Talk:Converge / Napalm Death

Recent changes

MrMoustacheMM, I was not aware WP:ACCESS had an issue with what it describes as "pseudo-headings," or using bold lettering instead of headers. I'll be more careful of this when editing in the future, however, I think I should open up a discussion at both WP:MUSICIAN and WP:ALBUM about this as hundreds if not thousands of album and band articles use bold lettering for personnel, current/former band members and other short lists. I don't know much about screen readers, but maybe this is a case where ignoring the rules is applicable? In my 6+ years of editing, I've never seen someone raise an issue with this before. As for the catalog number in the infobox, I see that the issue of catalog numbers was raised a few times at Template talk:Infobox album. All of the times the issue was raised, it was about the possibility of adding a catalog number field. The suggestion was unanimously rejected every time, but in each discussion (including one you were a part of earlier this year) one user popped up and said he added catalog numbers next to the record label, and no one objected (Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 2#Catalog number and Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 8#Album catalogue numbers). Fezmar9 (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should ignore WP:ACCESS. Yes, many articles have not yet fixed their pseudo-headings, but as time goes on more editors will catch that and fix it. This directive to not use pseudo-headings has only been around for a little over a year, so it will take time for editors to fix every article. Considering this article doesn't even have a TOC (it was disabled for some reason, not sure why, but not a big deal), using proper headings shouldn't be a problem (and if there was a TOC, Template:TOC limit can easily be used).

As for the catalogue numbers, Template:Infobox album doesn't say to include them, and WP:MOSALBUM#Release history shows them being given in a Release History section. Looking at Reign in Blood (a featured article), that article doesn't even mention the catalogue number(s) for the album. The Dark Side of the Moon shows the catalogue numbers in the Release History section. Really, catalogue numbers are not important enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, but if they are included, they should not be cluttering up the infobox, but rather placed in a Release History section. Feel free to add one and include the catalogue number, but that info does not belong in the infobox. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that this number is cluttering the infobox, I disagree that an entire release history section makes logical sense for one single number (especially when MOSALBUM says "Albums are often released on different dates, on different labels, and on different formats in different regions" which doesn't apply here), I disagree that catalog numbers (at least indie record catalog numbers) are not important, I disagree that the absence of approval at Template:Infobox album indicates disapproval, and I disagree that your examples of featured articles translate well to this situation because those are major label releases with multiple catalog numbers whereas this is an indie release with a single catalog number. I am opening up a new discussion at Template talk:Infobox album. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, we'll see how the discussion goes there, then apply that here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)