {{Album cover fur}} template needs to be added to the image page, i.e. the page with the album cover, which in this case is File:From Brush and Stone .jpg. I've gone ahead and added it for you, with this edit. But you still need to update it by filling in the Website parameter, to say exactly which web page you copied the image from, or the Source parameter if you got it from somewhere other than a website, for example if you scanned it in yourself from a copy of the CD. Note also that the Article parameter should be exactly the same as the name of the article, once you create it. Another point to be aware of is that a {{di-orphaned fair use}} template has now been added to File:From Brush and Stone .jpg. That's appropriate for now, but after you create the article -- the "real" article as opposed to the current working copy -- you should take this template off of the image page so that it (the image page) is not deleted. If you have any more questions about any of this, just reply here, and I or another editor will try to help you. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 05:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking to submit this if it is deemed ready. The CD artwork was removed for some reason and I'm hoping to have it reinstated for submission. Please advise. Thanks. Kenwaditty (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone review the article From Brush and Stone and let me know if it is good to submit? Also, what is the process to submit from a User talk location? Thanks. Kenwaditty (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirect links

Is it necessary to add redirect links in the infobox for albums? Many articles use the (see release history) wikilink. To me, it is disruptive and makes a reader go directly to the bottom of an article, which doesnot appear feasible to me. We should let them go through the article and then reach such trivial sections as release history and charts. Wat are other's thoughts? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of key facts, not a navigation box. I couldn't see anything in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) at a quick glance, but I think we should update it to deprecate links to sections within the article. PL290 (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can make a note in the {{Infobox album}} template about this? I would ask for other's inputs. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The link is plenty "feasible" and simply lets the reader know that the first release date may be completely irrelevant to them. I have seen this in hundreds of articles which to me shows widespread support for it. People should not have to read the entire article to then realize that the album/single is not even released in their country. The release date is the only important fact in the infobox that differs by region. The album length is the same, record label doesn't really matter, the cover doesn't affect anything, etc. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more helpful to summarize the release dates in the infobox? Do you have an example of an article where that's impracticable? PL290 (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by summarize? Per our current guidelines, the date in the infobox is the first release date no matter what region/country. How would you summarize all of the release dates there? The link simply reduces confusion and keeps the infobox lean. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the "first release date no matter what region/country" is a key fact about the album. That's why we show it in the infobox: that is the date the album was released. That there were subsequent releases is not a key fact. PL290 (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is that it is only a key fact for an individual if it is the release date in his region/country. Here's an example: the album was released in Japan, but what does that mean for me? I dumbly go to the record store in the US after seeing the date in the infobox with no indication that it might not be mine and to my surprise the album is not there. Like I said, the link is there for clarity and is supports the way a lot of people read Wikipedia. Sure there are some who will sit down and read the entire article and will eventually get to the section, but others just scan the lead and see the infobox. The infobox is a summary and should not be misleading or hinder the ability of a certain portion of readers from easily getting relevant information. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the release date is a key fact for you regardless of where you live, because the encyclopedia article is about how and when the album was made. You say we shouldn't "hinder the ability of a certain portion of readers from easily getting relevant information", but that's actually what we do if we omit this key fact from the infobox. PL290 (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Who supports omitting it? The point is to clarify it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. But that doesn't really affect the main discussion; I don't see that such a link does in fact clarify anything, and I don't support using the infobox to navigate to the article's sections—that's what the TOC's there for. PL290 (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I would suggest the MoS is the place, since this is style guidance (as opposed to understanding how to use the template); also, it relates to infoboxes generally, not just albums. PL290 (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes encounter this situation (where editors have placed subsection links within the infobox). Usually it takes one of 2 forms:

• genre = [[#Musical style|disputed]] or genre = [[#Musical style|See below]]
• released = see [[#Release history|release history]]

I almost unilaterally remove these, for a couple of reasons:

1. The infobox is a summary, not a navigator. If it can't be summarized, leave it out. Generally one can solve the genre problem by "aiming for generality", but if they're varied and complex then it's best to just leave it out. "Disputed" definitely doesn't belong, as this reads as "disputed amongst editors of this article". Release date is easy: Just include the first. If there's a significant disparity between the first date and the date in the artist's home country or major market, then list both (this is common for film articles).
2. Putting subsection links in the infobox is redundant to the table of contents. The infobox is for information, the ToC is for section navigation. By glancing at the table of contents a reader can easily see if there is a Style or Release history section in the article, and navigate to it if they wish. The infobox is not for this purpose, and it's redundant to have 2 subsection links (infobox & ToC) at the top of the article. We do expect readers to actually read our articles, yes?

For these reasons I believe we should discourage subsection linking from within the infobox. It's redundant to the ToC, and it does not serve the infobox's purpose of summarizing basic information about a topic. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Even I don't endorse the sabotaging of the infobox as a navigation template or a link, it's disruptive, disorganized and frankly cluttered. An infobox shold offer the minimum informations available, the majority of it should be in the article. Also, as User:IllaZilla pointed out, the TOC is there to redirect a reader. Hence it is completely redundant. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sabotaging? Disruptive? Disorganized. Stop adding irrelevant descriptions to your posts. I agree that some may find it redundant since it is in the table of contents, but the fact is that not all do. Not all look at the table of contents and my point is that it is helpful, plain and simple. Also, it does not clutter the infobox. It looks very organized and is formatted nicely. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the link usage as in released = see [[#Release history|release history]] as now with the advent of 'Radio ONLY singles' I use released = see [[#Radio adds|radio adds]] to differentiate these from the 'historical singles' that have a different sales date from being an album track. Oops, sorry this is Albums project, but this thought came to mind.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point about the redundancy of these links. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you put "radio adds" in the infobox when "release history" includes that anyway? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Because a Radio only 'single' is not truly a release based upon the historical meaning...Please click on the link at the word 'single' in the abbreviated infobox single example below (or any other single of your choosing).

"WikiProject Albums/Archive 38"
Song

"In music, a single or record single is a type of release, typically a short recording of one or more separate tracks. This can be released for sale to the public in a variety of different formats. In most cases, the single is a song that is released separately from an album, but it can still appear on an album. Often, these are the most popular songs from albums that are released separately for promotional uses, and in other cases a recording released as a single does not appear on an album." ...

Please click on the link at 'released' here or above to see: "In the music industry, a release is usually a term referring to the creative output from an artist available for sale or distribution; a broad term covering the many different formats music can be released in, and different forms of pieces (singles, albums, eps etc).

The word can also refer to the event at which an album or single is first offered for sale in record stores. Also an album launch, or single launch."

Restore lost portion, posting error I guess my point really is that anything unusual or not standard should be indicated. If I see a release date noted for a 'single' (to me anyway) it means the song has a different SALES date from it being an album track. If this is untrue, I'd like to see an indication (link) appropriately named 'See radio adds' in the infobox 'summary' to a section titled 'Radio adds' and the term 'Release history' not to be used. In the Radio references they usually use the term 'impact radio', 'going for adds' etc. so in the industry itself they are not calling radio a 'release'.—Iknow23 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also 'Radio adds' should not be included in 'Release history' tables but can have their own as in "Naturally" with a section titled 'Radio add dates and release history'. Thus the earliest date in the 'Release history' table can be used in the infobox. If the 'Radio add' date is included in the 'Release history' table then THAT date (being the earliest) would have to appear as the infobox release date. In cases where there is an ACTUAL different SALES date from its album, I don't think anyone supports using the 'Radio add' date as the release date.—Iknow23 (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't a song that wasn't released as a single, but still received airplay or is notable for any other reason, use {{Infobox song}}? The documentation for that template says to use "typically the release date of the album on which the song was released. If the song was released as the B-side of a single, specify the release date of the single." If the article is actually about a single (released commercially as a record, CD, digital download, whate-have-you separate from the album itself), it should use the date that the single was made available to the public for purchase. Dates of radio airplay premieres can of course be specified within the article itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That was my position originally and I was changing them. After much discussion, I've come to accept this as a compromise position as I'm told that in US (where I am btw) Digital Singles or Physical singles no longer exist (technological advance). If Radio add is done after the album is released the Song is already available to purchase as an album track then the record companies don't have to bother setting up a seperate single release date. Actually to do so would be to their detriment. If someone looks to buy the 'single' track but they have to view the entire album, they may be tempted to get the entire album or additional tracks. I'll invite someone over that says when Radio add is done that the Record company means for it to be a 'single'. By the way, "Say Aah" is an example of a 'Radio only' single. Note the infobox, section title 'Radio adds' and in the lead "The song was available to rhythmic and urban airplay as the fourth official single from Songz' third studio album Ready on January 12, 2010."emphasis added—Iknow23 (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care if radio adds are split up from physical or digital releases if it matters that much. But there is no denying in these current times in the US, for US-only singles radio add dates are the only way of determining singles that are released after an album has been released digitally. Candyo32 21:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant "see release history" is generic, so why would you put anything other than that. There is no need to specify "radio add" because a radio add is a type of release. It is being released to radio stations. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It is kind of redundant, considering that no matter how you look at it, a radio add is still considered some sort of release. I don't see what's the big deal with the switch-up. Candyo32 22:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Because in the Radio references they usually use the term 'impact radio', 'going for adds' etc. so in the industry itself they are avoiding calling radio a 'release' so where is a source for us to call it a 'release'? They call it 'Radio adds' so per the reference that is what we need to use.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(→)Guys, you are veering off the discussion at hand. This is not about what should be present as teh redirect link in the infobox, this is about how the redirect links are redundant, seeing that a TOC already exists. So please veer the discussion towards that. Radio add dates can be discussed at WT:CHARTS. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But my point is that they are important to use in the infobox to indicate 'radio adds' when it is a 'radio only single' to differentiate it from the 'historical' DIFFERENT sales date from its parent album single.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether to show a "radio release date" in some way could perhaps be discussed separately, as there's probably more than one way to do it and it needn't require a link to an article section. The reason we should exclude links is: an infobox shouldn't contain any unnecessary items. The more items it contains, the less effective it becomes for its intended purpose of allowing key information to be taken in at a glance. We should therefore not visually clutter it with anything we don't have to, such as links for navigating to sections in the article. The TOC is there for that. PL290 (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The "first release date" is only a key fact for the person that lives in that region. For everyone else it is mostly irrelevant. That is why we need the link in the infobox because it shows the reader where he can find the key information that is relevant to him. That is why it is hardly unnecessary. The link is not there for general "I wonder where it was released" questions, it is there to effectively reduce the amount of key information in the infobox by placing it elsewhere in the article. That was the whole point of the release history section and table. Infoboxes were getting too cluttered with multiple release dates. Without the link to the section, it is misleading to the reader who is getting the information "at a glance". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"we need the link in the infobox because it shows the reader where he can find the key information that is relevant to him." — That is precisely what a Table of Contents is for. By your logic we might as well just ditch the infobox altogether, since we could simply replace everything in it with links to subsections: Release date? Better put "see release history" because there are different release dates in different places. Length? Better put "see track listing" because there are different lengths for different editions. Label? Better put "see release history" as different labels are often used for international releases. Genre? "see style" because we know editors just love to agree on genres. Producer? "See personnel" ... etc. etc. My point is there are links to these sections in the table of contents. The infobox is not a guide to the article, it is a summary of basic info about the topic. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I second that emotion. If it's too long and/or complicated to fit in the Infobox, it doesn't belong in the infobox, it belongs in the prose text of the article. If there were, for example, 17 release dates you could always put the earliest date in the infobox, perhaps with small text that says (first release). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be against what he is saying without knowing it. The first release date is the only date in the infobox. I am in support of a link (similar to your "first release" but it says "see release history" and is a link that brings the reader there) so one can easily realize that the date may not be the release date relevant to them. With respect to IllaZilla's comments, genre, producer, record label, etc for a specific release are not as important as the release date. I can only buy the song/album if it is released, the other stuff does not affect this. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of that. Putting a link there that says "see elsewhere", if anything, suggests that leaving the release date blank might be a better option (nothing says we have to fill in the entire infobox, certainly not for the sake of filling it in - other than the required fields, a blank parameter simply won't be displayed). Like IllaZilla said, there's always the TOC. The infobox is for displaying information; either put a release date or don't (again, we have the whole article to go into detail). (I'm also wondering if this might be a better discussion for the template's talk page.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"genre, producer, record label, etc for a specific release are not as important as the release date" — That depends entirely on what you, as a reader, are interested in when you're looking at an article. You seem overly concerned with whether you as a reader can glance at the infobox, find the release date, and then know whether you can go out and buy the album. With respect, Wikipedia isn't a shopping guide. Besides, the vast majority of our articles are about albums already released (the number of upcoming albums being proportionally dwarfed by the number of albums already released throughout history, as all upcoming albums inevitably become past albums), so helping people shop for future albums isn't our purpose. We list the earliest date because that is the date the album was released for public consumption, regardless of whether it was only in 1 or a couple of regions. If readers want to know more detail about other release dates, they can easily glance at the Table of Contents, see that there is a Release history section, and read it to find out when the album was/will be released in their region. We do expect our readers to actually read our articles; we should not depend on the infobox to communicate everything, nor do we need to alert them that "psst! there's a section on other release dates!", since they can easily see that by looking at the table of contents. Besides, a link that says "see release history" doesn't actually communicate "this might not be the date in your region"; it just says "there's a section on the album's release". --IllaZilla (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In the example of "Say Aah", IMO it is important to have '(see radio adds)' in the infobox to alert readers to the fact that there is not a release history section at all.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The "radio adds" section is effectively identical to a "release history" section in an album article, and the date a song was approved for radio airplay is not the same as its release date. Again, a reader desiring to know radio add dates can simply look at the table of contents to see that such a section exists, and then read it. Anyway the singles infobox is in the purview of Wikiproject Songs (though this discussion crosses both projects). --IllaZilla (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I simply don't get why the Table of Content can't fill that purpose. Grk, your logic doesnot make any sense at all. The link at TOC will redirect the reader to the specified section and there he/she can check out at what date the album/single came out in their region. Iknow23, your concerns will be similarly addressed. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It can't fill the purpose because it makes no attempt to caution the reader that the date may not be relevant to the reader. For articles with long leads it is halfway down the article before you even see a TOC. For the "at a glance" reader, I feel not having the link in the infobox is misleading. It is obvious that you feel differently and are formatting your articles for one audience, but at least I can say that I tried to fight for the rest of us! I think this discussion is pretty much over. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cautioning readers" about what may or may not be relevant to them (a subjective assumption anyway) isn't the infobox's purpose. Its purpose is to summarize facts about the article's topic. It's certainly not "misleading" to only list the first release date and leave it at that. The album was released on that date. Maybe it wasn't released everywhere on that date, but in terms of presenting facts about the album (rather than in terms of acting as a shopping guide) it is the most relevant date. I appreciate that there are a lot of "at a glance" readers out there, but we shouldn't operate under the assumption that readers are not reading our articles. To do so, and to dumb things down or go out of our way to make skimming more and more convenient, is detrimental to our encyclopedic mission. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a redirect link is redundant but useful so the reader can tell 'what named section' to look to; such as released = see [[#Release history|release history]] or released = see [[#Radio adds|radio adds]]. There is no rule against redundancy is there? If so, some material is repeated over and over again within many articles. Why is it so bad to have just a few words there in the infobox?—Iknow23 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"useful so the reader can tell 'what named section' to look to" — Again, you have precisely described the purpose of a Table of Contents. The infobox is not a Table of Contents. All articles with more than a couple of sections automatically have a Table of Contents. By your logic we should place (see <whatever>) links in every field of the infobox, since "there's no rule against redundancy" and "it helps readers see what named section to read". Again, this is exactly what a Table of Contents is for, and exactly why we provide them. Is there a specific rule against this redundancy? No, but but let's please exercise some common sense and give our readers enough credit to assume that, if they want to find a specific section topic, they will look at the Table of Contents as they would in any other print publication. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing that "we should place (see <whatever>) links in every field of the infobox". I am suggesting such for the 'Release date' field only as with technological advance there is a different (non-historial) usage now occuring at this field.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes it not redundant to the table of contents, nor do I see the relevance of the "non-historical usage". The release date is the date the song/album is made available to the public, not the date it receives radio airplay. If readers want to know radio add dates, they have merely to glance at the ToC and click on "Radio adds" or whatever section has that info. We do not need to duplicate this link in the infobox. I think we've both made our feelings on this pretty plain, and can agree to disagree. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, agree with your last sentence.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

To respond to "There is no rule against redundancy is there?": keep in mind that the purpose of the infobox is to enable key facts to be seen at a glance. It follows that the number of items in the infobox should be kept as low as possible, since, the more items there are, the less possible it becomes to swiftly find key facts there. Even if a certain type of infobox must always contain more than just a few fields, we should still strive to keep unnecessary content to an absolute minimum (for example, by presenting date ranges in the abbreviated form 1975–77 rather than 1975–1977). In this context it can be seen that any redundancy (such as adding links to the article's sections) is inappropriate. PL290 (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, GRK, faulty logic. TOC always redirects the user based on the section name, and nothing else. Adding a same redirect link side by side in the infobox is still redundant. PL's example of the date range is pretty good too. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

PL said, "keep in mind that the purpose of the infobox is to enable key facts to be seen at a glance." To me it is a 'key fact' to differentiate at a glance the 'radio only' singles from the standard ones.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Iknow23, there may be a case for doing just that: I would prefer to see that case argued in its own right, with a view to creating an additional infobox field to hold that data—not adding arbitrary links to article sections. PL290 (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, tell me more. The current method is a way to use the current infobox. It may be a stop-gap measure. I would probably support something along the line that you brought up. I had never thought of creating a new field, just using what is now there :)—Iknow23 (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Since it's singles you mention, this brings us back to the question of sorting out {{Infobox single}} and {{Infobox song}}. The most recent attempt to discuss was a disaster because people thought a straightforward merger was proposed, and understandably objected. What I proposed earlier, and still propose, is a restructuring of the Song infobox to optionally contain one or more Song Release sections. Those might be "inner boxes" or "inner content"—it doesn't matter, we can decide such cosmetics later according to whatever's most popular. Each of the Song Release sections can then identify all the details of a particular release, including the one you now mention: media type. (The Single infobox becomes redundant as a result.) The earlier discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Infobox_changes trailed off, but seemed to view this proposal well, so I created a crude mock-up which is linked from there. Don't be put off by the appearance of the mock-up: it's not worth bothering about cosmetics until the basic idea itself gains momentum. I may start an RfC on that discussion to try and rekindle it. PL290 (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)