Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Coverless albums (Yes, again. This is an obsession of mine. Shut up, you!)

Well y'all, here it is, thanks to User:Muhandes: Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover. Now...lets get crackin'! Only 20,017 to go! Jasper420 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Request Taking a quick look at these, I notice that several of them (I'll just make up a number: 10%?) are in the userspace. Can this be amended to exclude content outside of main? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume so. But not by me. Ask Muhandes, I guess, he did the work. I'd like to be able to locate album cover images smaller than 220x220 pix and larger than 400x400 pix as well, but i'll just do that manually for now. I'v got a big enough load here..Jasper420 02:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Oddly enough, I did this change before seeing the request. I guess great minds think alike. I think the 10% guesstimate was a bit off, we are down to 19k, so 5% were removed (assuming the re-categorization is over, it takes some time) --Muhandes (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sweet manatee of Galilee! 20,000+?!? I've been doing a lot of work lately with album cover categorization/renaming/re-sizing/FUR updating...If I have time I'll pick a letter of the alphabet & see what I can do. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Unassessed articles, reviews in infobox, and now albums without cover... I`ve done well over 20K edits for this wikiproject, but work is never ending, i`m currently working on the reviews template thing, but will help with this too. Zidane tribal (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't go overboard on this, folks. The "free pass" for one copyrighted image per album article applies only if the notability of the topic has been established; it does not apply e.g. here (the 1st album I picked at random from the category). Cheers, Uniplex (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely, if an article is not notable, the way to challenge notability is through deletion? If you think that article is not notable, go WP:AfD. --Muhandes (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@Muhandes, I'm not saying that some of these albums are not notable; I'm saying that their notability has not (yet) been established. The consensus is that establishing notability is sufficient to pass the "critical commentary" part of WP:NFCI#1 (and thus allow fair use a copyrighted image without expressed permission). Uniplex (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

While we're at this, can we ban the use of placeholder images (File:Nocover.png, etc.)? These things are completely useless and give articles a constant "under construction" look. It's like putting up a sign reading "there is no sign here". I remove these on-sight. I wish they could just be deleted from Commons, but it appears they're used on a lot of other language Wikipedias. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Using File:Nocover.png currently adds to the category so it will be addressed with time. If it annoys you, you can easily find all of them here. I can add other "no cover" images to the category quite easily. --Muhandes (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I made an improvement suggestion here, if someone has reservations, or an idea of how to do it better, please voice it there. --Muhandes (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure if this is the proper channel, actually I'm sure it's not, but I'll voice it here anyways in hopes it's seen. What I mentioned before, concerning undersized images. Over is fine, because I remembered theres a bot who handles those (DASHBot, I believe). So if there's anyway to categorized those, that'd be nice.Jasper420 19:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That would require a bot. --Muhandes (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Jasper420, if I understand what you're asking, my presumption is that undersized images are deliberately left that way, due to their poor appearance if/when stretched. Ultimately they need to be replaced with a larger image (i.e. large enough for the infobox). Your point still stands, though, that maybe there is a way to identify these. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I just want the small covers identified, so that a new, better version can be uploaded in their place. I just need a quick way to locate them, which I see Muhandes has said, will involve a bot adding them to a category.Jasper420 20:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Tony Rice (album)

I have always wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, but I could never think of anything that I could add. Little did I know that there was much work that I could do and even subjects (certain, sort of obscure albums) that I knew a lot about. So I went through the basic tutorials (still working on the MOS) and I am posting because it was suggested that I post to coordinate with the community. I think it is obvious that I don't have a clue as to what I'm doing, but I'd like to help with adding some more information to some album articles and also, maybe some other things if I am made aware of them. Any help would be appreciated.MusicMajorette (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Response I have written to the user through e-mail and the talk page. If anyone else wants to mentor/assist, please join in! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body#Critical_reception “lists”

Ok, this is the proposal: Add the adjective "trivial" (without definition) to the proscription and change the word "may" to "should".

Due to their proliferation and dubious value, trivial lists (e.g. Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Punk Rock Albums of the Early 1980s) mayshould not be included.

-- J. Wong (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Better communicates what I have always understood to be the point. —Akrabbim^talk 17:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

@J.wong, how does your proposal differ, in spirit, from mandating that "trivial things should not be included"? Or, in other words, what it is about lists that warrants special attention in this guideline? Uniplex (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the statement "their proliferation" is the clue here. Lists got to be a fad in the press. They were being created seemingly just to provide copy often just by the editors of a particular magazine or newspaper without reference to a more broad consensus, hence their "dubious value". That is, in a bit of hyperbole, for any album you could find at least one list that included it somewhere, and for significant albums, you could find hundreds of lists that included it. So is WP about absolutes? No, the guideline was never meant to preclude all lists, but those of "dubious value", which to me is synonymous with trivial. Your interpretation is that all lists are trivial -- J. Wong (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How are folks supposed to apply your guideline without a definition of “trivial”—thrash it out on the article talk page each time? Is the guideline adding any value in this case? Also, assuming that a list has been deemed non-trivial by some undefined means, does this override the need for secondary sourcing? Uniplex (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"thrash it out on the article talk page each time" Each time? I think not. The majority of the time there will be a consensus such as for the "500 Greatest Albums of All Time", and it will never be discussed. But yes, if an editor objects to inclusion of a particular list, then the talk page is the appropriate venue for the discussion to resolve whether the reference to the list counts as non-trivial. The published lists are by definition secondary sourcing of the source of the article (i.e., the album). And no, the list doesn't itself need secondary sourcing in an article of which it is not the subject. -- J. Wong (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

So you agree that your proposal has no value?—Editors (and reviewers for Good Article) will have to determine which lists are non-trivial for themselves? Wouldn't a central repository (like the one we have for professional review sources) be more useful? BTW, a magazine that makes and publishes a list, is by definition, a primary source for any detail of their list. You also need to be able to demonstrate WP:DUE weight; i.e. that we give due (and not undue) weight to discussion of magazine lists within the topic of an album, per reliable sources writing on the same subject. Remember that consensus is "as viewed through the lens of WP policy" so you may want to take this into account (by referring to policy) in your proposal. Uniplex (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No value? It's value is to avoid having editors such as yourself deleting references to lists and citing "guidelines". You should have started a discussion on the talk page for "All Things Must Pass" instead of deleting the reference and getting into a delete war when another editor added it back. A central repository would be useful, but I'm not proposing to create it. WP policy relies on editors good judgement. WP:DUE is not relevant to this discussion. Why would you bring it up? Since you've already stated that you are a disinterested party, if the consensus of the other editors is to change the guideline as proposed, then I assume you agree with it. Thanks for your disinterest. -- J. Wong (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

WP's policies interwork with each other, differently in different situations; guidelines capture how those policies coalesce in particular situations. You say “WP:DUE is not relevant”; it says “An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject” (emphasis mine)—this is policy. As I said above, WP:CONSENSUS (another policy) is judged "as viewed through the lens of WP policy"; that judgement may be made by the participants of the discussion, or in cases where there is not agreement, an outside party may be invited to make the judgement call; very many discussions result in "no consensus to change". Unless you make reference to policy (in this case, the policies that govern whether or not a fact should or should not be included in an article) in justification of your proposed change to the guideline, your proposal is unlikely to gain consensus as described. To alleviate your confusion: I was a disinterested party in the earlier, unfocused complaints; I'm an interested party in the proposal to change the guideline in as much as I shall comment on it per policy and perhaps other guidelines; I shall not offer any counter-proposal. Uniplex (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's start over:

I am proposing that the guideline with respect to using lists as WP:RS in album articles be clarified so that it cannot be interpreted to prohibit all use of any said lists as WP:RS. If a list can meet the standard used for inclusion of music reviews as WP:RS, then it can be included. The guideline will continue to discourage use of dubious lists.

Given the preceding proposal, I am suggesting the following edit to the guideline:

Due to their proliferation and dubious value, trivial lists (e.g. Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Punk Rock Albums of the Early 1980s) mayshould not be included.

If you can suggest a better wording to achieve the proposal, I welcome your input.

-- J. Wong (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Providing, or pointing to, guidance as to the acceptance criteria for inclusion is essential for the guideline to have any "teeth"; perhaps some of your words about inclusion from your introductory paragraph could be included. However, WP:RS does not mention music reviews, and whilst necessary, WP:RS is not sufficient: you've proposed the word "trivial" but you should (also) refer to WP:DUE—this is the policy that determines whether or not something is trivial. Why might these things be included at all? Probably because of this, from WP:NPOV: "it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts". However, where prominent experts disagree (as in the case of the RS500 list), WP:DUE weight comes into play (as well as for the reason mentioned above). A useful reference to include would be WP:PEA, which (given all the acceptance criteria) gives an example of how to present such list information in prose. A note to avoid synthesis of phrases such as "widely regarded as one of the best" by virtue of appearance on several lists, would again, be useful. Uniplex (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

How is this as a rewrite without out reference to "triviality"?

Lists can be considered as another source of reviews as to notability but [d]ue to their proliferation and the dubious value of some, lists (e.g. Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Punk Rock Albums of the Early 1980s [a fictional example]), they are to be held to a higher standard. Lists should not be a simple enumeration but to be cited should include prose.

I also think that it is appropriate that WP:REVSIT be modified to include a list of acceptable lists, and perhaps more discussion as you have suggested. (As to RS500, I would argue that the controversy over it is a minority opinion so that not allowing reference to RS500 is a form of WP:DUE for the minority opinion, but that discussion can be held on the talk page for WP:REVSIT.)

-- J. Wong (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

nice Uniplex (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - That makes it much clearer.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think we have a consensus here. I'll apply the agreed upon changes to WP:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body#Critical_reception, and I will also start a section here discussing a list of acceptable and unacceptable lists to be added to WP:REVSIT

-- J. Wong (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes made to WP:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body#Critical_reception -- J. Wong (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Bootleg category

Perhaps we should make a category for bootlegs. There are some very notable ones which have articles but are put into categories for bootlegs by the artists who may only have that one bootleg in the list. And there aren't too many articles for bootlegs so perhaps we should make a category for them all to go in additionally. There isn't many bootlegs. --92.237.88.53 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Aotearoa: Stand Strong

People who know wiki better than me, the article for this album lists a track by the long-standing and significant bands "Moana and the Moahunters" and "Shihad", who both have wiki entries. But the wiki links from the album article (i.e. "[[]]") lead to a dead-ends, what's going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunswicknic (talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you are talking about links on Aotearoa: Stand Strong. There was one redlink at "A.E.I.O.U. (Akona Te Reo)" - Moana and The Moa Hunters, for which I changed the band's spelling to "A.E.I.O.U. (Akona Te Reo)" - Moana and the Moahunters. The link to Shihad is already blue, though, so I don't know what you mean about that one. Did you really mean some other redlink, which is similarly misspelled? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo! Music site changes

It looks like Yahoo! Music has removed the album review pages so if they have been referenced by any album articles they are now dead. They may have been archived so check to add the archiveurl and archivedate to the cite. (And they should be cite's not just links or reference links.)

-- J. Wong (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Yahoo! Music was just mirroring Allmusic's album reviews. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not. Yahoo! Music purchased Launch in 2001, which was the source of many of the original reviews, but Yahoo! Music was producing its own reviews since then. See Finally Woken. The Allmusic review is not the archived Yahoo! Music review.

-- J. Wong (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Beatles for Sale

Please tell me why WP:ALBUMCAPS offers no alternative solution to a situation in which the artist himself capitalises a preposition. The above named album is actually titled 'Beatles For Sale' by artist intent, and can be verified by The Beatles' official site, among other sources. I propose a change to the wording of the relevant section. Radiopathy •talk• 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I'm not so sure about that change being necessary. There was a discussion warranting a similar proposal, and that was not only an unsuccessful request, but the discussion also turned ugly. It was determined via that discussion that prepositions and the like stay lowercased, while all the other words stay capitalized; capitalizing according to "artist's intent" would add confusion and a questionable amount of exceptions to the already established rules of capitalization. The discussion took place fairly recently as well. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My two cents For what it's worth, I think it best to (almost?) always avoid the artist's intent for exactly that reason. Beatles for Sale is also in caps on that cover--should the article title be in caps? Or non-italicized? Or in dark grey? These stylistic choices are fine and well, but not incumbent upon a different publication; our style choices should trump (again, maybe there are considerations that can cause exceptions, but I can't immediately think of them.) It's more important for Wikipedia to be consistent than for it to recognize the artistic and stylistic choices of a near-infinite number of publishers, artists, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and while we rightly stop short of correcting artists' grammar and spelling irregularities (deliberate or otherwise) like The Razors Edge, or Mama Weer All Crazee Now, that's as far as we should go. Issues of capitalisation, italicisation, underlining, font, colour etc are an awful minefield that our MOS helps us avoid. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and as such it follows the conventions of English pertaining to capitalization of titles and proper nouns. Just because album/movie/book/etc. covers often ignore these conventions doesn't mean we should repeat their mistakes. Consistency is a net positive for readers, which is why manuals of style exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly Furthermore, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that there are some style issues which are essentially a matter of taste or regional variation, but it's important to choose a rule and stick with it as much as possible for professional reasons. I know that I personally would immediately doubt the credibility of a publication that uses wildly different standards for capitalization, punctuation, etc. as I would assume that there is no editorial oversight. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there: We capitalize prepositions in phrasal verbs (Bringin' On the Heartbreak, Get On Your Boots, etc.), so why not in a phrasal adjective like "for sale"? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 23:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk: Time of my Life

I have found interest in the album "Time of my Life" by American rock band 3 doors down. I am interested in improving the information about this album and I am seeking some help. Here is a link to the page that should provide information about the album http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Time_of_My_Life_%28album%29 --Reallyconfused (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Response On user's talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Foreign ALBUMCAPS

Using Romances as an example, I want to know if this how ALBUMCAPS are applied to album and song names. There isn't a single FA-class Spanish-language (let alone any non-English FA-class album articles), I just want to know if this would be an ideal for a foreign-album article following the last discussion. Erick (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Mixtapes

Has there been a previous discussion on notability of mixtapes? I asked this question at WikiProject Music, but nobody has responded. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, if they have sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources they are notable. The majority don't seem to receive this coverage.--Michig (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Use Pitchfork instead of Pitchfork Media

Pitchfork is a magazine owned by Pitchfork Media. I propose that in album articles we refer to the magazine as Pitchfork notwithstanding decisions made here (or not) about the Pitchfork Media page itself. Pitchfork is the music magazine and not any other media websites associated with Pitchfork Media.

This is really no different than how we have to disambiguate Spin. Also, it's no different to how the media property should be used in references and not the copyright holder. For example, Entertainment Weekly not Time Inc, who is the copyright holder.

-- J. Wong (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the confusion stems from the fact that their original url was pitchforkmedia.com, and if I recall correctly they used to refer to themselves as Pitchfork Media in their title banner and other places. It seems that they now have 2 urls: pitchforkmedia.com and pitchfork.com, with identical content, and that they've shorted the title banner to just Pitchfork (Pitchfork Media Inc. being the name of the publishing company; see the bottom of the webpage). So I agree that the title of the online publication is just Pitchfork, but of course that presents its own problem regarding how we should disambiguate the article...I'd say (magazine), but it's not really a magazine because it's not a print publication, it's a website. For that reason Pitchfork also shouldn't be italicized. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the term "webzine" mean anything to Wikipedia? (This is a serious question, not sarcasm or anything) If so, would that then make it italicized? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. It's just a silly word for website. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we get involved with the Pitchfork Media article disambiguation. That's the responsibility of the editors for that article. All I'm suggesting is that album articles use Pitchfork when referring to the music magazine cited in references for reviews and news. And I'm fine with not italicizing the name since it is not a periodical in the normal sense of that word (although I do believe it is "published" [i.e., articles are dated and posted] daily, which means "webzine" is not a silly word for website). -- J. Wong (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Since Pitchfork Media is the publisher, it seems reasonable that cites should include that as the "|publisher=", but since the web-based magazine is called Pitchfork references in articles in both prose and the Album ratings should use that wiki-linked to the Pitchfork Media article since there isn't a separate article for the magazine. -- J. Wong (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that sounds exactly correct. And yes, "webzine" is silly...many websites date & post their articles, in fact almost every website that posts news, reviews, or other items does this: cnn.com, punknews.org, the onion, the a.v. club...none of these are "webzines". --IllaZilla (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, IllaZilla, but, I'm retracting my comment about italicization. The "|work" parameter for Template:Cite web italicizes so I think the references to the "work" by name such as Pitchfork should also be italicized and included in the cite (but not as the "|publisher"). Another example would be to the Salon website. And, if the publisher and work as wiki-linked in the cite map to the same article, then only one should be wiki-linked, which should be the work by preference.

Sites whose cites are through the publisher should not be italicized. This includes Allmusic, Robert Christgau, and Yahoo! Music. Other sites such as Pitchfork, Drowned in Sound, PopMatters, and Salon are publications (admittedly partly because they characterize themselves as such).

So Allmusic, Robert Christgau, and Yahoo! Music should only specify the "|publisher". Salon and Pitchfork should specify the "|work", which should be wiki-linked, and the publisher (Salon Media Group and Pitchfork Media, resp.), which should not. And unless there is a separate publisher, the others should just specify "|work".

I'm going to give this another couple of weeks for comment before I change the WP:REVSIT page to reflect the consensus so get your votes in now!

-- J. Wong (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Album cover artist

See Template talk:Infobox album#Album cover artist for discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Beware of Allmusic Non-reviews

I really should have said something about this a lot sooner, but I've noticed something while working on the WP:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space project. Many articles are on albums that have no reviews cited, either because the album is too old to be covered by online review publications, or because it hasn't been reviewed by any notable ones. So for lack of any actual reviews, editors would often put a link to the article's Allmusic entry in the "reviews" section of the infobox, just so that there would be something there. Allmusic rates albums independently of reviewing them(this is why you'll often see overwhelmingly positive reviews accompanied by 1 or 2 star ratings, or overwhelmingly negative reviews accompanied by 4 or 5 star ratings), so editors even had a legit rating they could include.

The problem is that many editors helping with the project are simply moving the infobox reviews to the ratings template without using prose to summarize the reviews. This means that in many cases, they're wasting their time moving and reformatting citations for reviews that don't actually exist. I've already stumbled on a couple of articles with a new ratings template that simply links to a blank Allmusic entry.

So, I'm just putting out this bit of advice to everyone else helping with the project: Before you waste your time moving that review rating, click that link and make sure there's an actual review there.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I had noticed the discrepancy between prose reviews and star ratings long ago, but would not have guessed it was as widespread as you describe. In my experience, it is definitely the exception rather than the rule, but if the 2 are indeed independent of one another, well, that's about as useful as a football bat. I suppose it's worth noting that the early, print Allmusic books didn't use starred reviews at all (just one star or circle to indicate something especially noteworthy), though presumably some of those same prose reviews are now on the website. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that such discrepancies are terribly widespread; by "often", I was just trying to make clear that it wasn't something I've seen only once or twice.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed it, too. It's pretty pointless to add such reviews to the articles, because putting the reviews there without the rating or any review does not say anything about the album's feedback. All it says is that a page on Allmusic exists about the album, and not much else. These bad links were on some pages for Merzbow albums, and I don't know how many are left there, if any. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We should always remember that the ratings is mostly unimportant. The important thing is the prose describing the critical reception of the album. The ratings box is just a convenience, and if one suspects that in one specific case a review is mismatched with the rating (and I can't say this is very common, though I did see it more than once) I would suggest that one does not list the rating, but does describe the actual critical reception. This is, at least, my opinion about what we are trying to do here. --Muhandes (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen some 2 star reviews saying more positive things than 4 star reviews, so there's a fair bit of error in Alllmusic's ratng system. It's not really for us to judge whether the rating is incorrect, so perhaps Allmusic should be left out of the ratings box, with perhaps just some quotes from the review in the relevant prose section?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

ALBUMCAPS

I would like to get a clarification on this issue, because there are examples of the use of what are considered inappropriate capitalizations but these are the forms that exist in all reliable sources, and WP:MOSTM states that Wikipedia should not make up new forms for page titles but use forms that exist in reliable sources (particularly in the Japanese market). The examples are:

• Journey Through the Decade, which is exclusively known as "Journey through the Decade", and two attempts to rectify this forced change based on this MOS to set it as an avoidance of the rules here have been shut down because WP:ALBUMCAPS is apparently an unbreakable rule.
• And while we don't have an article on it, this song titled "Leave all Behind", is also apparently a wrong title.

So what is to be done concerning this aspect? I am not raising this at WP:MOS-JA because there is nothing there that concerns capitalization of particular words (they only concern ALL CAPS or no caps). So should Wikipedia continue enforce this rule that has conflicts within its own style guides?—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We should perhaps specify that ALBUMCAPS is a style guide for English titles. Other-language titles (incl. translations) traditionally follow other rules, usually those of the language in question. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

But these titles are written in English, despite being for Japanese musical groups. Should WP:MOS-JA come up with its own rules for this subcase? Because this particular guideline was brought up regarding the title of Journey Through the Decade.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case my gut reaction is that English titles should follow ALBUMCAPS. I've seen countless cases where the "sources" (ie. various places 'round the internet: allmusic, amazon, etc) used wonky, inconsistent, or just plain wrong capitalization, which is why we have a Manual of Style in the first place: to make sure our articles are consistent with each other and with the standards of academic English, not to make them consistent with the whims of the interwebs. Cases like these are precisely why we need a MoS in the first place. IAR notwithstanding, there's really no good reason why an English title shouldn't follow the capitalization standards of academic English. That said, I get just plain confused when it comes to non-English artists, doubly so for the Japanese stuff. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

However, is it really the "whims of the interwebs" or varying style guides on other websites if the label has printed on the cover a specific way?—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I couldn't even count for you the number of albums I own where "the label has printed on the cover a certain way" that is totally against the normal style conventions of academic English (all-caps, all-lowercase, all words begin with capitals, only some words capitalized, etc.). Again, that's exactly why we have a Manual of Style. MOS:TM is pretty much the overriding guideline here: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'." --IllaZilla (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So you are automatically throwing out any reliably sourced stylizations for a particular title because of personal experience? Shouldn't the fact that if only some words in the title are capitalized mean that the title was meant to be written that way? And WP:MOSTM also states that "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". Should the uncapitalization of the word "through" or the word "all" be considered non-standard English or just non-standard English when it comes to our internal style guide?—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Our style guide is based on published and long-accepted academic style guides such as The Elements of Style. As previously mentioned, "reliably sourced" stylizations vary: do you go by how it appears on the cover, how you find it capitalized on certain websites, or how it's capitalized in print magazines? Outside the academic world (in the wild, as it were) the standards of English are often ignored or simply unknown and so capitalization, stylization, and grammar vary wildly. Here in the encyclopedia, however, we have standards: they are outlined in our Manual of Style and are the same standards widely used throughout the English-using academic world. If you don't like taht these standards differ from the way the title appears on this particular album, I'm sorry, but I don't see why this is an exception to the standards. As for "Shouldn't the fact that if only some words in the title are capitalized mean that the title was meant to be written that way?", this is exactly what is addressed by MOS:TM: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official". From the standpoint of an encyclopedia, it does not matter how the artist or record label wrote the title on the cover; They don't decide the rules of English capitalization. This is why MOS:TM says editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. Throwing the standards out and saying "just capitalize everything as it appears on the album covers" would be bucking standard English in favor of inventing a new style, which is precisely what MOS:TM discourages. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read, and others have read, that line such that "you should only use forms of the name that have existed, and not make up new forms of the name that have never been used outside of Wikipedia". So which is it?—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but that sounds kind of weasely. Where's that line? I don't see anything like that in MOS:TM. Regardless, using proper capitalization in lieu of improper is not "making up new forms of the name". I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying any of your arguments. I don't see why this article shouldn't follow the same standards that the countless other articles we have on albums that have wrong capitalizations printed on their covers follow. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, going by conventional capitalizations backed by MOS:TM is not making up a new capitalization. It's just adhering to standard English practices. Using capitalizations as they are printed on the CD or in the media would make too much of a mess, so the set guidelines are here to determine ultimately what the capitalizations should be like. There have been previous discussions about this capitalization rule, and they have ended the same way: MOS:TM stays, while media (using the term "media" generically) capitalizations remain irrelevant. I frankly don't get what is so controversial about that. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 23:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

But how is it a "wrong capitalization" when the capitalization is used universally (outside of the English Wikipedia) when it is just one word that is not being capitalized? Why should the T in "through" or the A in "all" be capitalized on our articles on the subject when every single reliable source out there specifically does not?—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see what you're saying there. However, I would believe that the MOS:TM guidelines would still apply. MOS:TM depends on standard English procedures, and is meant to be definitive for all relevant circumstances. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And yet I have been told at one point that MOSTM does not apply to titles of music.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Since one of the edits first mentioned here, I figured I should comment here. "Journey Through the Decade" is at its correct location and "Leave All Behind" should be listed this way due to standard English capitalizaitons. If albums and songs are going to be written in English, then they should be follow these standard English capitalizations as can be seen on the numerous Wikipedia MoS pages. Aspects (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

But reliable sources go against what you and this particular guideline are proscribing. If all reliable sources use a particular title, shouldn't that be used per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOSTM over this style guide?—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the guidelines have stated that conventional capitalization is the way to go. I know it may be inconvenient, but the guidelines are here to administer consistency and uniformity of the English language. The reliable sources and the artist intent are not factors in English language standards. Also, while MOSTM may or may not apply to albums, as has been commented on earlier, WP:ALBUMCAPS certainly does. With all due respect, I think it's time to drop that stick; capitalizations shouldn't be as big of a deal anyways, and I'd rather discuss more important issues. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry if I'm trying to seek to change the consensus on this project.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to point something out here: Ryulong, you keep saying that "all reliable sources" use this nonstandard capitalization. I don't see how you can possibly know this. Even if you could, it's not practical to apply such a rule to titles. We'd have to dig up every source on the subject, in print and online, and do a letter-by-letter comparison of how the title is printed in each source in order to determine whether or not we should use standard capitalization rules for that title. That's more research and fact-checking than goes into a Class A article, all just to satisfy the rules for capitalizing the title. I can't see editors bothering with this when it's so easy to just go by the standard English rules.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I can most certainly prove that any reliable sources concerning these Japanese EPs utilize the capitalization I have stated that they do. There is clearly a reason why the covers of these state "Journey through the Decade" and "Leave all Behind", as do the online retailers and the music news sites. This isn't a case where everything's written in all capital letters or no capital letters are used. It is a specific situation where a specific word has not been capitalized within the title, but other words do have initial capitals. Why should this not be reflected on the English Wikipedia?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

See, when you make broad claims like that, all it takes is 1 example to disprove them, eg. [1] [2] [3] --IllaZilla (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"All reliable sources" is indeed an over-generalization. Nice work on finding those pages, IllaZilla. I should have said something about the vagueness of that phrase and similar phrases anyways. But the WP:ALBUMCAPS are meant for uniformity for this type of situation. Also, on the album cover, the title is phrased as "leave all behind" with lowercases, yet that's not how it's written on Wikipedia, now is it? Now, how does it sound to move on with the rest of our lives? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

IllaZilla and Backtable, that is not the song with the words "leave", "all", and "behind" in the title that I am discussing. That is "leave all behind" by Yu Yamada from 2008. I was bringing up "Leave all Behind" by Wilma-Sidr a.k.a. Defspiral from 2010. And English language websites such as All Music, Amazon.com, and MTV.com should not be used as sources for music that is not from the English-speaking world. Presumably, sources from the originating language in question should be utilized, and it most certainly serves as an easier way to disambiguate between the songs where leave all behind is on one and Leave all Behind is on the other. Now, I understand that all lowercase names are not proper, and if an article were to be written on the Yu Yamada song, I would expect it to be located at Leave All Behind. However, when we have a very specific lack of capitalization when there is otherwise standard capitalization for the Wilma-Sidr/Defspiral song, why shouldn't we use that as the title?

And I find it entirely un-wiki-like to dismiss my claims so quickly. I am looking to make an exception to the rules if there is a clear and explicit and minor deviation from the norm, and all you are telling me is "Stop bothering us with this bullshit and deal with it."—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be no good reason to make an exception here. Ryulong, you've made the following claim: "There is clearly a reason why the covers of these state "Journey through the Decade" and "Leave all Behind"". But you have not provided that reason for us, backed up by a reliable source (even then, there's no guarantee it will allow an exception here). You also suggest that we should trust sites written in Japanese (the origin of these albums), but I don't see a good reason to trust another language to get English capitalization rules right. WP:ALBUMCAPS is very specific: for "titles of...albums...in the English language", follow the outlined rules. "Journey Through the Decade" and "Leave All Behind" are both in the English language, therefore those rules apply. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If I may make an understatement, this is ridiculous. The ALBUMCAPS rule has NO EXCEPTIONS for the English language. Also, what is that special reason why it's capitalized like that? The traditional capitalization is "Leave All Behind", no matter what sources or packaging says otherwise. Also, I disagree with the notion that "English language websites... should not be used as sources for music that is not from the English-speaking world". What is someone who only knows English wants to know more about any albums by Finntroll or Moonsorrow? Would they go to the native language source and have to read a poorly translated page spawning from the source? Anyways, I don't want to repeat myself here over something that is so insignificant as capital letters, and the persistence over said minor non-issue is disruptive. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 02:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right MM. I do not have a reliable source to back up the reason. All I know is that I have reliable sources that show that the other stylizations are more prevalent. And this is not a source for proper English capitalization, but accurate capitalization of the name of the subject of an article, regardless of whether or not it is "proper" within the guidelines that this WikiProject has put forth. And, as an aside Backtable, there is absolutely no information on any of the websites that IllaZilla provided concerning the Yu Yamada song, so why should they be considered reliable sources over websites written in Japanese which give out much more information? Surely, someone reputable has discussed Finntroll and Moonsorrow in English. But in the case of the song that came up outside of the examples I put forward, it appears no one has. And I find it an extremely poor failure of WP:AGF to assume that I am trying to disrupt the project to make a point. I am merely trying to set forth to make exceptions to the usually strict rules that this project has that are very often in the way of several writers.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Well, this is the sort of situation that WP:ALBUMCAPS exists for. English capitalization rules apply to English album/song titles, regardless of the capitalization appearing on the album cover or sources covering the album. Pretty straightforward. I don't think an exception is likely to be granted here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

But does it extend to Japanese album/song titles that use exclusively English in the title?—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It does. It's meant to address all English titles of albums and songs, regardless of where those songs were made or where they are popular at. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 08:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(undent)Just to let everyone know, Ryulong started a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Song/album titles that conflict with WP:ALBUMCAPS, so everyone that offered an opinion here should also offer their opinion there. Aspects (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For any interested parties, I have brought this discussion up on the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. I have posted there so that this discussion, which has now moved to said MAnual of Style talk page, can end and all parties involved can move on with their lives. Anyone can feel free to post there, as long as the frivolous argument of capitals and lowercases doesn't continue. Thank you. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bot stopped moving reviews from infobox

Is there a reson that the bot stopped moving the reviews from the infobox? With >19,000 to go it's going to take a quite a while to do it manually. J04n(talk page) 15:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that the productivity has slowed down as well, but I didn't know for sure that the bot stopped. I'm not in charge of the bot, but I still occasionally move the reviews. I hope this thing gets fixed soon, but at least we're not in a position where people keep adding the reviews to the infobox, like we used to be, if I'm correct. But that would indeed take a while to sort out manually. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Tim1357 was running that bot. Someone could drop him a line. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

French charts

Anybody know a good reference for the French music charts? The official Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique website doesn't seem to archive their chart listings.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't like lescharts.com? It's pointed to at WP:GOODCHARTS, part of an entire page with pointers to charts, archives, certs pages, etc., of the good and bad varieties. HTH, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgot about that one. Yeah, that's a very good resource, but its archives apparently only go back 20 years; everything prior to that is registered as not having charted. And at the moment I'm looking for chart information on two songs from the 1970s.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, sorry, no can help. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A-Class

Where would I go if I wanted to get an A-Class assessment review for Entre a Mi Mundo and Selena Live!? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The A-Class assessment is not covered under WikiProject Albums. See WP:ALBUMA. Erick (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Please see here Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Justin, I don't see any discussions; what are the issues? I don't see why an infobox for the video collection should be left out. Radiopathy •talk• 19:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion To the extent that there's been any, it's in edit summaries for reverting--no actual discussion yet. In my last edit summary, I said I would post for feedback per WP:BRD. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The return of the album ratings bot

Good news, folks. The album ratings bot is back. Hopefully this is the start of the final phase, where the bot moves most or all of the rest of the reviews from the album infobox to the album ratings template. The bot is now adding a References section to articles that didn't have one, which is needed to display the ratings references as footnotes. Everyone is encouraged to check the bot's latest batch of about 700 articles, here, and to leave any feedback in this talk page section. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not bad. In fact really good. Only thing is, shouldn`t the template be in a reception section? Zidane tribal (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

By previous agreement, the bot will place the template in a reception section if the article already has one. Otherwise it just puts the template after the infobox. The job of the bot is to move the ratings. If humans want to add a prose reception section to an article that doesn't have one, so much the better. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. Really good work. Zidane tribal (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Only if there is an existing reception section. If there isn't a | noprose = yes should be included and it should be left after the infobox and before the lede. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Is http://audiopinions.net reliable?

http://audiopinions.net doesn't seem to have any paid staff and the reviews feel more like blogs, but some editors at Hats Off to the Bull are including it as a review. Should it stay or go? This was originally added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Review Lists

Per the discussion above, I'm proposing to add "best of" and "greatest" lists to WP:REVSIT. The acceptability of lists in album articles is specified in WP:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body#Critical_reception, but essentially the requirement is that the list include prose discussing the albums placed on it, preferably the album in question, and that the editor include a quote from that review or otherwise reference it. That is, it's just like any other review.

Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone has published several lists that can be referenced.

The first proposed list is the Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time as follows:

• Levy, Joe (2006) [2005]. "334 | Wild Gift - X". Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (3rd ed.). London: Turnaround. ISBN 1932958614. OCLC 70672814. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

If referenced, preferably including a quote, this should be cited using a Template:cite book to the book and specifying the list position using the chapter parameter identifying the list position, album, and artist with the chapterurl parameter specifying the active url on the Rolling Stone web site to that listing.

There was a book published somewhat as a counterbalance to the RS500 list, but it qualifies as a minority opinion especially because many of the reviewers included in their own personal ten best albums lists those being reviewed negatively by another reviewer.

---more to come---

-- J. Wong (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the text for those who prefer the copy & paste method. All you need to do is complete the chapter= and chapterurl= parameters as mentioned above.

<ref>{{cite book |chapter= |chapterurl= |last=Levy |first=Joe |coauthors=Steven Van Zandt |title=[[Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time]] |origyear=2005 |edition=3rd |year=2006 |publisher=Turnaround |location=London |isbn=1932958614 |oclc=70672814 }}</ref>

—Senator2029 | talk 13:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's another list associated with Rolling Stone, but one that was never published in the magazine itself. It was included in a book about the 1990's called "The '90s" authored by the editors of the magazine. The citations are available on the website for Rolling Stone so this should use a Template:cite book for the book with an additional Template:cite web for the citation noted as such ("Citation posted at "):

• "The 100 Greatest Albums of the '90s". The '90s: The Inside Stories from the Decade That Rocked. Harper Design. 2010. pp. 282–297. ISBN 978-0061779206. Citation posted at "100 Best Albums of the Nineties: 49 | Sleater-Kinney, 'Call the Doctor'". rollingstone.com. Retrieved 24 November. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Or in copy/paste form where you add the relevant citation to the the |title= and provide the direct |url= values in the Template:cite web part of the reference:

<ref name=RS2010>{{Cite book |title=The '90s: The Inside Stories from the Decade That Rocked |year=2010 |pages=282–297 |chapter=The 100 Greatest Albums of the '90s |publisher=[[Harper Collins|Harper Design]] |isbn=978-0061779206}} Citation posted at {{Cite web |work=rollingstone.com |title=100 Best Albums of the Nineties: |url= |accessdate={{Date|}} }} Posted on April 27, 2011.</ref>

—J. Wong (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Pitchfork

Pitchfork has posted a series of staff lists. Here's an example from the "Top 100 Albums of the 1990s":

• Mitchum, Rob (November 17, 2003). "Top 100 Albums of the 1990s: 053: Weezer Pinkerton". Pitchfork. Pitchfork Media. Retrieved 8 March 2007.

I'm guessing the album position is decided by the staff as a whole while write-ups for each individual albums are written by a specific person. Since lists are just like reviews, you should (hopefully) be quoting it, and the author should be specified in the cite.

Or it copy & paste text and all you need to do is insert the first=, last=, url=, and accessdate=, and append the position (leading zero per Pitchfork practice), artist, and italicized album title to the given title. The url= should be to the page on which the album is listed not the main page for the list (unless that's where the album is listed).

<ref>{{Cite web |work=[[Pitchfork Magazine|Pitchfork]] |publisher=Pitchfork Media |date=November 17, 2003 |first=|last=|title=Top 100 Albums of the 1990s: |url=http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/5923-top-100-albums-of-the-1990s |accessdate={{date|}} }}</ref>

Here's the same for the other decades that they have covered:

<ref>{{Cite web |work=[[Pitchfork Magazine|Pitchfork]] |publisher=Pitchfork Media |date=June 23, 2004 |first=|last=|title=Top 100 Albums of the 1970s: |url=http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/5932-top-100-albums-of-the-1970s/ |accessdate={{date|}} }}</ref>

<ref>{{Cite web |work=[[Pitchfork Magazine|Pitchfork]] |publisher=Pitchfork Media |date=November 20, 2002 |first=|last=|title=Top 100 Albums of the 1980s: |url=http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/5882-top-100-albums-of-the-1980s/ |accessdate={{date|}} }}</ref>

Since 2000 they've been publishing a "Top 20" for each year. The format should be the same.

-- J. Wong (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Immortal (Michael Jackson album)

Hi, I'm wanting to see if this group can provide guidance on the Immortal (Michael Jackson album) Talk page. There has been a dispute as to the album covers to use for the article. ADKIc3mAnX has insisted that both the original and deluxe album covers are necessary, User:Gabe19 has been removing it due to WP:FUC 3A "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I personally don't have a strong conviction to keeping or removing it, but the covers aren't significantly different (they differ in color and subtle background changes). The original album is File:Michael_jackson_immortal_album_cover.jpg and the deluxe is File:Immortal_Deluxe_Edition_Slipcase.jpg. The article page has been locked for 3 days until this matter is resolved (due to an editing war), but I'd like to have additional input from other users so that when the page is unlocked we can have the matter resolved appropriately. Thanks! (Brent.austin (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC))

I removed the album cover images from your post because they're copyrighted images that can only be used in fair-use situations. To answer your question, the deluxe edition can be conveyed in words: "the deluxe album cover is a blue version" or similar. I don't immediately notice any other differences; therefore, minimal usage comes into play and only one cover can be allowed. This is more of an issue, I think, if the article were to be taken to B-class, GA, or FA levels, as well. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I couldn't figure out how to link the file without using the image. =\ Now I know though... Thanks for the feedback! (Brent.austin (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

There you go, now it doesn't look like an off-wiki link. Just put a : in front of the File:filename.jpg, linked normally, so that it looks like [[:File:filename.jpg]]. :) Banaticus (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Track list templates/bonus tracks

Don't know if this is the right place, but I was just wondering if there is some rule about not splitting off bonus tracks into their own little collapsible template sections? I came across an issue where my edits to the Devin Townsend/Strapping Young Lad albums were being reverted because they were considered "unnecessary". I personally think bonus tracks from special/deluxe/limited editions and re-issues, should be separated from the album proper, as it creates two different albums lengths. Plus I think it makes it look simpler and aesthetically better looking, and I've seen plenty of other album articles do the same thing. So what I'm wondering is are my edits valid or am I in the wrong? I don't want to get into a whole edit war thingHellboy42 (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about this sort of thing I believe. To me it looks perfectly fine. In my view it's preferable for the article to distinguish between the tracks on the original version of the album and the bonus tracks, whether the track listing is a simple numbered list or it uses the Tracklist template. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've always used separate templates for bonus tracks, and generally collapsed them. This seems to be a good way to distinguish between the original album, or album proper, and extra tracks that are only on certain editions or later re-releases. 21st Century Breakdown#Track listing is an example of this. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If the base release of the album contains the bonus tracks, some CDs used to do that over their vinyl or cassette releases, then they should not be split-off. If the base release does not contain them, and a digital download or "special edition" adds them they should be split-off. Seems odd that the CD is preferred though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. CDs have been the predominant physical format for at least the last 20 years. When different versions have different tracklists (ie. extra tracks inserted into the running order as opposed to simply tacked on at the end), then having multiple tracklistings is fine. Examples: Liveage!, Neighborhoods, and Rock for Light. I find this often with releases of the late '80s/early '90s, when many albums were released on vinyl, cassette, and CD. Even with the predominance of the digital format in the last decade, bonus tracks are generally just tacked onto the end rather than interspersed amongst the "regular" tracks. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that bonus tracks should be separate. However, I'm not certain about CDs being the dominant format for 20+ years. I would say from around 1993 they were. Up till then I always put track listings how they originally were - ie. Side One and Side Two as per Vinyl and Cassette, after that I would list as one as per CD release. I've tried to find consensus for this before. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In my view the album as originally released should be the "base" for track listings, regardless of format. For example if an album was released on LP in the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s, then later rereleased on CD with additional tracks, the extra tracks on the CD should be considered bonus tracks, and preferably listed separately or with some notation. In fact I've seen the tracks listed this way in many articles. Of course there would be other cases that are more complicated, and those should be handled however it makes the most sense. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason I think bonus tracks should not be separate is because of Template:Track listing, which under the explanation of the "Note" parameter it says it is "Useful...to denote bonus tracks only included in certain editions". To me this sounds like splitting them is unnecessary, because they can easily be understood to be part of the "bonus tracks" (as is noted in the "Note" parameter). I also think it looks like original research to split them off, as it makes it look like there is a second disc with only, say, 2 songs, that start at tracks 12 and 13. The only time I think it makes sense to split them off is in the case of multiple versions with bonus tracks, such as Alien (album).

As for the argument that it makes "different album lengths", Template:Track listing even suggests that using the "total_length" parameter is generally unnecessary. If anything, I'd say to put the full length of the album plus all bonus tracks in the un-split template, and keep the original length in the infobox (which is pretty much what Template:Track listing says to do anyway).

Lastly, about collapsing them, does two lists really constitute "several lists"? Yes, it's more than one, but to me "several lists" means something like having 4 or 5 (or more) tracklists that take up a large amount of space in comparison to the rest of the article. I don't think collapsing one set of 2 or 4 bonus tracks is really necessary. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So I should be okay in reverting the changes back to how I had them?Hellboy42 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Listing the bonus tracks in a separate track listing template is definitely not original research. It also doesn't make the bonus tracks look like a separate disc. To me it's preferable because it makes it more obvious which tracks were on the original release and which are bonus tracks. But with that being said, using the notes parameter of the track listing template is also okay for annotating the bonus tracks. In my opinion neither way is right or wrong. (Examples to compare and contrast: separate template, using notes) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. For me, listing the bonus tracks as separate is preferable in the vast majority of cases. One obvious exception is when the bonus tracks are interspersed with the "normal" tracks, in which case I think you should either use the notes parameter or perhaps use individual track listings for each release. But of course, it's all a matter of stylistic preference. In the cases you're talking about, I think listing the bonus tracks as separate makes by far the most sense, since different editions have different bonus tracks, so using a single track listing results in incorrect numbering of the bonus tracks. [4] is a good example of how the track listings for those articles would best look.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't say it is original research, just that it looks like original research. I just think it looks really strange to split them off when it isn't necessary; as I said, it looks like the tracks are separate from the disc, which they aren't. Only if there's multiple versions of bonus tracks is it preferable.

Anyway, to be honest I don't see a good reason to split them off if they're already set one way, if there's only one "bonus track version". If a new article sets them up that way, or the first time they're put into the tracklist template they're set up that way, I can leave it be, but if it's already been set as one list, splitting them off for the sake of splitting them off is still unnecessary, and I'll continue to revert such meaningless changes (such as in these SYL cases). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So despite a consensus of 7 other people who say that the the splitting of bonus tracks/separate release tracks is valid, your say is all that matters and are going to just keep reverting. Did I read that right? You're right and everyone else is wrong about this?Hellboy42 (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't have one preference over the other, but I think that whatever consensus declares is all right. I've seen both those styles and haven't objected to either. However, I have sometimes adjusted track listing formats to avoid redundancy and clumsiness. From my perspective, as long as there isn't unnecessary track listing repetition, it should be all right, I guess. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No Hellboy, you have not read that right. What I see is several editors who think both ways are valid (true, not all editors, but I think a compromise is not unreasonable here). Generally in cases like this, where either way can be considered OK, it's the first-used version that stays. Examples being date formatting (whether it's 14 December 2011 or December 14, 2011) or UK/US spelling (colour vs. color). Thus, in a case like this, where the combined list was originally used, it should stay. If a new article (or article newly using the tracklist template) uses the split version, then that should stay.

Of course, the simplest way to solve this is for everyone to make a concrete decision and write it up on the main project page under a Track listings heading: "Track lists with bonus tracks (should/should not) have the bonus tracks split off" or "Track lists can have the bonus tracks split off or not, stick with whichever style was used first on that article". Make it official and consistent within the project, whatever the best way is. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to muddy the waters even further, but how to list the bonus tracks should not be based only on "who got there first". For example, suppose an artist has ten album articles, with nine created one way and one created the other. Making them all consistent with each other would be a valid reason to change the one that was different, I think. And there could be other reasons for changing an existing one, for clarity, as previously mentioned in this section. On the other hand, sticking with whatever style was used first on that article is a valid reason too. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a tough one, to be sure. I'll never argue against splitting off an initially unsplit list to support multiple bonus-track versions (like Alien (album)). Honestly, if a guideline was written up for the project page that completely goes against what I've said, I'll support it (passively, I won't actively go out of my way to change track lists, but I won't get in the way of others doing the same). I've always thought this project page could use more guidelines to help make all album articles more consistent anyway. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

CfD Nomination :Songs produced by Sufjin Stevens

Although not related to albums, I thought my nomination may have an effect on here. Please see my reasons for nomination at CfD. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Linking to sites containing legal streamed copies of albums

This has been raised before with favourable if cautious response - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_41#Linking_to_Source_Material and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_38#Album_streams_in_EL, and there is a discussion happening now at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Clarification_that_ELYES.232_includes_recordings. We have historically been cautious about linking to sites that contain copyright material in case of violations; however, with licensed streaming, this is now a viable option that offers an encyclopedic asset, and there are going to be increasing possibilities to create links to legal and appropriate sites. MySpace offers legal streaming alongside the option to buy. Some people are uncertain about bundling together the commercial and the educational, however the sound quality is good, it appears to play in all regions, and commercialism is wrapped up in music production; indeed, normally the only way one would get to legally hear an album whenever you want is to actually buy it. Added to MySpace is Radio3Net, an internet radio website owned by the Romanian government which legally hosts a large number of albums, including all those in the 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die book. Radio3Net is not licensed for all territories, though covers those in which the majority of en.Wiki users live. We are discussing at EL the appropriate wording to use when linking to Radio3Net and MySpace, which would also apply to other such sites. Suggestions are:

• Live at Leeds (25th Anniversary Edition) (Adobe Flash) at Myspace (streamed copy where licensed)
• Live at Leeds (Adobe Flash) at Radio3Net (streamed copy where licensed)

Along with a hidden: <!-- This is a licensed stream for the album, which is allowed under Wikipedia polices -->

What are people's thoughts on this? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• +1 from me. I believe all the issues have been addressed except for WP:ELNO#EL7. And to re-iterate (and make a small correction), Myspace has not licensed the streams in all regions. It is available in the U.S.A. Someone in Europe could access it from their country. Someone elsewhere could not. This is the issue the editors here are being asked to resolve: Is access sufficiently widespread to most English language users to support providing these links in the album articles knowing that some (hopefully small) number of users will not be able to access them?
• — J. Wong (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• I think it would be useful. Often, it is difficult to find a band or the band's songs for download or streaming, and this would allow users to save time on searching. I understand that some people would have difficulty if their country restricts access to certain sites or domains, but most users would be able to go, and I think the benefits of having a link outweigh having a link that some users cannot access. The difficulty we may run into is promotion. For instance, if there are 3 websites out there all with licensed, legal streaming/downloading of music, are we to link to all 3 websites? I would say yes in fear of promoting just one. Mentioned above and below is Radio3Net. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be not a promoting site, and if we favor one site over another, we could run into issues. I understand that one site might have more content than another, but caution must be made when choosing to which site we link. That all said, if this this is agreed upon and we decide to do it, I suggest that a template be created so that we have consistency in the look/feel of the links. Rlholden (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the point about linking to more than one site is worth considering. If nothing else, it gives people choice of access; and I have noticed that there are variations. Some of the Myspace album streams do not contain all the tracks, or have them in the wrong order, or only play samples; however, the quality is good. Radio3Net has the entire albums, but the quality may not be so good.

The template sounds useful, though I'm not good with templates, so I'd leave that to someone else.

And I wonder if the linking depends on the region. So if I'm linking to Myspace from the UK, would that mean only users from the UK could access the link; and if someone is linking from the USA, would only users from that region be able to directly access the link? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to setting up a guideline?

• We've looked at the issues, and where the albums are streamed by a licensed website (such as Radio3Net) or are hosted on an official website, such as an official Myspace page or directly on a band's or record company's own website, it is within Wikipedia policy to link to the music with a note regarding the media used ("Adobe Flash"), and that it may not be available in all regions ("streamed copy where licensed"). Links to online recordings are already done for classical music articles - Symphony No. 5 (Mahler), Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven), Symphony for Organ No. 5 (Widor), Symphony No. 5 (Shostakovich), Symphony No. 5 (Sibelius), etc.
• As there is a clear encyclopaedic value in linking to a legal copy of the recording being discussed, it would be of benefit to encourage users to do this where possible, and to set up a guideline for how and when to do this in an appropriate manner. We would not want people linking to illegal sites.
• The remaining doubt is in the regional restrictions. The music would not be accessible by all users. It would be accessible by most users, but not by those in restricted zones (which would mainly be outside the English language countries). Is the benefit of having access to the music for most users outweighed by the fact that some users will follow a link to find the music is not playable in their region?
• The question is: would there be an objection to setting up a guideline for use of links to streamed albums, based on the fact that not all users would be able to access the music? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

While it would be unfortunate about not all the users being able to access some sites, I do not want to oppose this guideline. I think the guideline to add these links would be somewhat helpful, at least to the people who can access them. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a draft of the guideline yet? I would like to take a look at it.
I think that some templates (e.g.: {{Listen live}}; {{External media}}; {{YouTube}}; {{Google videos}}; Category:Radio external link templates; Category:Television external link templates) should also be considered and provided with the necessary instructions and support in a case-by-case basis.
"Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere" ... Ready Steady Go! (1965) ... for the guideline. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Pjoef. Those templates are interesting - I wasn't aware of them. I'll draw up a guideline shortly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The templates seem to be for direct links to the media. Unfortunately, and this is an objection others have had to these sites (but I don't), the links are to pages from where you can access the stream, but not directly to the stream itself. -- J. Wong (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I would support this becoming codified, though it should be short and simple, so it is easily understood to the many casual editors that operate in the project, that really are more fans than they are Wikipedians. In addition, it should also be made very clear that these links should only exist unobtrusively in the external links.

That being said, and I'm not sure where I stand on the issue myself, but the fact remains that even if something is free doesn't mean that it is not a commercial product. The streaming licenses are supported by page hits and advertizing revenue. I can see many users becoming upset if these links start cropping up, as it could be construed as advertizing. Personally I don't see any difference between this and an article on a browser game linking to the game website, but I could understand where the objections could come from. —Akrabbim^talk 13:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the commercialization is no worse than that experienced when linking to a reference article (e.g., a review) at a site such as rollingstone.com or time.com, which we do all the time. -- J. Wong (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agree that this would be useful. :) Maybe what we could do is, once a guideline is up and running, publicize it at WT:EL to see if there are objections and, if so, if we can work through them? I like the idea; it seems like a plus for those readers who can access it. I would certainly enjoy the feature myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed at WT:EL already where the consensus was that it's pretty much up to us to decide if we want to allow these links on the album articles. The only outstanding issue that we need to consider is the restricted availability of these streams. -- J. Wong (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

So that would mean we would need to define some sort of rough threshold for "substantial number of users". I wouldn't be surprised if most streamable albums would not be acceptable, if they are only available in the US and UK, or something like that. —Akrabbim^talk 16:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The reach of MySpace is substantial - [5]. The main areas of non-access are Africa, and some parts of Asia and the Middle East. So MySpace shouldn't be a problem. In general, as this is the en.wiki, I think it would be appropriate to put in the guideline that the streaming site should, as minimum, be accessible by the main English regions - North America, UK and Australia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have put a live draft on the project page - WP:MUSICSTREAM. I think we should check that over and trial it for a while before adding anything to MOS:MUSIC. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Not keen on the suggestion for the HTML comment. In page justification is bad precedent. Rich Farmbrough, 16:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC).
  

Thanks for your input Rich. Can you rephrase or expand on your comment? I don't follow your meaning. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to update "Template:Roadrunner United"

I would like to make an invitation to update Template:Roadrunner United, as adding all of the musicians and ensembles could be quite time consuming. How can I go about doing so?--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Live vs video

Is there any guideline or consensus as to what defines an album as a live album or a longform music video? What category do concert DVDs fall under? —Andrew_stalk

Live albums have to be available in a CD format to be considered a live album. If they are not, they would be labelled as a video. Think of it this way: if something is just released in a DVD/Blu-ray format, how could it possibly be a live album? — Status {^talk_contribs 06:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

But, yeah. There isn't a guideline. xD One should probably be created though... This stuff can get messy. — Status {^talk_contribs 07:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

"Album" just means 'a collection'. There is no audio-only facet implied. —Andrew_stalk 08:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• An album would need to be a gramophone record, cassette, compact disc, or mp3. The UK chart rules has this: "An album may be released on a DVD format and its sales combined with other format variants, provided, there is a chart eligible CD of the same album on general release bearing the same title as the DVD format", which shows that a DVD by itself is not considered an album. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed review site additions

Can Christianity Today (link to music section) be put on the list of review sites? They are a reputable publication, and though they deal mostly with Christian music, I think they still should be listed, just as a site dealing mostly with pop music or metal could be listed.

Also, should Cross Rhythms (site link) and HM Magazine (site link) be added? They also specialize in Christian music, but they are so widely used I think they should be mentioned.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization style

Question at WT:MOSCAPS#Composition titles concerning the guidance for capitazliation of album titles (as addressed here) and of composition titles generally; can we borrow from both bits of guidance so that both of them say the same thing and are sufficiently precise? Please comment there if possible. --Kotniski (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambig/Redirect

I messed something up. Can someone move Unlearn (Youngblood Brass Band album) to just Unlearn (album)? Jasper420 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You can request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. memphisto 22:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged it with {{db-move}}. – Fayenatic (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Consequence of Sound

Can we add Consequence of Sound to the review sites?--83.143.32.2 (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Nikthestoned 08:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Appears to have editorial oversight, and has significant coverage by reliable third party organizations, and is considered an authority on music by those organizations. Looks good to me.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The article for the website itself has mostly self refs. Does it have a large paid staff? Or just amateur contributors. Experienced staff on salary is a good enough crutch to lean on for notability. If it is like Sputnik it might have to have the added rule that only 'staff' reviews/articles would pass as valid citations... and 'user' submissions would be deleted. Just a thought. Otherwise, no issues. Mr Pyles (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Has a large staff, I assume that they are paid. Metacritic includes them as a professional review site, and it has received coverage by About.com and Technorati.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Tiny Mix Tapes?

Is there any particular reason that this site is not a part of the professional review sources list? It's listed on more than its fair share of album reviews on Wikipedia (over 500), but I'd like some clarity regarding whether or not it is necessarily a viable review source for use in articles. -Rmzy717 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

For the lead, I have several issues on which I'd like clarification:

1. In the case of different album types such as studio album, live album, EP, etc., do they need to be linked? For many years I've been consistently linking them, but there's always been a niggling hint of overlink in my mind when doing so. A definitive answer on this would be great. I mean, everyone knows what a studio album is, but then again.. perhaps not an EP.

2. Is it really necessary to include the artist's nationality in the lead? Has to be said, I'm staunchly against this practice as I don't see what purpose it serves. To me, it only encourages potentially controversial statements (i.e. British vs English vs Scottish vs Irish vs Northern Irish) which should be confined to the artist's bio, rather than an article about their music. If the reader wants to find out about their nationality, they can readily click on the bio article for more information.

3. For the type of musician(s), such as a guitarist or band/group, must that also be linked?

4. Genre-wise, what if the artist has covered multiple styles throughout their career? Example: the guitarist in question is best known for playing jazz fusion on the majority of his discography, but his first album was actually hard rock. I think it would look mighty confusing if the lead were to state "__ is a studio album by jazz fusion guitarist __", whilst the infobox states something else. Hell, that's downright silly. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

These are some good points, and I think I will answer them individually.

1. My opinion is no. The link of the album type does not need to be put in the introduction, especially if it's already linked in the infobox. Overlink would be a factor here.

2. I see what you're saying about nationality. And with the logic that you're presenting, it does seem rather unnecessary to explain the band's nationality on their albums' articles. It is a detail of the band, of course, and I know that I have regularly posted the nationality on the album pages, but the description is not ultimately required, come to think of it. While the band may be from a certain nation, is that aspect relevant to the album? I think I'll stop there before I go into overanalysis.

3. In the area of the album article where the album's line-up is described, I think it would be acceptable to link the musicians' positions the first time such positions are brought up, especially if the instrument positions are of untraditional persuasion. However, linking the instruments a second time wouldn't be needed. To demonstrate, I would approve of the following:

• Person A – vocals
• Person B – guitar, vocals
• Person C – guitar
• Person D – bass, vocals
• Person E – drums, percussion
• Person F – drums, percussion, vocals

But not:

• Person A – vocals
• Person B – guitar, vocals
• Person C – guitar
• Person D – bass, vocals
• Person E – drums, percussion
• Person F – drums, percussion, vocals

As for in the main article body, I would be fine with linking to the musician articles (preferrably if they have or can have articles), but linking their position wouldn't be as necessary, since the line-up area can take care of that. I hope I answered this question reasonably.

4. Now that sentiment I can totally agree with. I don't think the genre needs to be mentioned at all in the introduction, because the infobox (and the music style section, if there is one) can take care of that. Also, if the introduction mentions the genre, then that is simply another piece of ground for genre warriors to whine about, and I make it known that I consider genre warring despicable and shameful.

But to address your statement more directly, if a black/doom metal musician makes an ambient/post-rock album, then such a genre description of his/her/their general career would certainly be unneeded and even irrelevant.

Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 08:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, pretty much all of those answers were just what I was looking for. The only one with a bit of confusion was #3, in that I wasn't referring to linking instruments within the Personnel section. Just to clarify: in the lead section, for an opening sentence like "__ is a studio album by guitarist __" or "__ is a studio album by the band __", should the type of musician or the word "band" itself be linked? So far, in the case of a musician who plays a particular instrument (i.e. singer, keyboardist, drummer), I've always linked it. For a band, sometimes not (and I hate inconsistency). However, again I'm getting that overlinky feeling, since surely everyone knows what a guitarist or band is. To go back to the latter part of your answer, are you saying that the Personnel section takes care of the linked instrumentation, hence they don't need to be linked within the lead? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, those would definitely be WP:OVERLINK. If someone wants to know what instrument Chet Atkins played, they can click on his name and find out. And the average reader should have no problems understanding what a band is. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are we talking about? Yes these could be overlinking and too much detail depending on the article. Are we talking about an article of a Band or album or both? Because just naming the bandmembers is enough in the lead and expand further in the article, if its about an album then there is no need to mention any bandmember unless they contributed to the album in a specific area.Lucia Black (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

About the comment on the "Sêca" track

There is no jungle in the norteast part of Brasil, an area in fact afflicted periodically by droughts. Just the reverse, is a very dry area, almost desert. The "jungle" or rain forest, covers just one third of Brasil´s mainland, and is extremely humid. It´s like saying that a song is about "the snowy mountains in Florida Everglades". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.146.84.252 (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're in the right place. This is the talk page for WikiProject Albums. Are you referring to an album article? If so it would be helpful to say which article, or better yet, link to it. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Frank Zappa

This template needs some feedback over here.--WTF (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Foreign language in track listings

I have changed the documentation for Template:Track listing to suggest that:

1. foreign scripts should go in the Extra field rather than Notes, because Notes are displayed in small print and Chinese characters/kanji looked too small to be legible there (this (A) looks better than this (B));
2. unofficial English translations should be in the Notes field, where the small print may indicate that they are subordinate to the official titles in the original language.

I trust that these changes are OK, but thought I should draw them to the attention of this WikiProject.

As for whether to include English translations at all: WP:NOR#Translations and transcriptions says that faithful translation is not WP:OR. There was a discussion on this last year at WT:NOR; only one editor (Bread Ninja, now called Lucia Black) was opposed to including translations, and she did not cite any policy grounds to back her objections. – Fayenatic (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

i reverted because 1) these things need to be proposed first and be cleared up through consensus. You cant change these rules. 2) changes what the note and extra parameter were intended for. 3) contradicts the already given examples showing how kanji is being used in the note parameter. (I hope you follow BRD and not cause an edit war over the revert) The biggest reason fueling this unnecesary change is because you dont agree the foreign characters should be in small font. Which the biggest issue of adding translation to every track title not used in the prose is WP:TRIVIA. This is too close to WP:OWN.Lucia Black (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well folks, there you have a flavour of our previous inability to reach consensus. I do not consider that the provision of English translations within English wikipedia is WP:TRIVIA; it would look very odd to translate only the tracks that were referred to in the article text. I do not recognise any grounds for the new accusation of WP:OWN. Incidentally, I brought this discussion here because Lucia said she would do so but didn't. Please don't leave us to squabble now – somebody else please contribute! – Fayenatic (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

editing the faye wong album article and changing document of the template for the sake of your favor of the faye wong articles (well to be most precise in favor of your format) without proposing it yourself. You instead changed it and notified the wikiroject. You provided no issue in general except that i myself as the cause. I wouldnt bring it here in this wikiproject because i didnt intend to change the uses of the parameter but bring it to the template talkpage. Regardless i didnt have had time. Also keep the tone proffesional. It makes discussion move alot more easier. Anyways, i dont even think translation sections are needed for tracklist. Its additional aspects of what doesnt completely relate to what the article is mainly about. The tracklist itself isnt always the most important aspect of the article. In fact its not what makes it notable.

Your suggestion is mere stylistic reasons and also would mean changing alot more articles that followed the previous format would have to follow yours. For the most part it can follow how Music of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex article has said up when there is japanese title. Only difference would be the english romanization of the foreign title will still be the main title parameter, both kanji and translation would be in the same note parameter. This would resemble the nihongo template where it would go "common english title (kanji, transliteration/translation)" and putting in translation if the transliteration is the common english title.Lucia Black (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's translations that we are talking about here, then I have nothing against putting them on the articles. As long as the translations are verifiable and legitimate, there shouldn't be much of a problem. However, are we talking about translations from English to another language or from the original language to English? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 06:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if translation become supported (which is original language to english). The main issue is the setup change for the sake of having translation.Lucia Black (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about translation from foreign-language originals to English. Lucia has previously referred some difficulties with such translations on pages about Japanese media, and wants to outlaw unofficial translations except where strictly necessary; but she has no policy grounds to do so. She has lost that argument elsewhere, but keeps bringing it up anyway.

The main thing we are talking about here is which fields to use in {{Track listing}} for (i) unofficial English translations and (ii) original titles in foreign scripts.

Lucia has given the example of Music of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (but please add links on talk pages when referring to other pages). I accept that the small Japanese characters in the Notes fields on that page are still legible, so I apologise for changing the template doc in a way that would have required such pages to be changed.

However, Lucia has agreed that Chinese characters placed in the Notes field do look too small. Therefore I now propose that the template documentation should allow authors flexibility to place original foreign language script track names either in Title, Notes or Extra. This (C) seems a better alternative to both A and B above.

As for unofficial English translations, is there a reason to prefer the Notes or Extra field? – Fayenatic (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see potential confusion though. I understand it maybe too small but im beginning to question if thats relevant. Although it may not be eligable it is still distinguishable. And really this english wiki. It will most likely not be eligible for most english readers.Lucia Black (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean legible. I think you are saying that Chinese readers can still distinguish the characters even if they are shown in small font in the Notes field, and that they mean nothing to most English readers in any size.

Do you now think the English track names should come first even if they are unofficial translations (E)? Or put the original script with the translation in the notes (D)?

C: "將愛" "Jiāng'ài" (To Love)

D: "Jiāng'ài" (將愛, To Love)

E: "To Love" (將愛, Jiāng'ài)

– Fayenatic (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Im going with D. Because although official, hard to put it as the most common english name. Unless there is an official english translation, then we just put a transliteration in the notes alongside the original spelling.Lucia Black (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point I'm still trying to work out what you mean, Lucia: if there is an official English translation then you prefer E, but if there is no official English translation then D? – Fayenatic (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jiang'ai is transliteration of the kanji, to love is the translation. I go with D for this situation because there is no official translation but if there was we would switch to love with jiang'ai. Do you know what transliteration is.Lucia Black (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do. For convenience and completeness, here are the other alternatives mentioned so far:

A: "Jiāng'ài" ("To Love")     將愛

B: "Jiāng'ài" (將愛)     "To Love"

These used the Extra column with a heading, appearing like this:
A:

No.	Title	Chinese	Length
1.	"Jiāng'ài" ("To Love")	將愛	4:09

B:

No.	Title	Translation	Length
1.	"Jiāng'ài" (將愛)	"To Love"	4:09

Although my opening arguments above were in favour of (A), I am now swayed by Lucia's arguments for putting the Chinese characters in the small-font Notes field. I've also tried putting all three versions of the title in one column of the track listing using formats (C) (here) and (D) (here) and I now think neither of them look good. They look cluttered; and as the article text discusses some of the tracks using the unofficial English translations, it would be better for the English translation to be in large font after all. I'm therefore inclined to go back to B (here), using the Extra field & column for the unofficial translations.

This is not explicitly sanctioned by the current documentation at Template:Track listing. I am therefore asking this WikiProject's permission to allow editors to use the Extra column for unofficial translations where there are no official English titles. The column heading could be expanded to "Unofficial translation" if that helps. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What merits a tracklist "complete"? Whatever given and relevant info on the tracklist on the cover gives. I think putting translation next to transliteration while separating kanji makes the translation more legitimate than the kanji. I dont agree with translations needing to be in large font.

So you still don't like (A) or (B).

Ij also find it hard to believe it clutters considering the translations, transliteration and the kanji are short.Lucia Black (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Some are short e.g. To Love (Faye Wong album) but for a more typical listing see Faye Wong (2001 album), which does look cluttered.

When I said "for convenience and completeness", I was just talking about presenting the alternatives in a visible form here on this discussion page, so that other editors could easily see them and comment. So far there has not been much point bringing this here, as no regulars from the WikiProject are commenting – it's just us two with our Chicken and Duck Talk. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever type of translation format there is, if there are two or more representations of a phrase, sentence, or word in the same language, then I think that they should be grouped together while the English translation is possibly elsewhere. In essence, it would be like demonstration B. I don't think A would be sufficient, because of how it distinguishes the Chinese characters away from the Chinese pronunciation key while on an English encyclopedia. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, good points. I propose to take the above comments by user:Backtable as permission from this Wikiproject to amend the track listing template documentation to permit the use of the Extra column for unofficial translations, as per example (B) above. Should the heading specify something like "Unofficial translation"/ "Suggested translation"? – Fayenatic (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done - thanks. I have not specified what they heading should say. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Need more of a consensus. Dont rush.Lucia Black (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any other pages where we can ask interested editors to comment? I don't think anybody else at WikiProject Albums objects. In my opinion this is not important enough to go to WP:RFC but you're welcome to raise it there if you still think strongly that unofficial English translations should not be given at all, or should not be shown as I have proposed. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The changes look fine to me, though they don't seem necessary since the documentation already leaves it fairly open to the editor to decide on what constitutes a good usage of the extra column. I concur with Backtable that (B) makes the most sense, and indeed off the top of my head I'd say that's the option I see used in all the applicable articles I edit (for example).--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

COI notice

I posted a COI notice today when I noticed that 2 newly-registered users were adding reviews from a website called http://propertyofzack.com/ to album articles. The editors are obviously members of the site's staff, and the site hasn't been discussed by the community for inclusion at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE. The COI notice can be found here; Any input or assistance would be appreciated. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Instances Concerned users should see this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Liner notes as a reference

Is this acceptable on Wikipedia? If so, should they be formatted like a standard cite, or by using WP:HIDDEN on particularly relevant sections (such as Track listing and Personnel)? The only issue I would imagine with the latter is that one would need to physically own the album to, uh.. verify the verification, heh. The reason I bring this up is because I realise there's a need for everything to be verifiable, but a lot of these so-called gospel sources like Allmusic and whatnot are often incorrect in terms of basic information like personnel and track times. I believe that liner notes are the absolute definitive source for certain things and should be adhered to rigidly, above that of secondary sources; unless the latter is stating something new, such as additional recording locations or performers who weren't credited for whatever reason. The way I've done it for this album seems good to me (see Track listing and Personnel), as per a suggestion on Template:Infobox album: "It may be helpful to include a source in a comment, such as <!--CD liner notes-->" Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Citing the liner notes of an album is perfectly acceptable, and is probably the best source for things like credits or track listings/lengths. {{Cite album-notes}} is a handy way of formatting the necessary information. GRAPPLE X 17:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear. Would that then count towards the required amount of references needed for the article to be reliably sourced? Sometimes what happens is that I see some of them tagged with Template:One source when it's just an Allmusic review and nothing else. Granted, that's understandable, but if both Allmusic and liner notes are used as sources, does that succeed in invalidating the tag? Or does the article necessarily need two or more secondary sources to make it "passable"? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that another secondary source beyond Allmusic would be required, as often it's very spartan in its coverage of lesser-known albums. Liner notes, Allmusic and another review or article would be a good start. The notes are going to be a primary source and do nothing towards notability, so backing them up with more information is still essential. GRAPPLE X 17:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood. In which case, a lot of albums I deal with are rock/guitar-orientated; therefore can a site like guitar9.com (which is not currently on the WP:ALBUM/REVSIT list) be used for notability? I'm not sure if they do professional reviews, but they do seem to have vast coverage of these kinds of albums, often with CD Baby-esque mini reviews. Would I be allowed to use that site to supplement Allmusic purely as a notability source? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We can certainly talk about guitar9.com and whether it should be added to our REVSITE list. I've never heard of it myself, but generally speaking a couple of reviews from reliable sources are enough to demonstrate that the subject passes WP:N (the bar for notability is deliberately not set very high). On the topic if citing album notes, I do it all the time to cite personnel and writing credits (using {{Cite album-notes}}): the liner notes are almost always the best source for that sort of info. While it's true that "one would need to physically own the album to verify the verification", that's true of any primary source. If you came across a citation to a book, you'd have to track down the book to verify the info. That's perfectly acceptable. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To put it one way, liner notes qualify as a WP:PRIMARY source and would carry all of the restrictions associated with that guideline. It's allowed for objective, non-controversial information, although it should not be the basis of the article. —Gendralman (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Add PropertyOfZack.com as a legitimate album review and music news site

PropertyOfZack is well respected in the indie-punk music world and is always up to date with current music news and album reviews. I do not work for PropertyOfZack, but am an avid reader and believe that the website is a great source that readers of other "professional" sites like altpress would read. The site is smaller, and more DIY, but is needed on Wikipedia to widen the span of music knowledge on the page. They have writers, editors, and reviewers, same as any other music site. They are not a blog, but a full website with photographers, news articles and galleries, tour sponsorship, etc. Adding a link to punk album reviews on punk band album sites would give another perspective and help the reader utilize more sources in their research on albums and music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeLikesPunk (talk • contribs) 06:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, the general (and best) way to show notability of a site is to demonstrate that the site itself has received coverage in other reliable sources: news outlets, music press, etc. There are dozens and dozens of music sites out there, and most of them aren't notable and haven't established a reputation in the field of music journalism/criticism. There's certainly no "need" for us to add this site, but we can certainly evaluate it on its merits. Property of Zack is just under 3 years old; It's unlikely that it's established a sufficient reputation for itself to where the site and its coverage have been noted by other, more reliable sources. But that's just my intuition. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A Google News Archive search for both propertyofzack and "property of zack" results in a very very small handful of sources that cite this website as a source. Of which, most are of questionable reliability/notability, such as AltSounds, KillYourStereo and ThePunkSite. Nothing about the website's "About Us" or "Staff" pages really stands out. For example, clicking on the byline for Amy Sciarretto on Noisecreep reveals that in the last 15 years, she's worked for at least 11 publications—many of which are very notable and credible. I don't see anything similar to this on Property of Zack, therefore I'd say it doesn't qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia's standards. Fezmar9 (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Fezmar's findings. Also, having thought about it some more, I have to disagree with a few things you said, MikeLikesPunk. First, I think you're really overinflating the website's significance by comparing it to Alternative Press: You really can't compare a 3 year-old website with a handful of volunteer staff to the online presence of a 27 year-old, nationally-distributed, 200-page magazine (that sponsors its own tours and is a major sponsor of Warped Tour and Taste of Chaos). Though Property of Zack seems off to a good start, I don't see it having the level of reputation yet that, say, punknews.org does (13 years old). Second, I disagree with your statement that "the site is needed on Wikipedia to widen the span of music knowledge on the page"... Just look at the albums these links are being added to: albums by Blink-182, Alkaline Trio, Saves the Day, and All Time Low. These are not low-profile artists; They're well-known bands with decade-plus careers and multiple high-profile albums that have charted in the top 30 or so of the Billboard 200, and receive regular coverage in much more notable sources. I really don't think we're hurting for reviews of Blink-182's latest album. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see above post under COI by Justin. Property of zack is actively being used already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeLikesPunk (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It already being linked from some articles doesn't mean de facto approval. There are many websites linked from Wikipedia articles that, as the articles develop and more experienced editors take notice, catch our attention and come up for discussion. Property of Zack is one such site: It's in some articles, I took notice, and now it's up here for discussion. We may form a consensus as to whether it meets our reliability thresholds or not, and either approve or remove these links accordingly. That's how Wikipedia works. If you really think the website is reliable, I suggest you take the advice that I'm now giving you a third time and prove it by showing what coverage Property of Zack has received from other, more well-known sources (newspapers, established music news sites, etc.). If you take a glance through the last 6 months or so of this talk page's archives, you'll see several examples of how this has played out before with other sites that have come up for discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Though this is somewhat belated, I feel I have to speak up in response to IllaZilla's second point in the above post, because it implies that PropertyOfZack would have to be accepted as a notable source if it had reviews for albums with little to nothing in their "Reception" section. An editor recently tried to use that same logic to justify keeping subjective commentary about several of an album's songs in its article; there was no encyclopedic info on these songs, and he decreed that the article had to say something about every song. Needless to say, this didn't fly. Just because an article lacks content in a certain area doesn't mean inappropriate content should be used to fill the gap.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)