Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Project page hatnote

At the top of this WikiProject's page, there is a hatnote which said (until today): For singles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. It has been changed to say, For songs, see..., and the edit summary says, "not just singles". While this change certainly makes sense, as it now discribes what WP:Songs is about, I suspect the original format of the hatnote was intended to answer the hypothetical user question: "Okay, going by its name, this project is for records in the format of albums, but does it cover other formats as well, such as singles?" – and attempts to refer to another project which deals with that format, even though that is not its entire scope. May I suggest changing it again, to: For singles and songs, see... – which will address what both versions of the hatnote were trying to say? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Love & Hate (Section 25 album)

This articles sounds too much like a personal review you find on Amazon, rather than informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MannyRo (talk • contribs) 18:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tagged it with a WP:PEACOCK notice. Feel free to be bold and make any improvements you see yourself if you like. —Akrabbim^talk 20:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Singer Kumi Koda is releasing a best album and a studio album packaged as one titled Best: Third Universe/Universe. Now my question is how to go about organizing the page. For instance which style of the template to use? It is a greatest hits album and a studio album, should two templates be used or should it be under box set—even though it is not being released as such. Or should a separate article be created for both articles? MS (Talk|Contributions) 03:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You could follow suit and do it like Exile on Mainstream, unless the studio part is more of a b-sides/rarities, in which case you could go like Monuments and Melodies. —Akrabbim^talk 03:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Singles in Infobox album, album in Infobox single

Some album articles include a list of singles in the infobox, typically added via |Misc= and using {{Singles}}. Similarly, many articles about singles use |Album= to indicate that the single was from a particular album. In both cases, I have been unable to find any guidance about when it's appropriate to consider a single as being from an album. Absent that guidance, there are some troubling infoboxes. For example, some editors add long lists of singles to compilation albums; that produces an overly long infobox and seems contrary to the intent of the {{Singles}} template.

I think WP:ALBUMS should describe the usual cases where a single should and should not be considered as being from an album, and we should add links to that guideline from the relevant project pages and template documentation as necessary. I added that last bit about the links because there are multiple places where the issue might come up, including a few different template documentation pages.

Here are the cases I think are straightforward:

1. Yes – A single released at the same time as an album, shortly before, or shortly after, should be considered as being from the album. We can discuss the definition of "shortly", but it's probably on the order of a few months at most, though there are probably exceptions.
2. No – A single originally released by itself, but later included on a compilation album, should not be considered as being from the album.
3. No – A single originally released by itself, but later included as a bonus track on a re-release of an album on which it did not originally appear, should not be considered as being from the album.

For other cases, I think the editors involved should discuss things and decide what is best. So, for example, if a song on an album was released in some markets but not the major market for a particular artist, the editors involved should decide by consensus.

Reactions/endorsements/objections? — John Cardinal (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that a single released before or after a studio album that it is on should be considered from that album as singles are generally released as promotion for their respective albums. As for compilations, unless the single is new (a compilation with 3 new tracks), then it was a single from its original album. Bonus tracks should not be considered singles from the albums they are on because they are classified as "bonuses". If the song is only featured on that one album, then why even call it a bonus in the first place? But since record labels do that, it seems logical to assume that it is separate from the album and only there as an extra. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Grk1011/Stephen, you wrote that "I think that a single released before or after a studio album that it is on should be considered from that album as singles are generally released as promotion for their respective albums." I think there are examples in both the released before and released after directions where that statement isn't true, and thus we should avoid it.

• If a song appears in a movie ten years after its original release as an album track, and the record company releases the song as a single to take advantage of that popularity, is that single from the album?
• If a single is released a year before an album on which it later appears, and if the album in question was not an active project for the artist when the single was released, and if that single has fallen off the charts and is no longer being actively marketed, is the single from the album?

I think the second question is harder to answer, but it strikes me that the answer is not an automatic yes. I'd leave it to consensus to decide.

I agree with your point about a compilation album with new tracks; if a new track is issued as a single, it's from the compilation album. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

John Cardinal's proposal seems sensible; but deciding the cut-off for post-album singles could be difficult. Michael Jackson seemed to yank singles from Thriller (album) for years after the album's release, presumably because the record company felt that sales were dipping and wanted more airplay - there was no truly new material, because Bad (album) was still a long way off.

As regards Grk1011's comments: sometimes an old single might be re-released in order to promote a compilation which includes that single. Love Me Do and 20 Greatest Hits (The Beatles album) spring to mind. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a single re-release shouldn't be taken into account here; its original release should be the determining point. PL290 (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that albums that remain extremely popular for a long time, such as Thriller, will yield exceptions. The guideline should make it clear that there will be exceptions and perhaps Thriller would be a good example of one. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the problem exists as described, and I agree with the main idea for addressing it. Your two "No" cases are clear, and stating those in a guideline would be a good step and achieve most of what's needed. The first case is indeed nebulous; I think the guideline should specifically avoid going beyond a general indication of principles that might apply (although I suppose it could give the "typical" example of timing being shortly before or after album release) and should make clear that this case is to be decided by consensus on a per-article basis. PL290 (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

PL290, I'd be happy if the guideline used a few examples to indicate what I was trying to get at with #1. That avoids defining a time range. My intent there was not to automatically disallow anything outside the time range, but to indicate that extremes (ten years) dont' qualify and anything other than a short time frame ought to be discussed. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine by me. PL290 (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I took a shot at it; see the Singles section. I think it agrees with what we discussed here, but I did not include specific examples. I avoided the need to define a time frame by referring to the period as being "during the marketing and promotion" of the album. Promotion can start before the release of an album, can continue long after, etc., and that seemed like a good way to get at the issue. I'll guess I'll find out quickly if it isn't! <g> — John Cardinal (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine. Good thinking, "marketing and promotion" has got deeper into the matter and seems a sounder basis than suggesting arbitrary timeframes. PL290 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, not sure about "do not include singles that are subsequently included on a compilation album" - to me, this implies that Eleanor Rigby can't be listed as a single from Revolver (album) because it subsequently appeared on A Collection of Beatles Oldies (and a whole heap of later compilations). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "do not include singles when subsequently included on a compilation album"? I was trying to keep it short and sweet, but if it needs more words, then what do you suggest? — John Cardinal (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The role of MUSTARD

WikiProject Music and WP:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD are ostensibly in an "umbrella" role to all music-related projects. Contributions are invited to a new discussion on this topic. Thanks. PL290 (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You Want Some of This

On the page for the album You Want Some of This? by Jon Lajoie. I keep trying to delete track number 18 I kill People because it is not part of the album but, it will not let me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.184.238 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see that your edit went through, but was reverted by Eeekster (see the page history). He didn't explain why, but the Amazon.com external link supports your change, as well as discogs.com, so I am going to go ahead and restore your edit and leave a note on the talk page, according to the be bold, revert, discuss guideline. —Akrabbim^talk 05:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviews in infobox

I'm sorry, I see there has been lots of discussion here, but (due to the lots part), it's difficult to see what the actual consensus and guideline is. I know there's the direction in the project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Professional_reviews, but what if we see users adding new reviews to the infobox? Is it okay to remove them and try to incorporate the text in the reception section (citing the last link I gave)? Or for now should we leave it alone? Thanks --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The guideline is to have them in a template in the reception section, accompanying the prose (per WP:ALBUMS#Reception). Tim1357's DASHbot has started the work of moving them all, so don't worry if someone is just adding to reviews already in the infobox, as DASHbot will get to them eventually. Feel free to write prose for reception sections at any time, but you don't need to manually move them from the infobox. —Akrabbim^talk 02:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a page that describes exactly how this task is being performed by DASHbot? I'd like to see what rules the bot is following to do this work. For example, if the article does not have a critical reception section, is the album ratings template being placed after the infobox? And, what's the rate at which the edits are being done? Also, where can I see examples of edits done by the bot? I went to User:DASHBot and clicked on "User contributions", but most of the edits are marked "Automated Message: Unreferenced BLPs". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the 'AlbumBot' there tasking 'Move album reviews to their own section' is not running at this moment in time. Perhaps the various bots take turns in running?—Iknow23 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Tim1357/Archive 3#Album reviews bot work. —Akrabbim^talk 12:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please provide a link to the "specs" for how DASHBot is supposed to move the reviews out of the infobox? I'd like to see this (1) in general, for myself and other editors to be able to review and possibly suggest improvements for, and (2) because it looks like in some cases the bot is creating a Reception section and adding an {{Arprose}} tag -- here's an example. About the second part, in #Professional reviews moved from infobox above there seemed to be a consensus not to add {{Arprose}}, or at least there has not been any agreement that it should be added. — Mudwater ^(Talk)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 7 Is that what you are looking for with the specs? Right now Tim is working out a bug, so it probably won't be running again for a few days. While there were a couple (literally two, I think) objections to creating a new section with {{arprose}} (which I have pared down a little bit to make it less in-your-face), there haven't been any alternatives presented for the cases where there is no prose yet. —Akrabbim^talk 12:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) Thanks for the link. (2) As I said in the #Professional reviews moved from infobox section above, "One option would be to add the {{Album ratings}} template to the lead section, after the infobox, if the article doesn't already have a Reception section..." So, that's my proposal. Put the {{Album ratings}} after the infobox if the article doesn't have a Reception section, and do not have the bot add {{Arprose}}. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Mudwater's suggestion is perfectly reasonable and would support it. J04n(talk page) 14:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest moving the 'reception' section to after the 'track list'. For articles with short leads we are ending up with poor looking articles, an example is Footprints (album). I moved it lower on Space I'm In and don't think it takes away from the article. J04n(talk page) 13:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason it was set up like that was because that is the order in which a well-written article is structured. However, it would make sense that album stubs and start-class articles should have it after the track listing, so we won't be making thousands of articles even uglier. —Akrabbim^talk 13:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick comment. This new layout looks awful. When one has images, quotations, and citations to the same reviews in the release/reception section, one does not expect to see some daft-looking wikibox jumping in with its clothes on, making a mess of the layout. Much better to have reviews in the infobox. What next, album art moved down to packaging? Parrot of Doom 00:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The template is not mandatory. If you don't need it or if it mucks up the page layout, remove it. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's good to hear, thanks. Parrot of Doom 10:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You can also set | state = collapsed if that helps. —Akrabbim^talk 17:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Im all approved to go, I just want to make sure that nothing has changed. I have to take a short wikibreak for a week, but Ill start the bot when I get back. If you don't want me to start, leave a message on my talk page. Tim1357 (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Song release dates

In the infobox for songs, since it is not indicating a single release, wouldn't the release date typically be the same as the album release date. Although it is bound to be released as a single, and the point may become moot anyway, but I've been adding "January 5, 2010" as the release date for the song Blah Blah Blah, coinciding with the release of the album Animal, but it keeps being removed saying the song has not been released. I looked up a number of song articles for songs that weren't released as singles, including the example shown on Template:Infobox song, and the release date is always the same as the album's release date. --63.170.82.103 (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree; for a song that is originally released on an album, the release date should be the album's release date. A complicating factor for "Blah, Blah, Blah" may be that there is some speculation that the song will be released as a single because it has charted, received a lot of airplay, etc. However, the song has been released as part of an album. Even if it is later released as a single, its original release date is the release date of the album where it originally appeared. The original release is significant because it has charted, etc. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

AGREE. 'Infobox song' means it is an Album track or non-album NON-SINGLE offering. When an Album track it should show the album release date that contains it. However, once/if it becomes a single then the infobox is changed to 'Infobox single' and is to display the date that it is released as a single. The date that the song is originally released as an Album track, if significant, can then be mentioned within the article text.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the use of the release field in song infoboxes is meant for promotional singles. There is a huge difference in the release of a song and the release of an album. –Chase (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider Yesterday. The first release of this was on Help! (UK version), 6 August 1965; but it was not included on the USA version of Help!, but was on Yesterday and Today instead (20 June 1966). The first USA release was as a single, on 13 September 1965. It was not released as a single in the UK for over ten years - 8 March 1976, by which time it had popped up on an EP and two compilations. What is the song's release date? To me, it's the earliest of these, which is an album. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're using an infobox single - then it's got to be the single's release date. In this case it would be 13 September 1965 (US) you could also include 8 March 1976 (UK) or just "see release history" after the first release date. Infobox song is only really used when the song was never a single.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that infobox song should only be used when the song was never released as a single. The original release of a song as an album track may be notable separately from its release as a single. One example is when a song is released as a single years after it's initial release as an album track. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the single release is more notable than the song's release on the album, so {{Infobox song}} is not going to be used. —Akrabbim^talk 22:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A single release is not a notability trump card. If a song is notable—discussed in the media, books, heavily played on radio—and years later is released as a single and tanks, then the original release is notable in its own right and is more notable than the single release. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is true but probably quite rare and also in which case both song and single boxes can be used with the appropriate dates in each.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, rare, but I wanted to make the point that the single release isn't the only factor. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Any examples of the use of BOTH infobox song and infobox single for the same recording in the same article? I've never seen it done.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen 2 infoboxes of any kind in 1 article, and would consider it improper. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I made sure to say "for the same recording" above as I have seen it for original version and cover version in the same article, example HERE, be sure to scroll down the page—Iknow23 (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Many songs that were released multiple times as singles have multiple infoboxes and that seems proper to me.

"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" is an example of the rare case discussed above. Originally released as an album track in 1967, released as a single in 1978 to coincide with a movie, but the single did nothing in the charts. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your example is not the same EXACT recording as it is listed as an album track (song) by itself "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" and a single which combined two album tracks: "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"/"With a Little Help from My Friends"—Iknow23 (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they rerecorded anything, though it may have been remixed. The single simply included the first two tracks on the album as one side of the single, and those songs had been segued together on that album. That seems like the same exact recording to me, or at least, close enough for rock'n'roll. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant that the single includes more material than the album track number one. See the length on each: 2:02 and 4:46. Thus not the EXACT same. One is one song and the other is a combination of two songs.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I happen to own vinyl copies of both the Sgt Pepper album (Parlophone PCS7027) and the 1978 single (Parlophone R6022). Concerning the single, the "A" side label reads SGT. PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BANDWITH A LITTLE HELP FROM MY FRIENDS(Lennon - McCartney)THE BEATLES and the "B" side label reads A DAY IN THE LIFE(Lennon - McCartney)THE BEATLES

so we need to consider three tracks on the album, not two: your time of 4:46 is probably a combined time for two tracks, not one. We can check this by listening, and taking timings, which are:

Track	Album	Single
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band	02:00	01:59
With a Little Help from My Friends	02:33	02:32
(total, side "A")	04:33	04:31
A Day in the Life	05:01	04:57

My timings differ from published accounts, and from CD displays, for the following reasons:

• the timings are not on the record labels, so I used a stopwatch, and not everybody uses a stopwatch in the same way
• my turntable runs fast, due to wear (it's 35 years old), and does not have pitch control (which allows fine control of speed)
• the album is 33+1⁄3 rpm, whilst the single is 45 rpm, and due to a massive bias of my record collection towards the album, my turntable has not worn evenly - so the two columns are slightly different
• where does "With a Little Help from My Friends" actually begin? I've taken the middle of the word "Shears".

The two "A" side tracks are definitely a straight lift from the album, they segue together in exactly the same fashion as the album. However, "A Day in the Life" is edited, but only at the end: the long drawn out fade cuts off, so you don't get the extremely high-pitched note (allegedly for dogs), nor the gibberish in the run-out groove. There is no remixing at all: in fact, no Beatles material was remixed (unless you count the Spectorisation of the Get Back tapes to produce the original version of Let it Be) until Let It Be… Naked in 2003. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You should edit the single infoboxes to include the B side info at both Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song) and With a Little Help from My Friends. I see that A Day in the Life already indicates "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", "With a Little Help from My Friends" as the A side.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left notes at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song)#Timing of single and at Talk:With a Little Help from My Friends#Timing of single. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Now moving on from this example. I will re-ask my question a bit more clearly:

Any examples of the use of BOTH infobox song and infobox single for the same EXACT recording lengths of a recording without combining with another song in the same wiki article? I've still never seen it done.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, here's one: "Thank You for the Music" - exact same recording released some years later as a single.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. Hey, that matches PERFECTLY with WP:ALBUM#Singles "If a song is originally released as an album track only, but is subsequently released as a single to promote the release of a compilation album, include the song as a single only for the compilation album."—Iknow23 (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Pussy Cats" Starring the Walkmen

Does anyone have an opinion on how this article should be correctly titled? Rob Sinden (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest moving it over the top of the existing redirect Pussy Cats (The Walkmen album). Definitely no quotes. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe best if this was brought to the talk page - Talk:"Pussy Cats" Starring the Walkmen#Correct name for the article. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Personnel section

How detailed should be the personnel section? In 1 (Fischerspooner album), it contains entries such as “Bruce – Wardrobe”. I think that only people that made important contribution to the album should be mentioned, i.e. musicians and producers. Svick (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's skiffle music, in which case "washboard" and "tea-chest" are valid instruments, so why not "wardrobe"? Then again, I know of a singer who finds that some types of clothing put pressure on her upper body and she doesn't sing quite so well. In her case, a wardrobe assistant may well make important contributions (don't wear that corset, dear - try a kaftan instead). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There are 3 folks credited to 'wardrobe' on that album! The credits list is verbatem from Allmusic. My feeling is that if it is important enough for the artist to put it on the album then it's probably also important to a fan that would look it up on Wikipedia. I think this is a discussion for the article's talk page. J04n(talk page) 16:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I wonder if anyone knows who 'Bruce' is?

Ok, I'll leave it as it is, then. I asked here because I didn't expect to get an answer on the article talk page. Thanks for the answers. Svick (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You should add references to the article or place the unreferenced article tag on it.—Iknow23 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

IGN

IGN is, apparently, a games network. So quite why they'd be creating a list of their top 25 rock albums is beyond me. I don't see the notability, so is this edit worth keeping? I don't think it is, but wanted further opinion. Parrot of Doom 21:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Soundtracks

Hello, I have started a discussion at WT:FILM about whether brief soundtracks should be merged into their respective film articles. Since the articles fall under both projects' scope, I invite you to please join in the discussion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Terra (group)

Terra (group) article has been nominated for deletion, if anyone wishes to salvage the article reliable sources need to be added. I will also look for sources for this article. Also the tone needs to be fixed up Bread Ninja (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Album ratings template and bot actions

As discussed above, I am proposing that, when the bot moves the professional reviews from the infobox to an {{Album ratings}} template, if the article does not have a Reception section, the bot should put the template after the infobox, and not add a section header or an {{Arprose}} template. If the article already has a Reception section, then the bot should put the template there. So far two other editors have supported this proposal -- IllaZilla (see #Professional reviews moved from infobox) and J04n (see #Reviews in infobox). If there is general agreement about this, then let's go ahead and ask Tim1357 to change the actions of DASHbot. (Would that be done at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 7?) Other editors are encouraged to discuss this further in this talk page section. (I'd still prefer to leave the reviews in the infobox, but at this point there seems to be a consensus to move them out, so I'm not reopening that question now.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviews should be kept in the infobox. Death to template:album ratings!--Cannibaloki 20:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cannibaloki, the arguments given and consensus for moving the ratings out of the infobox are pretty strong, so unless you can come up with some new reasoning to convince people otherwise, this is the new guideline. We have been discussing this for weeks. As for Mudwater's proposal, I would prefer that a new section is still added, but placed after the track listing on stub- and start-class articles, like J04n originally suggested. However, I don't have much resistance to Mudwater's idea, and I would support that if that is the way consensus leans. As for letting Tim1357 know, someone should contact him at his talk page as soon as this is clear, not at the BRFA. —Akrabbim^talk

Fantastic.--Cannibaloki 22:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this. This template is intended as a supplement to prose, not a substitute. As such, we should be encouraging expasion of prose sections in articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. This would be a retrogressive step, if not entirely negate the benefit of removing the ratings from the infobox in the first place. As I've said previously, WP is not Allmusic: the primary purpose of the article is not to present a review, and therefore the in-your-face "how good someone thinks this item is" effect is quite inappropriate in a WP article. Merely relocating the ratings just below the infobox would perpetuate that same inappropriate presentation. Additionally, I agree that articles lacking reception prose benefit from encouragement to rectify this lack. PL290 (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Haven't we already been through all this, and decided we want to have a bot move the reviews out of the infobox and into a template, without losing any content at this stage, because losing content would lead to a backlash of objections? Once again, we shouldn't be trying to do everything at once. It's a great idea to encourage the use of prose, but it has to be done one step at a time. Moving content "as is" out of the infobox and to another place, is the first step. If you take reviews out of the infobox and throw them away, because the idea of review links doesn't fit in with your concept of "new standards" for articles, you will get that big objection, and we'll be back where we started, with reviews restored to infoboxes. We have consensus to do what we're in the process of doing. There is no consensus at this time to try to change the standards of prose vs. review links, and I do want to see what we've agreed upon go through and not be reverted. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Knight, that's what I want to see too. Has there been a misunderstanding somewhere? I stated opposition to Mudwater's proposal to change the template positioning adopted. That's all. PL290 (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the original plan of creating a new section with the {{Arprose}} template. While Mudwater's proposal would avoid creating empty sections, the template would be out of place under the infobox and away from any reception section. We also want to encourage prose, and creating a new section with reliable sources already there along with the {{Arprose}} template will fulfill that task better than just placing the ratings template under the infobox. Timmeh 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with these responses. We should either leave them in the infobox or start a new section with {{Arprose}}. Putting them in a separate box in the same position accomplishes nothing. —Gendralman (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So does anyone object to putting the section below the track listing on stub- and start-class articles for aesthetic reasons? —Akrabbim^talk 20:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I will start the bot this weekend if nobody raises any issues. Tim1357 (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that DASHBot is running now. It seems to work fine, except for a minor flaw: Per MOS magazine names are written in italics (e.g. Rolling Stone); however the bot is losing these italics when moving the reviews from the infobox to the new review box. Check out our favorite example album Dirt and compare the previous version to the new version. Is it possible to take corrective action? Thanks. – IbLeo (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an error message "Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag." in the review box of the new version of A Rush of Blood to the Head which didn't appear in the infobox of the previous version. I have consequently shut down the bot as I think it is the safest solution at this point. – IbLeo (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notifications about the errors. I apologize, but did not come across these errors during the trial.

Right now the errors that I have been alerted about are as follows:

1. The Bot Removes Italics. Ill go back and re-add italics to the links that the bot removed.
2. {{Review-Christgau}} Causes problems. Here I need some help. The template does not work to well with {{Album ratings}}. What should I do with this template?
3. The bot does not do well with reviews that are more then one line. (Example) I forgot to turn on multi-line, stupid mistake, sorry.

Thats all I know of so far. Ill fix those sometime this week and check back here before I start the bot up again. Thanks, and leave any new error reports on my talk page! Tim1357 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to excuse yourself. I appreciate and admire the work you do to help out the project with this major implementation, and I realize how tricky it must be. I left my messages here as I wasn't sure if you would be watching your talk page. Next time I will leave them directly with you (but hopefully it won't be necessary ;-). – IbLeo (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding {{Review-Christgau}} (your item 2 above), I will have a look at it and come back to you (on your user page) with my findings. Please allow me a couple of days... – IbLeo (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: when will the review field in the Album infobox be deactivated? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that this should be done as soon as DASHBot has finished moving them to {{Album ratings}}, and we have checked that there are no more reviews left in {{Infobox album}}. Btw., I have left some instructions on Tim1357's talk page to help him dealing with {{Review-Christgau}}. You are all invited to review and let us know if you disagree with my recommendations. – IbLeo (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I posted a statment at Talk:Common Thread: The Songs of the Eagles and after a few months becomming more famillar with editting saw that there were no responces so I started to fix, link, found founder, before realizing about " The project talk page" Again Sorry I now know more about procedure. Please look at what I've done and if there's any problems please let me know. Mlpearc (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Either way is OK. Usually the album talk page is good enough, but if there aren't many editors interested in the album, you might not get a response there. —Gendralman (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I felt I stepped on some toes but I feel better now. I think I did a good job. Next time I'll "discuss" what I think should be done

Mlpearc (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You in no way stepped on anyone's toes, feel free to be bold. By posting on the article's talk page you did more than enough. That particular article has been tagged for needing expansion for over a year, so the green light is certainly on for you to try and improve it. In general you only have to post on an article's talk page if you are make a potentially contraversial change, and would only post here if you think there should be a fundamental change to the way album articles are written. Remember if anything gets messed up it can always be reverted. J04n(talk page) 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Online retailer as source for release date

Is an online retailer an acceptable reliable source regarding the release date in a particular country? I often see this, especially for future albums. Example: Scratch My Back - the references for the Australia and Brazil. I realize that it is not that easy to find sources for such dates. – IbLeo^(talk) 19:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, online retailers are a terrible source for detailed information! (Sorry, retailers everywhere!) Retailers are notorious for quoting an expected shipping date, or expected arrival date, which may be in advance of the date it's supposed to go on sale. I would think a new release would have a page at an official website of the band or label, where the date would be announced. However (as a compromise), for a future date, it may be acceptable to say the release is "expected" to be a certain date, and cite the retailer, as they are the ones "expecting" it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have often found discrepancies of one or two weeks either way between the online pages of the larger UK high-street retailers (HMV, WHSmith, and in the past Zavvi/Virgin, Woolworths). Sometimes when HMV have quoted the earlier of two dates, I've gone along to the shop on that day, only to be told that it's not yet in stock, and won't be released for another week. On asking them to check their own website, they then admit that the website is wrong. I believe that some sites quote early dates in order to attract sales: to me, this is blatant false advertising. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My own experiences with retailers corresponds pretty much to yours, but I preferred to ask an open question so I wouldn't influence your replies. Knight, it is true that often the release dates are published by either the record company or by the artists official website. For Scratch My Back this is the case with the UK, European and U.S. release dates, but not with Australia and Brazil. I have followed your proposal and updated the references in the article (Release history section) to indicate that those two are "expected" as announced by retailers. Is that what you had in mind? – IbLeo^(talk) 10:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Affermative. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also often found online retailers unreliable, relying on the master entries on Discogs may help, e.g. here - maybe not necessarily for forthcoming releases, though. (Funny to find future dates in an encylopedia article's "Release history", btw. - must be my time machine, huh?) Hope this helps, BNutzer (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"History of the release schedule", then? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As much as I like discogs.com, it is a user contributed site, and therefore not recommended for citing. I have seen incorrect info there, sometimes from guessing things like release dates, and sometimes from improper usage such as stating the distributor in place of the label name. I don't believe Discogs encourages updating of existing entries (but I'm not sure; I don't have an account there, and have never contributed). There is no opportunity at Discogs to cite where release dates come from. I'll bet many of them come from Wikipedia. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively remove all future dates per WP:CRYSTAL, and add the dates individually once they are reliably reported as an event that actually happened. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL does not recommend removing such info, in fact it seems to support its inclusion. WP:CRYSTAL is mainly about original research. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking mainly of the sentence "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a big deal of this, but when you said "remove ALL future dates per WP:CRYSTAL", it sounded like you were saying CRYSTAL recommends removing all future dates. I take it you're now saying that's not what you meant? Looking at the part you've highlighted, it still looks like CRYSTAL is talking about speculation; in this case, speculation for the purpose of advertising. An example I can think of, is the promo campaign for The Blair Witch Project, where the advertisers famously hired people to go on chat boards and spread rumours that the forthcoming film was a real documentary and not a work of fiction. I think CRYSTAL is trying to caution against quoting speculation that might originate from an advertising campaign, and may be false. Getting back on topic, CRYSTAL does allow for discussion of future events if they are notable, cited, and "almost certain to take place". Release dates are not covered explicitly, but I get no sense that CRYSTAL discourages this piece of info, if the future event is to be discussed at all. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I always think it's best to wait until a news source can verify the date. A retail cite doesn't give you any context, and unlike journalism, there's no built-in emphasis on information accuracy or objective analysis of sources (a retail site will put up whatever the record label has provided on a one-sheet or e-mail pitch, for instance). WesleyDodds (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

world album chart

Is there an article on wikipedia to this chart? Ive never heard of the Word Albums Top 40 before. Dan56 (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard of it, either. There doesn't seem to be an article about it, but I find it interesting that they talk to us in their FAQ: [1]. They are listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:Record charts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There was an article but it was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As AnemoneProjects points out, the United World Chart article was deleted. The UWC was one of the founding members of the WP:BADCHARTS club. It's methodology is beyond suspect, with a liberal sprinkling of magic extra points based on personal preferences. As to Moonriddengirl's comment, the author of acharts.us has been fairly cooperative about marking his charts to reflect their status on WP:BADCHARTS. I suspect he's a Wikipedia editor, but, being anonymous in both roles, it would be pretty hard to prove that. It would be nice if he would reveal himself and license his sources so that the site could be generally used.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on the article Roots (Sepultura album)

A user has been edit-warring on the article Roots (Sepultura album), against the sources listed on the article's talk page, and consensus for a single genre. Please comment on this issue. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

On placeholder images and the uselessness thereof

Am I the only one who finds the use of placeholder images in infoboxes entirely useless? In a broad sense I'm speaking of everything in this category, but with respect to this project I specifically mean the Tweedle-Dee/Tweedle-Dum team of File:Nocover.png and File:Nocover.svg. There are currently over 650 articles using these placeholder images, and I just don't see what the use is in them. Any field left blank in the infobox simply won't display, including cover, so I don't see the point of putting in a placeholder. If we don't have an image, then we don't have an image. Why throw up a big sign saying "there's no picture of this!"? Obviously there's no picture, or we'd be looking at one. I'd like to put up for consideration deprecating the use of these placeholders and removing them from the articles in which they appear. Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I kinda know what you mean but isn't the point to encourage other users to upload an image? Cavie78 (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If a consensus agrees that the placeholder should go I would like to suggest that a bot be set up to remove them and add {{reqphoto|albums}} to the talk page. I regularly monitor Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums and add photos but they only show up there if the tag is placed. In the interim I will work on replacing the placeholders with album covers. J04n(talk page) 12:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of removing the placeholder images. They're superfluous -- it's assumed that an album cover image should be added to an album article if it doesn't already have one. The talk page {{reqphoto}} tag is a good idea too. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally love placeholder images- my experience is that they greatly aid in the aquisition of free images. However, that does not really apply here- it would surely just be a few hours work for a committed album enthusiast to find, resize, upload and add album covers to all the places where the placeholder is used? The problem with the talkpage notice is that, frequently, covers will be added and the notice will not be removed. By definition, this will not happen with a placeholder image. J Milburn (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Another point to make is for instances where the actual 'album' doesn't exist, an example would be The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday, there is no cover art to this, future albums (their inclusion is a another topic for discussion), and songs pages (as oppposed to singles). I would support removing placeholders in these instances. J04n(talk page) 14:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For those where covers do not exist, absolutely. For those where there is no cover available yet, I am less sure. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have fizzled out, but the more that I look at the pages with these placeholders the more I realize that they are being used for singles/songs where there is no possible cover art. I agree with IllaZilla in deprecating the placeholders and am favor of replacing them with {{reqphoto|albums}} on the talkpage. J04n(talk page) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have seen singles articles where the image is a photo of the record label. I've seen song articles where the image is a scan of the front page of the sheet music. I've even seen singles articles where the image is a scan of the sheet music. So an image will always be possible. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this makes the placeholders any less superfluous. If an image is possible, add one. If it isn't, or if we don't yet have one, leave the field blank. A placeholder image gives an article a constant "under construction" appearance which isn't necessary (maintenance tags do this too, but they address significant content issues whereas a cover image is typically a simple we-have-it-or-we-don't problem). Placeholders just look unprofessional in my opinion. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for taking the discussion off track, I agree with removing the placeholder. J04n(talk page) 21:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I probably should have said this earlier... years ago when I first started using Wikipedia, there were placeholder images everywhere. At one point, there was a WP-wide discussion and a decision to remove them from most articles. (That's how I remember it, but someone should check before acting on this info, in particular check on what criteria was used for deciding which, if any, to keep.) Regarding record label images on song and single articles, I really don't like to see them unless the label design is discussed in the article. In some cases it might be, if a certain edition is notable (perhalps valuable) for some reason that can be explained in the article, such as as the UK gold and black stereo edition of The Beatles' Please Please Me which wasn't confirmed to exist until about a decade ago. But for the purpose of showing what a copy of a record looks like for most songs and singles, the label image is not helpful. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

In external links it says links to professional reviews should be put in the infobox but in the infobox section it says not to. Which is right? McLerristarr (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We need to update that. We are in the process of removing reviews from infoboxes per a recent project consensus. Professional reviews should be used as sources and linked as citations within the article body, typically in a "Reception" section. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed --IllaZilla (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I recently created

a category called Category: Hal Blaine Strikes Again and have been posting it on articles about the records that Blaine played on. The title of the category refers to a rubber stamp that Hal Blaine used to stamp his charts with. I realize that neither the category nor its name is mainstream, but, does everything need to be? Anyway, the category is up for deletion and I'm hoping that editors who at least are knowledgeable and care about this sort of thing will vote there. Vote any way that you wish, but do check it out. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

CFR to rename Category:EPs and its subcategories

Your comments are welcome here. postdlf (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Albums and unref tags

I often stumble onto album stub articles which are tagged with {{unref}}. What should be done about this? It seems silly to have to reference a list of tracks when that information can be instantly verified by the most basic Google search. Pichpich (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's part of WP:V to have things referenced. Searching google is not a WP:RS. Song credits are now increasingly being sourced, see Telephone_(Lady_Gaga_song)#Credits_and_personnel for example. You may like to use the liner notes as a source in a similar way. SunCreator (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have occasionally used {{cite album-notes}} for this purpose. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

AGREE with SunCreator. As we see EVERY time we edit, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."
Redrose, I was not aware of that template. Thank You for that infomation. I expect that I shall use it.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI, that template is also good for information from liner notes. J04n(talk page) 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thank You. That was my understanding :)—Iknow23 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have the same question. The template cited here it a nice one for information in a very long article, that is sourced from the album itself. You can't really tell where specific info was from, in a long article. But my concern is also with stubs. There are countless articles out there, which contain only info from the album itself. Do we really need to source these? It has long been agreed that uncontroversial info does not need a citation (or has this changed recently?). So IMO, a short album should be able to have much of its info unsourced, and only info not found on the album liner notes needs sourcing. If you disagree, how, exactly, should the citation look in the stub article? Where should it go? -Freekee (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that uncontroversial also means unchallenged. But just because something is unquestioned (unchallenged) doesn't make it true. Its best to show the source where you are getting the material from. Otherwise someone could just make stuff up and we are supposed to believe that it came from the album itself?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example of a citation: Telephone (song)#Credits and personnel See the 'Source'?—Iknow23 (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here you can see multiple sources for the various editions: The Fame Monster#Track listing.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen album stubs consisting of little more than the title, artist and tracklist, being slapped with a {{unreferenced}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There are three good reasons to add sources (other than the album booklet) to a stub:

• It establishes the album's notability (even though many albums are assumed notable by WP:MUSIC, it's better to prove they meet the primary notability guideline WP:N)
• It gives a starting point for other people to find information, to help them expand the article
• It sets a precedent—if the entire article is unreferenced, subsequent editors often won't source their contributions, but if the entire article is referenced, they usually will

So I certainly don't think the {{unref}} template is necessary for stubs, but it's not a terrible idea either. —Gendralman (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Redrose, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Articles that have so little information, it's obvious that everything in it is found on the album itself. So someone spends their time adding an "unref'd" tag, and then I have to spend my time placing the album citation tag, when it's completely obvious. But let's say that's what we do. That brings us to the other part of the question. Where do I put that tag? A References header near the bottom of the article? Or do I have to put the tag on over sentence and section? What's to stop someone from adding another sentence that isn't covered by the liner notes? Do I have to put a "please cite this" tag on every sentence that consists of info not found on the record cover?

But Gendralman suggests we use sources other than the album itself. While I don't disagree, that doesn't change my questions. -Freekee (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You can always use general references, even though they're less popular than they used to be. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#General reference. For a stub this is absolutely sufficient. Sure, someone could then add information that's not covered by the liner notes, but someone could do that even if every sentence has a citation. The best we can do is watch the articles we're interested in and hope for the best. —Gendralman (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Genre

I've been contributing to articles on the recent musical releases by Becky (talento) located at Kokoro Komete, Suki Dakara, and the article I recently created Kokoro no Hoshi. The first two, I saw that the genres were "Pop" and "Pop rock", and when I created the third I had put in "J-Pop", as this obviously a Japanese popular musical artist. I changed the other two articles to use "J-Pop". User:MS reverted me and put "Pop" on the Kokoro no Hoshi page.

Is there some sort of standard on this because the only way I can convince MS to do anything is if there is a pre-existing standard practice or a consensus that shows him there are other options.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. MS made numerous improvements to the article, and in the process, changed J-Pop to pop. You changed that one part back, put a post saying you did this on his talk page, then immediately came here. There has been no discussion about it, no refusal on MS's part to accept your change, no edit warring, and nothing at all on the article's talk page. There is nothing to call attention to. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am asking what would be the proper "genre" here and getting an outside opinion before I argue back and forth with MS as usual.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What do the sources available say? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Everywhere I look refers to it as "Japanese pop" or "Idol pop". I'm certainly not finding "pop" or "pop rock".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Stick to what the reliable sources say and source it directly in the article (and not the infobox). WesleyDodds (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you've argued back and forth with MS on this subject on other articles, my apologies, but I still think you shouldn't ask for help here unless you've already tried to resolve it on the article talk page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong and I have never had a discussion about this. Ryulong is calming that J-Pop is it's own genre because it has it's own article and because it is sung by a Japanese person. American pop also has it's own page, but we do not use "American pop" on articles that pertains to American artists. So what makes J-pop different? MS (Talk|Contributions) 16:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Is J-Pop recognized as a genre? I always got the impression that it was. See also Britpop (definitely a genre). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

J-Pop is a genre defined by several music retail outlets, including those in Japan. They differentiate between foreign pop music ("pop") and domestic pop music ("J-pop") which they then divide up based on the other genres. For example on Amazon.co.jp, this album by Superfly is organized as "J-Pop" and within that as "Pop" whereas this single by Buck-Tick is "J-Pop" and within that "Rock", and The Fame Monster by Lady Gaga is just "Pop". The albums and singles I wrote about are "J-Pop" & "Idol Pop", "J-Pop" and "Dance/Eurobeat" and "J-Pop" and "Idol Pop".

And much like the britpop article, the J-pop article is formatted and defined as its own musical genre, unlike American pop. I'm not sure why Japanese rock does have its own article; other than the fact that the content at Music of Japan is covered with {{fact}} tags.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If secondary sources consider J-pop a genre and not just a term to describe pop music from Japan, and secondary soruces describe the music on this record as J-pop, then you can list it. Also keep in mind in some cases a broader genre like pop might be better to list for reader context and summary purposes. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Album reviews

I found the site http://www.rocksbackpages.com/library.html and duely added reviews about some albums to the review section of some album articles on wikipedia. I noticed this website was already being used on wikipedia, when I read The River (album) article. The website includes portions of reviews, but to view the whole review you must pay. Another editor removed these reviews I added. Should this website be used on wikipedia in order to show these reviews exist, and some important info. can be obtained from them, even without paying for membership for the website? Kitchen roll (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's OK for the source itself to cost money, but that site is a third-party distributor; it would be like linking to Amazon or eBay. Even if it's useful, it's essentially an advertisement for the service at the expense of others. We shouldn't really link to any sites other than the publishers'. —Gendralman (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I typically cite the original publication, without a link. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What information besides the publication do you use when it doesn't even give a rating? Just the name of the publication? Would that be important to the article to bother with it? And also, in that case couldn't you just list the name of every publication that you knew of that had printed a review in the review box? Agadant (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You'd cite the review prose in the body of the article, if you need to cite anything from the reviews. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. In this case, it was just listing the publication and linking to rocksbackpages.com. There really is not much usable information that is free on the website as they want you to buy a subscription to read it. Thanks for your time and knowledge. Agadant (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much guys. Kitchen roll (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Chronology

When it states "For some artists it may be more appropriate to include all album types in one chain", what does that mean? When "may it be more appropriate"? Dan56 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you enter the word "chronology" in the "archives" search box at the top of this talk page, you will find several past discussions where examples were given. A discussion which led to the wording you're asking about, appeared here:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 28#Chronology wording

and you may also like to review:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 29#Chronology (follow-up discussion)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 20#Chronology (yes, again, sorry) (an older discussion, but has good examples)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 25#Album chronology in infobox (another older discussion worth reading)

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Homework (album)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Homework (album)/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps reassessment of Summerteeth

This article has just undergone a reassessment in accordance with the GA:SWEEPS task force. The review identified problems with referencing which preclude the article from meeting GA standards. However, most significantly, one section is completely lacking in sources and has been tagged since May 2009, with no signs of improvement evident. Such an issue would qualify for a "quick-fail" under GA standards. As an identified problem with the article has not been addressed over the course of the past 8 months, there is little indication that the issues identified in the reassessment would be rectified in a 7 day period, and therefore the article has been immediately delisted. However, as there has been some (minor) activity regarding this article, and given that it is listed under 2 wikiprojects, if the issues outlined in the reassessment are addressed within the next 7 days, I will undertake a GA review to immediately relist the article. The reassessment can be viewed here. If there are any questions or queries please feel free to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 23:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone's wondering about this, I addressed the issues and the article has retained its GA status. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Meddle

Pink Floyd's Meddle has recently been moved to Meddle (album), based on the rationale that the Little Boots song is not a secondary topic. I'd like some comment on this, because I don't believe for one moment that the 1971 work is not a primary topic in this instance. I'd like to see Meddle restored to the Pink Floyd album, and the Little Boots song restored as a hatnote, as it was until today. Parrot of Doom 23:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Pink Floyd fan from way back (I'm 51yrs. old ) I grew up on Meddle (album) and OMG The Dark Side of the Moon. I don't see a problem with the need for Disambiguation, you still know which "Meddle" your looking for Mlpearc (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What Mlpearc said, a reasonable disambiguation. J04n(talk page) 23:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Meddle gets about 1,000 views daily. The Little Boots song gets about 50 views daily. There's absolutely no need to disambiguate with those kinds of figures. Parrot of Doom 00:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't base disambiguations on statistics. The Little Boots song is not named after the Pink Floyd album, and aside from both being musical recordings they have nothing to do with each other, so neither is a primary topic. Dab'd titles and hatnotes on each is the way to go, and consistent with WP:DAB. I'll grant you that the Pink Floyd album is the more likely search target, so I think that Meddle should redirect to Meddle (album), rather than having it be a dab page; when there are only 2 articles in question there is no need for a dab page, and having one only adds an extra step for readers looking for the album (which seems to be the more likely search target) while providing no fewer steps for readers looking for the song. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Traffic stats are a supporting indicator see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, supporting only via discussion. Suggest that both topics have a hat to each other. That Meddle redirects to Meddle (album) as the primary topic. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Trafficstats are only of any use to avoid WP:RECENTISM. Meddle (album) is, viewed longitudinally, the more viewed article, but I don't see the same being true in 30 years time. Actually, scrub that, I do. Value judgements aside, the principal article should be the most embedded, historically, with hatnotess. Rodhullandemu 01:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of inverse WP:RECENTISM anyway, Pink Floyd being the more popular use of Meddle past, present (and likely future). SunCreator (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Move it back—WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says it all. The album gets more article hits, it gets more Google hits, it has more sources, it's a #3 album by one of the most notable artists in history vs. a #97 single by some group. The album is monumentally more important, notable, and popular than the song. This will still be true ten years from now. We need to make things as simple as possible for the majority of users, and the majority of users are expecting the album to show up when they type "meddle". —Gendralman (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI ? as per one of the suggestions of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a "Google" search of ""Meddle"", ""Meddle album"", ""Meddle song"" all you see(primarily) is "Pink folyd" Mlpearc (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have hatnoted both topics. My suggestion is that Pink Floyd's Meddle album is made the primary topic and that the Meddle page be redirected to it. SunCreator (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not forgetting of course that at the moment there are over 100 articles now linking to a disambig page, including a few FAs. Parrot of Doom 13:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is poor, the w-link clicking won't work. SunCreator (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what you get for meddling with it! :) Considering the existing links which used to point to the album article, changing "Meddle" to a redirect is pretty much mandatory, regardless of the theoretical choices we would make in other circumstances. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the Knight means. The album is clearly the primary topic, and an admin should move Meddle back to its former (and proper) name and leave a redirect from Meddle (album) to Meddle. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm seeing a clear consensus to either restore the original article names, or to redirect Meddle to Meddle (album), with a hatnote to the Little Boots song. So, what do we propose? Parrot of Doom 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• I say return Pink floyd "Meddle" to main target, this will still leave the need for the Disambiguation page, but will direct on initial search Mlpearc (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Move it back to Meddle with a hatnote to the Little Boots song. No disambiguation page is necessary. —Gendralman (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I see consensus here for moving Meddle (album) back to Meddle, as a clear primary topic. I'll delete the dab page and move it back where it was. Give me a few moments, I'm relatively new at this; in the likely event that I screw something up, let me know. With mutual hatnotes, there's currently no need for a disambiguation page. If a third "meddle" article is ever created, then Meddle (disambiguation) can be created. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. SunCreator (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Parrot of Doom 23:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome². --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, this outdent template is cool. Second, the impression I got from having to select between PF and the song was that someone was attempting to use Wikipedia to promote the song, so thanks all for fixing that. Third, since people here are PF lovers, get a load of this page I started: Polka Floyd. Okay, back to Atom Heart Mother. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of "bot" parameter in Template:Album

The instructions in section WP:ALBUM#Album_articles says "The parameter auto is for bots. Pay no attention to the bot behind the curtain." I have never been able to figure out what this is supposed to mean. When I add the template to an article, should this parameter be validated or not? Does the bot that supposedly used this parameter still exist? I hope someone has been around long enough to remember. – IbLeo^(talk) 06:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

From what i can tell, |auto= is used by assessment bots. See {{WPBannerMeta}} for more details. — John Cardinal (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be a lot clearer to say, "This parameter is used when the template is built by a bot. It should not be used for manually created entries" – and remove the joke reference to The Wizard of Oz which may be too obscure for some. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

John, thanks for the link to the meta-template, I was not aware of it. So if I understand correctly, our project can instruct a bot to automatically assess non-assessed articles and when it does so, set the bot parameter to either "stub" or "inherit". Does anyone know if this is currently in place? Personally I have never seen the bot parameter set, nor have I seen a bot assess any of the album articles on my watchlist. Knight, thanks for enlightening me, I certainly hadn't picked up that reference. I have made a mental note to watch The Wizard of Oz one of these days so I will be better prepared next time I read the project page :-). I like your idea of clarifying the text. However, as the referenced section clearly address editors who assess articles manually, I would rather propose to remove completely the reference to the bot-parameter and use your phrase over at the {{Album}} documentation. WDYT? – IbLeo^(talk) 21:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a parameter to say the assessment was updated by a bot, to make it easier to understand, here is an actual diff. As one WikiProject assessed the article as class=Start the bot copied that to another project assessments and added auto=yes. The bot called User:BetacommandBot that mainly used the parameter is no longer active. In short you don't have to be add this parameter, you are not a bot. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed. I have clarified WP:ALBUM#Album articles and the documentation for {{Album}} according to your explanations. Thank you for your input. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Question re Project scope, tagging, and header

Just wondering what files, if any, would fall within the use of this Project's header template.

Right now the Header does recognize "Files" as a distinct group and will place the talk pages into Category:Doctor Who soundtrack covers.

Reason I'm asking is that the jacket images from Category:Doctor Who soundtrack covers, and the category itself, had the Header added early last month. The files had the Header removed yesterday with the note "rmvd from Albums Proj so page does not appear on project lists inappropriately". And that's got me a little confused.

- J Greb (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at other album covers, the cover images themselves do not have a project banner on the talk page, and are categorized as Category:Album covers, whose talk page also does not have the banner. And that page is categorized as Category:Albums and Category:Music images, neither of which have the project banner on their talk pages. I don't know how, if at all, we mark album cover images as being within the scope of the albums project. I'm not sure what you mean by "the Header... places(s) the talk page into Category:Doctor Who soundtrack covers". I briefly restored the header on one of the image talk pages and it caused 4 categories (for the talk page) to appear, but not that one; no categories on the image page itself were changed. Actually, I'm not sure what causes that category to kick in.

To make your project consistent with others, you should probably categorize Category:Doctor Who soundtrack covers as a nested sub-category of Category:Album covers. I notice that page has only 2 nested categories at present (neither of which is "soundtracks"; if it existed, I would have suggested making your page a sub-category of that), and its "album covers by artist" category is underused. Most images just put the image under the main category, and don't bother grouping by artist. If you do this change, then the images should not individually categorize as Category:Album covers, as that would cause them to appear in the category twice.

Since I don't fully understand categorization, you should probably ask the editor who made the change yesterday what the problem was, and confirm whether what I've said here is the correct solution. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. The Header - {{Albums}} - adds the categories for the general Albums articles, Class of the article , and Importance of the article. And I typoed above the cat is Category:File-Class Album articles. - J Greb (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Input requested on Template:Infobox album

Please see here Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Revamping the list of professional review sites

I have made a new version of our list of professional review site in my sandbox that I hereby propose to the project as a replacement for the current version. The enhancements that I have implemented are:

• Organisation in table form (5 columns, so justified).
• Decomposition into separate mention of review site (with article link) and it's URL.
• Alphabetic ordering.
• Completion of rating systems (currently missing for a few sites).
• Rating format to guide editors (based on current practice).
• ... and, no, I didn't sneak in any new review sites ;-) The content is strictly identical to the current version.

I invite the members to take a look and leave your suggestions, praise or rant. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I really like it! With the exception of the fact that I hate the "favorable / unfavorable" business and would like to see that practice eliminated completely, but that's a separate discussion. The layout looks excellent and should prove quite useful for editors. Great work! --IllaZilla (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it seems very nice and clear. Good job mate. Jimmys Cybertroll (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! It should be vey useful in standardizing how each review source rating should be formatted. DISEman (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, implement away. Ps. I dislike how we encourage Christau's usage... his reviews are poxy and overtly simple. kiac. (talk-contrib) 08:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. As I see only praise and no rants (thank you for the nice words) I have implemented the new version. For the remarks on the side, I will let you open other threads if you want to pursue them. IllaZilla, I am with you – kiac, I partly disagree. Cheers. – IbLeo^(talk) 17:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Addition of All About Jazz to approved reviews

Given the lack of jazz reviews in most approved review sources (except for Allmusic) can we please add allaboutjazz.com and to the list of acceptable review sources. DISEman (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting your request here. Please, take some time to provide more information about the site/publication for those of us who are not already familiar with it. Especially, establish that they are professional and pass WP:RS. Refer to the lead section in WP:ALBUM/REVSIT for the kind of information you have to provide and some good examples of how it can be done. In best cooperation. – IbLeo^(talk) 05:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "album"

I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a dictionary, but that shouldn't close off any discussion of what words mean. What does "album" mean? Is it a phonograph recording? What distinguishes an album from other phonograph recordings? Aside from songs and music, what other materials occur on albums? What's the etymology of the word? What did it mean in the days before phonograph recordings existed? Does the word nowadays refer strictly to vinyl disks? Unfree (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

See Album. Any of your questions not answered in that article (and I think most are) can be addressed at Talk:Album. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Review maximum in template

Is there a maximum for review ratings in the new template? It is not stated, but shows a blank template for 12 ratings. Dan56 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. 12 is all there is. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, why is it twelve? Was there a discussion somewhere that lead from the original ten in the infobox to twelve for the template? — ξ^xplicit 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the review template performing a different function than reviews in the infobox did? In which case should the limit be higher than 12? Cavie78 (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When I made it up, 12 was completely arbitrary. I knew we needed more than 8, which is what {{VG reviews}} has, but I wasn't familiar with the 10 rule. —Akrabbim^talk 15:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of the '10 rule' being applied to the new template. J04n(talk page) 16:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what why there was a limit on the infobox (appearance? "float" problems?) but they may not be applicable to the template. Even 10 is rather large; it may just be that a limit is necessary because of the parameter names system, and both 10 and 12 were picked as a large number unlikely to be reached. The limit of 12 has obviously been hit. What would be the consequence of making the limit 99? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should keep the numbers right down. 8, 10, 12 sound excessive to me. Too cluttered, too much info to take in at a glance. Better to identify a handful of key reviews than keep piling in more and more just because they exist. Make it say 5 max. PL290 (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ten review max was fine enough b4. And it seems like a fair, rounded limit; I dont see how it can be too cluttered or informative w/ten ratings in the template. Dan56 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should at this point keep in mind that we are currently in the middle of migrating the reviews from the infobox to the new template. Despite the past 10-reviews-in-the-infobox-limit I have seen numerable articles with more than 10 (but rarely more than 12). So if we now start cutting the limit down to 10 or 5 we will as a consequence lose content when the bot resumes the migration work. Consequently I would be of the opinion to leave the limit as-is (i.e. 12) and take this discussion when the migration has been completed. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not just allow the bot to move the reviews from the infobox to the critical reception section as it has and allow editors to apply the ten review limit? To have the limit being raised out of the blue and then have a discussion to bring it back down doesn't seem logical to me. — ξ^xplicit 01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and also find it a little sneaky if the limit was raised without an initial discussion. I propose as a compromise to re-insert the 10 review limit into the project guidelines until consensus decides to change it, but leave the physical limit in the template as-is (12) to allow the bot to perform the move seamlessly. – IbLeo^(talk) 05:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, I have no objections. — ξ^xplicit 05:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I have restored the original max 10 reviews limit into the project guidelines (this edit). I suggest that if someone wants to challenge it, that s(he) waits until after the review migration has finished and open a new thread. PS If someone wonders about my personal opinion, I would rather go down Knight's lane. I don't see why we need a limit anymore. But let's leave it aside :-) – IbLeo^(talk) 06:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we don't need a limit anymore and can let articles be worked out individually based on consensus/common sense, but 10 will do for now until we get the migrations finished. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely for not having a limit, however we have to consider, people abuse things like this when they are not restricted. I have no doubt that we will regularly see empty reception sections with 20 or 30 reviews in the template. kiac. (talk-contrib) 03:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia way" is to deal with cases like that as they happen, instead of trying to impose restrictions to prevent something that isn't going to do great damage if/when it does occur. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Nu jazz albums?

After editing One-Armed Bandit (album) and categorizing Category:Jaga Jazzist albums, I wonder if a Category:Nu jazz albums would be (considered) useful. BNutzer (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Incomplete infobox" project subpage - redundant?

The last phrase in WP:ALBUM#Album_articles says: "If the page has an incomplete infobox, note the missing details at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Incomplete infobox." That subpage however was only updated 9 times in 2009. With 91.000+ articles in the project scope and hundreds of new ones being added each week, it looks to me like this is a remain from the past that is totally unmanageable today. I propose to delete the subpage and the phrase referred above. – IbLeo^(talk) 23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I say go for it. Looks unused, unmanageable, and not really a useful tool. Fleshing out infobox details should be part of the regular article improvement process anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed the above mentioned phrase from the project page. If I hear no protests before next Sunday I will request a speedy deletion of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Incomplete infobox subpage. – IbLeo^(talk) 05:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, none of the WP:CSD applies to Wikiprojects; instead I had to launch a WP:MFD to request the deletion of this the subpage. You are invited to leave your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Incomplete infobox. – IbLeo^(talk) 05:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Further input from project members over at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Incomplete infobox would be appreciated. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The deletion discussion is now over and it was decided to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Incomplete infobox and tag it as historical. – IbLeo^(talk) 21:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Billboard charts discussion

There is a discussion taking place here that project members may wish to participate in, as it concerns the content of album articles. The basic issue is whether to include chart listings in album articles for Billboard's various "subcharts" (Alternative albums, Rock albums, Independent albums, etc.), or to exclude these and only include listings for the Billboard 200. This pertains to cases in which an album has charted on the Billboard 200 as well as one or more sub-charts, and seems to have the most relevance to albums which held a higher position on the sub-charts than they did on the 200 (for example This Addiction, Crash Love, and Nothing Personal). Interested project members are invited to add their opinions at the linked discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced album articles

Lately, several album articles on my watchlist have been flagged as unreferenced. I've created several articles about albums myself, usually with a copy of the album in hand and reproducing the information from the album cover, label, or CD booklet. How does one cite the album itself as a reference in the article about the album? Or would that be precluded as a primary source, and if so, what are acceptable sources for basic information one would normally get directly from an album, such as personnel, track listings, track times, songwriter credits, etc.? --mwalimu59 (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've used {{Cite album-notes}} for this in the past. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

However, according to a strict interpretation of WP:NALBUMS, one should never be satisfied with an article that only references the primary source. Even if it is understood that the article shouldn't be deleted because of the notability of the artist (because it is almost certain that there is something out there), we shouldn't settle for just knowing that there are probably RS's out there. I understand that this is an ideal, and that there will always be stubs, but the information should still be independently verifiable and the album's personal notability established. —Akrabbim^talk 16:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New album articles

Hi everyone.

I hate to sound whiny but over the past month the amount of unassessed album articles has increased over 6 000; I just want to know who is behind that? Zidane tribal (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean many existing untagged album articles are being tagged without assessing them, or does it mean that there are many new album articles being created? —Akrabbim^talk 02:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Both, I imagine. Only 33,043 in Category:Unassessed_Album_articles get busy!! 33,044, 33,045.. LOL. On a more serious note I will look at using a Xenobot to assess some once I've finished over at WP:SONGS. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

33,086 now. So albums got created at the rate of 43 in the last hour. If that is constant it's over 1,000 a day. 7,000 a week. It soon adds up! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The recent tagging is being done by User:Koavf see contributions Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

33,461 right now. When i started a year and a half ago, there were over 37,000, gotta speed up. Regards. Zidane tribal (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Xenobot Mk V to tag articles in project scope and/or auto-assess unassessed articles

A request has been made to tag & auto-assess articles in the scope of this project based on categories and/or auto-assess the project's unassessed articles.

To auto-assess, Xenobot Mk V (talk · contribs) looks for a {{stub}} template on the article, or inherits the class rating from other project banners (see here for further details).

Feel free to raise any questions or concerns regarding this process. The task will commence after 72 hours if there are no objections.

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

SunCreator, I think it's a great initiative! However, I would like to issue a warning about the auto-assessment part, especially the inheritance of class rating from other projects. Take as an example Reservoir Dogs. This article has been rated GA-class by WP:FILM. It is also part of WP:ALBUM (currently unassessed) because the film has a soundtrack that is mentioned in the article. However, if you rate the soundtrack section per our standards, it is hardly more than start class. In conclusion, I am personally not convinced that assessment is inheritable. What do people think? – IbLeo^(talk) 05:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Certifications, Invite to discussion

Certifications in some countries are for 'shipments' and in others are for ACTUAL Sales. I believe that some improvement/clarificaton is needed at List of music recording sales certifications. To this end I have posted in the Talk there.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Album articles by quality sub-categories

I would like to propose rename of the child categories of Category:Album articles by quality, Category:Album articles by importance, etc. from Albums to albums. For example, Category:Start-Class Album articles to Category:Start-Class album articles. If there's objection to putting them up for CFR, I will refrain. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Category:" is a prefix, "Album articles by importance" is the actual title, so the page name looks right to me. But I agree with changing "Start-Class Album articles", actually it should be "Start-class album articles" (2 case changes). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, all I meant were the sub-categories. While I agree with "Start-Class" to "Start-class", that change can have implications on the entire "class" structure on wikipedia (for example, Category:Start-Class board and table game articles). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The category names are built up by templates. In this case, {{WikiProject Albums}} provides the two words "Album articles" to {{WPBannerMeta}} via the |ASSESSMENT_CAT= parameter, which in turn passes it on to one of its sub-templates which adds on the other words together with the "Category:" prefix. Therefore, amending these specific words "Album articles" can be done, but amending "Start-Class" to "Start-class" will affect many pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point, there are hundreds of categories that need to change under this rationale and/or to stay consistent. We have "X-Class Topic articles" and "X-importance Topic articles" (note the capitalization), for nearly every WikiProject. This should be taken up at one of the village pumps or an RfC before starting a CfD discussion, because this would be a pretty intensive change. —Akrabbim^talk 02:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we officially discourage chart succession boxes?

Per this discussion, there are quite a few valid arguments for not using chart succession boxes, which appear off and on to connect albums that topped the charts. Among the problems: they give undue weight to the number one ranking (charting at number two or even number ten is nothing to sneeze at, either, and there's nothing to stop people from making succession boxes for any other chart number), they contain unsourced information regarding reigns at the top spot and which songs preceeded and succeeded them, and with mega-hits that topped numerous chart, they can result in an ungodly amount of page clutter. So can we outright say "avoid chart succession boxes" for this project? WesleyDodds (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I started the discussion that you reference. What I have done is adopt a compromise position, SEE Tik Tok (song). I have used the 'Order of precedence' template in its 'collapsible' version to reduce the page clutter, but retain the material for anyone truly interested. However if succession boxes are outright totally banned, I certainly will not protest.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose I can easily see this being useful information navigating from one article to another. It's a bit strong to say that I'm in favor of them (I don't think I've ever added this information to any page), but I really don't see the use in deleting them. What I am opposed to is the apparently spurious allegation that this has already been discussed before and some consensus reached on this matter. WesleyDodds has used this rationale before to delete succession boxes and has now resorted to deleting them with no rationale given. If these end up being deprecated by some actual consensus, then that's fine and well, but if it does not exist, then I find it bad faith to appeal to it in deleting passages that you don't like. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Charts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, and Template:Succession box and see no such consensus and the simple fact that he's asking for it here is a tacit admission that it doesn't exist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There's the discussion I linked to at the top of this post. The reason I bring it up here is because I'm hoping we can hash out something more formal, though, because that discussion was hard to find. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines Well, here's the question that I have then (and it may sound sarcastic, but if anything, I'm just dense): If there was a robust consensus reached there, then why isn't it a guideline at either a WikiProject or somewhere else in Wikipedia namespace or why isn't there a note at {{Succession box}} about this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'd like to know, so I brought it up here. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay So this consensus that you referred to earlier never existed then. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum For what it's worth, (virtually?) all of the succession boxes on Wikipedia contain some kind of unsourced information as do virtually all navigation boxes of any kind. For instance, {{U2}} claims that The Joshua Tree is a U2 album, but if I'm on Zooropa, do I need a citation to prove it? That seems a bit excessive to me. I see no reason why albums and singles should require any special citations for succession that do not apply to tennis champions or British Prime Ministers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You need citations for information likely to be challenged. There's no disputing that The Joshua Tree is a U2 album, but verifying the dates it was number one on a specific chart, and what unrelated songs came before and after it are different matters. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment (eventually leading to oppose) Regarding the difficulty in verifying chart info, I've often found that rather sad. Record charts aren't something obscure that only music fans know about; they are very much a "popular culture" recognition of a record's success in its day. Probably because Billboard, the best recognized chart souce in the USA, is also a publisher, they seem to want their chart info to be only available to people who buy their books. Therefore historical charts are not available online for free. This defeats the idea of charts advertising the historical importance of hit records. One would think the record industry, which benefits from chart history being quoted in newspaper articles and reviews, would take steps to create a situation where chart info is widely accessible and verifiable. It is similarly difficult to find reliable souces for record sales. RIAA and IFPI do not provide lists on their websites, and yet news stories often quote sales "according to" these sources. Despite these problems, I do think there is enough interest in chart performance to justify keeping the succession boxes, and I also think the "clutter" issue is overrated. Having any bit of info in a box, makes it easier to ignore it if you wish. I believe these boxes contain a link to an article about the chart itself (or its publisher), and this is where citations should be. If an article for a chart does not quote a source where historical chart data is being taken, a citation request can be raised, but the problem does not call for getting rid of all succession boxes for all charts. Finally, I certainly agree with Justin's concern. If there has been no consensus for removing these boxes, then nobody should be starting up a private project to remove them. It seems like this kind of thing happens a lot in Wikipedia's music projects. Many of us can recall how premature "clean-ups" resulted in large reverts, and as a result, we have seen how most sweeping proposals are discussed thoroughly before any work begins, so a big blow-up doesn't happen An example of it being done right, is the recent removal of reviews from the infobox, which was discussed in advance and implemented virtually without a hitch. Some editors have learned from mistakes from the past, and some haven't, apparently. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: Billboard's historical charts are archived for free via Google Books, which has all issues of the magazine up to the end of November 2008.[2] --JD554 (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

←Just wondering, would it not be better to add links to List of number-one albums from the 2010s (UK), or whichever ones are relvant, in the see also section? --JD554 (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the information is useful in that you can navigate easily from one #1 to another to see what replaced it and what it beat. Yes, other positions are notable - but none so notable as what was at the highest point of the chart. As for them being unsourced, the information must be sourced elsewhere in the article (probably more than once) as chart info is fairly easy to find. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is the number one chart position so important that navigation must be facilitated between other records that have held that slot, but not with other rankings? For example, Def Leppard's Pyromania and Pearl Jam's Ten had long reigns at number two on the Billboard 200. Also, sales charts aren't a contest (unless you're Blur or Oasis in 1995), so we shouldn't be treating nav boxes as connections between "one #1 to another" and "what replaced it and what it beat", because there's nothing to "beat". Another problem is that these albums are only related by the fact that they hit a certain spot on the chart, which is a tenuous connection. As for sourcing, we shouldn't have to deal with sourcing what records hit number one before and after the subject of the article, because that has nothing directly to do with the album being discussed, unless a secondary source talks about it. Personally I like seeing all the chart-topping records, but that's just because miscellany like that interests me. I can't think of a sound encylcopedic reason to create navigation between pages just because they exchanged rankigs on a list. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree: Tuzapicabit, we don't have to include the nav-boxes so people can find this information, since we have all these lists, it is not like we are losing any information if these things were removed. IMHO, that is a better way to display the information, instead of having to click through the nav-boxes. I don't see why they are visually that big a problem (collapsing is easy if people think they are too big, ugly, etc.), but there are definitely better ways to display it. The most good they accomplish at this point is that they link to the lists of number ones, but is there a cleaner way for Licensed to Ill, for example, to link to Number-one albums of 1987 (U.S.), instead of a navbox? As long as people would still find it relatively easy to get to those lists from one of the member albums, I am all for it. Maybe we could use categories, or plugs in the chart history sections, or in the see also section like JD554 mentioned, or pipe the phrase "number one from March 7 to April 24", or any other ideas to keep it easy for people to find this info. —Akrabbim^talk 14:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories are already being used in addition to the succession navboxes. Example Tik Tok (song) shows these Cats
Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles
Billboard Hot Dance Airplay number-one singles
Canadian Hot 100 number-one singles
European Hot 100 Singles number-one singles
Number-one debut singles
Number-one singles in Australia
Number-one singles in France
Number-one singles in New Zealand
—Iknow23 (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me there is a fair amount of redundancy here - we have list articles, categories and succession boxes - something needs to go. --JD554 (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we just worry about albums at this point, or should we include singles as well and bring WP:WikiProject Songs into the discussion? It would make more sense to me to do it all at once, but we do have slightly different infrastructures between the two (for example, there aren't categories set up for number one albums like there is for singles like Tik Tok). —Akrabbim^talk 13:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I used a 'singles' example. I personally never pay attention to succession navboxes or these kinds of Cats, and just presumed that albums had them too. —Iknow23 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for use of succession boxes for #1 albums/singles

Since it's hard to see consensus being reached on this matter, it would be nice to see some standards set to how these successions are put into articles. Let's look at an example using Black Eyed Peas The E.N.D. The succession boxes in the article are a mess and confusing. Here are some of the problems:

• There is no order to it. Charts aren't listed alphabetically by country not even chronological.
• Is there a need to show every "run" at #1? Beyond a re-release or other influence returning an album to the chart (see Michael Jackson), an album has one run. If it happens to drop and return to #1, its run is non-consecutive. There is no need to show every album that preceded and followed it after every time it returned to the top. What if album does that 5 times or 10 times? When determining the preceding and succeeding #1 albums, think of it as having each album and laying them down one by one next to each as they reach the top. If an album returns to #1, you're not going to put another copy of that album next because you already have it.
• There's no verification of the previous and succeeding #1's. Therefore, no succession box should exist unless it has both a wikipage for the chart AND a list of #1's for that chart (which would hopefully be properly sourced). The box then, in this case, works as a "See also" section for this additional info. For either a quick run through the succession directly by clicking on each album or a higher level of view of #1's on the specific chart.
• There's no verification of the dates at number one AND dating is not consistent. The wikilink to the chart list will show when it was #1. Also, take for an example an album that was #1 for two weeks, reaching on an issued dated March 6. Do you list only this first date ("March 6, 2010")? Maybe the first date and number of weeks ("March 6, 2010 (two weeks)")? Or the weeks at top ("March 6 – 13, 2010"). But that looks like it was #1 for 8 days. Well, we could always put the full date range ("March 6 – March 19, 2010"). Or would it be "February 28 – March 13, 2010, depending if the chart uses a "week ending" or "week of" date? Lose the dates in the succession box and the link to the list of #1's will show the Issue date(s) when it was at #1. The succession box within the article will then simply show what was the previous #1 and the next #1.

So, please take a look at the current configuation of succession boxes in the article for The E.N.D, and, based on the issues noted above, compare it to the modified succession boxes below. No dates, no multiple runs, no charts that don't have "list of number ones" pages. It's basic info that does what a succession box is supposed to do: tells you what was #1 before this album and what was #1 after. The curious reader can follow the links to find out more. Links to the same album/artist more than once should be acceptable here because a user may only following the succession of one chart and this makes navigation easier.

This proposal is only made as an alternative if consensus cannot be reached to discourage their use or remove them entirely. Some tweaking may be necessary and the Wikiproject groups for songs, charts, and even succession boxes should be involved for their input. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, looking at some of the more loaded examples, yes there may be a problem with them. I was going to suggest maybe do a limit on the charts used - not all these Airplay and R&B charts etc, but just mainstream charts. Perhaps also the foreign language charts could be taken out since they have their own wikis and heir own national chart succession box could be listed there. But this could be quite controversial and hard to control with people adding charts back in everywhere. Consistent dating has also proved to be a problem as I have found in the past. Maybe just a see also section could be added (Number one albums in the United Kingdom and so on).--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

AGREE with Tuzapicabit. I would dislike them less if there was a limit on them. Perhaps use the same criterion that is used for WP:MUSIC/CHARTS in that ONLY the charts that appear in the Peak table are 'eligible' for the Succession area as well? It seems like currently the succession area is being used as a 'loophole' to display material disallowed in the Chart peak table.
Also like the removal of the dates as in Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars example.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If the album/song reached number one in any country, it's going to be listed in the chart table (as long as it's not a bad chart). One way to limit the number of charts used in the succession box was to use only those that have List of #1s (not that those can't be eventually created if they don't exist). That's where the sourcing of succession and dates would be. I wouldn't mind a limit to only a country's main chart (no genre or component charts). Having some set standard and policy, if we're going to have to live with succession boxes for #1 albums/songs, will avoid controversy and people adding any back in. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)