Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Do we really need a "professional reviews" section in the infobox?

1. Articles on books (e.g. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone) and movies (e.g. The Godfather) don't.
2. There is no good criteria—and in my opinion, can never be—for deciding which reviews belong in the infobox. Dark Side of the Moon, for example, has probably had hundreds of reviews written about it. Listing every review would be absurd, but listing arbitrary reviews—the current practice—is biased.
3. Many reviews cannot be quantified into stars or microphones, requiring editors to interpret the review themselves using overly simplistic catchphrases like "favorable" or "unfavorable". There is no good criteria for how this should be done either.
4. It is unclear what value the section gives to the reader. You cannot provide a quick overview of critical reception in the same way as you can release date and length. Critical reception is a complex issue that can only be properly laid out and synthesized through prose. Ratings without the reviewer's accompanying reasoning are essentially meaningless. By painting an oversimplified and selection-biased picture, we are just warping the reader's perception of the album.
5. The only value, in fact, appears to be convenient links to All Music Guide (as well as free publicity for them). Often, that is the only link (or one of the few), even for popular albums.
6. There has been an absurd amount of energy wasted over how to properly represent ratings (as well as our own catchphrases) in the infobox. Numerous debates have occurred, and new templates emerge frequently. There is no end in sight.
7. They are essentially external links. External links normally go at the bottom of the page.

Punctured Bicycle 13:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought about it before, but I have to admit that you make a strong case. Xtifr _tälk 11:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've no issue with Professional Reviews in album infoboxes per se but you make some valid points. Responses to individual items:

1. True, and you could also argue why don't we have them in singles infoboxes as well - consistency across WP arts projects is a constant challenge.
2. Yes, there are potentially many reviews that could be included and we have to rely on the collective judgement of editors to pick a limited but reasonable cross-section - but then the same principle holds for the info that goes into the rest of the article.
3. Wholeheartedly agree with this one; I've raised the same issue myself previously but it didn't generate much interest at the time. Even if Professional Reviews remain in the infobox, I'd like to see this simplistic interpretation of reviews eliminated entirely.
4. I'd agree the main value with this section is in having links to full online reviews - anything else is questionable.
5. Valid observation, perhaps one is better than none though.
6. No argument there.
7. Yes, essentially external links but of a specialised kind, i.e. reviews. I do see some convenience in them being grouped together at the top of the article.

Cheers, Ian Rose 13:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ian Rose that grouping them is valuable and with Punctured Bicycle that the infobox may not be the best place to group them. Personally, I think that a Professional Review section might be appropriate, perhaps as a component of the existing "critical reception" suggestion. --Moonriddengirl 13:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they're the sort of info we should have in the infobox. I would much rather see them limited to a "critical reception section." On the other hand, such a section ought to be limited to prose. Unless no prose has been written yet. Or if enough notable reviews have been done that we use a bulleted list to show a summary in addition to the prose. *shrug* I'll give you a weak support for removal. -Freekee 03:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What about including a subsection of external links, specifically for links to reviews? --Moonriddengirl 12:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see reviews in a text (prose, list or both) section. If this is the case, I think the reviews should be referenced, and would then appear in the References section as footnotes. -Freekee 05:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I view them as being put there by fans with a 'barnstar' mentality – badges of honour to flag up official approval of one's favourite band/album. Let's face it, there are very few 1 star reviews shown. Perhaps it's also to pre-empt charges of non-notability, but I still say its mainly a vanity exrecise by fans and personally ignore them when viewing entries. Ricadus 13:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reviews with a low rating are often removed, probably by fans. That's something to keep an eye out for. As I've argued before, this is also a reason to keep Christgau's lower ratings, even though they are very short. --PEJL 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Personnel" vs. "Performers"

I've written many album articles and wanted to raise a point that always bugs me: I don't think "Personnel" is the correct word to use as the section title. In the articles I've written I've generally used "Performers" instead because that's really what the section is: a list of who performed what instruments/vocals on the album. The other information about studio contributors (mixers, engineers, cover artists, etc.) I usually put in a section immediately after titled "Album information" which also lists recording/engineering/mixing dates & locations and other such pertinent info from the album's liner notes. I realize that if you're listing both performers and studio contributors in the same section then "Personnel" may seem like a better title, but it just doesn't sound right to me. It sounds like we're describing a military operation or something. According to Wiktionary, "personnel" are "employees [or] office staff," when what we are really listing in this section are "performers," who are "one who performs for, or entertains, an audience." Basically I'm bringing this up because some other members of the project have changed the section title in some articles I've written to "Personnel," even though the section only lists the musicians. It's mainly those cases where I feel that term is incorrect.

Perhaps a decent way to deal with this be to use ==Personnel== or some other agreed-upon term as the overall section title, but then to have subsections for ===Performers=== and ===Studio contributors=== within the same section?--IllaZilla 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that including only musicians is acceptable for start-class articles, while B-class articles must include technical personnel as well. See WP:ALBUMA#Quality scale. For reference, the discussion that led to "Personnel" being chosen is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 17#Standardizing the credits section header. --PEJL 16:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm against using "Personnel" as well, it's such an ambiguous term. For album articles I work on I use "Credits" and then use the subheadings "Musicians" and "Album production" to separate performers and the non-performing people behind the album. I think this is more clear because most albums (and other media such as movies, video games, etc.) use the term "Credits" when referring to the part in the media where you can see the information about who did what on the album or video. --Leon Sword 00:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Very very bad idea to go off on your own creating your own private standards. If you dislike the current standards, you should lobby to have them changed, rather than inflicting more unprofessional-looking inconsistency on Wikipedia. That said, I have no preference on the terminology, but would like to point out that changing from the current standard will require changing thousands of articles. Is it really that big a deal? I suppose we could try to recruit a bot if there's a strong consensus to change. Xtifr _tälk 11:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely with Xtifr. --PEJL 11:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I myself think they should be separated and did exactly that on an album yesterday which I see I must now go and standardize. :) The idea of changing thousands of articles is not fun. Can bots really do that? </technologically clueless> --Moonriddengirl 12:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, bots can do that, and fairly easily, at least within certain limits (anything that involves making an intelligent decision or distinction is going to be beyond them). But for the most part, we have quite a bit of leeway in discussing changes here. Xtifr _tälk 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Xtifr. One thing I'd like to point out: though we here at this project are trying to improve articles about albums, none of the "standards" that we may agree on here are policies or even guidelines about how to write album articles. WikiProjects are collaborative efforts, not policy makers. Not every album article needs to have exactly the same format in every place, so there is room for different uses of "Personnel" or "Credits" or whatever term/format an editor chooses to use, as long as it communicates the information clearly. If someone thinks they've come up with a better way and used it in articles, that in no way implies that we have to "standardize" all other album articles to fit that model. So there's no need to chastize Leon Sword for his method, or to say it creates "unprofessional-looking inconsistency." Some of us weren't aware that collaborations like WikiProject Albums existed when we began writing, so we used terms and formats that worked for us and that we thought looked professional. Even though an idea is generally accepted here, there may be other editors outside or even (in my case) within the project who have other ideas. There is room for diversity of opinion and of method in Wikipedia, even though we are working toward a common goal. --IllaZilla 16:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As seen in the archived section, I prefer "Personnel," and I certainly don't think it sounds impersonal. While I think our rules should be given deference because we've had a lot of people look at them, and also because standardization is a good thing, they shouldn't be seen as straitjackets. I would say that some of our rules are more important than others, and this is one of the less important ones. -Freekee 22:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm glad that you bring it up in the first place. We are always open to possible improvements. And if the community doesn't agree with the proposed change, it gives us a chance to explain why the rules are as they are. -Freekee 22:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow? What the-? I make one comment about a preference and suddenly you guys jump on me like I have violated some Wiki policy. I too would like to point out that wikiprojects are not policy makers and all the "guidelines" we set here are optional. You know suddenly I feel like quitting this Wikiproject if such an attitude is what I get for participating in it. By the way, I never said I wanted to change the current guidelines the wikiproject follows. --Leon Sword 04:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus is official policy, and guidelines are determined by consensus. Guidelines can change because consensus can change, but they're still reflections of consensus. When you blithely ignore the only consensus we have so far to set off on your own to apply your own private standards, without any attempt to discuss whether the current consensus is appropriate or justified, that is against policy. If you want to get picky and technical. On the other hand, you are here, discussing the matter, so that's all to the good. As I said before, I don't care what terms we decide to use, but I do care about consensus and consistency and the five pillars. If you want to change, and you're willing to come here and discuss it, that's excellent. If you want to change, and don't care what anyone else thinks, and are determined to do your own thing no matter what consensus may arise, that's bad. If you really don't believe that you're able to go along with whatever consensus may arise, then perhaps you're not temperamentally suited to be editing Wikipedia at all. But I hope that's not what you meant, and it's certainly not what I intended to imply. (p.s., I'm not a member of this project, but I still try to follow its guidelines.) Xtifr _tälk 05:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

With your reasoning you have just promoted all guidelines and wikiprojects to policy. Yes, Wikipedia:Consensus is an official policy but you're misusing its definition. Anyways I never set out to "blithely ignore the standards here and apply my own private standards" I was not aware that this wikiproject preferred "Personnel" over anything else, until I noticed this section in this talk page. However, now that I'm aware of this "guideline" I still think "Credits" is better for the simple reason that it's a common standard in the real world. --Leon Sword 05:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to promote guidelines to policy. I think we're all aware of the differences. I'm simply pointing out that they're not entirely "optional" because they are grounded in policy. Anyway, I obviously read too much into what you said originally about your editing—if you were unaware of the guidelines at the time, then your behavior was beyond reproach. Nevertheless, now that you are aware, discussing the standard rather than ignoring it is the right thing to do, as I pointed out. And since that is what you're doing, everything is copacetic, and everybody should be happy. I know I am. As for your proposal, I think it sounds reasonable, but I suggest that you contact the people who formed the previous consensus to see if they might be willing to change their opinions. Cheers, Xtifr _tälk 09:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of what I was getting at with this discussion initially, was proposing a change to see if I could get any support or consensus for it. Getting back to point, I really like Leon Sword's idea of using "Credits" and the subheadings "Musicians" and "Album production." I feel those are more accurate and specific than "Personnel." Does anyone agree or disagree, or have another suggestion? --IllaZilla 06:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that I wasn't trying to suggest that anyone was ignoring any guidelines purposely, just that it would be a bad idea to do so. Like I mentioned in the previous discussion, I think the term should be standardized, but have no strong preference on which term is chosen. As I wrote there, "Credits" and "Personnel" are the two most commonly used terms, so using one of those will mean less work with updating articles. Since this was standardized to "Personnel", I've updated quite a few articles to use that (from "Credits", "Performers", "Musicians", "Line-up" and others). I have no problem with changing "Personnel" to something else, if there is consensus to do so. We should try to avoid changing standards back-and-forth too much though. I'd also like to point out two arguments made in the previous discussion in favor of "Personnel". Firstly that it makes it clear that only persons should be listed, not studios and companies. Secondly that it makes it clear that persons should be listed first, rather than last. As what "sounds better" is often quite subjective, I give these types of arguments more weight. --PEJL 07:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ho-hum. As I think I said last time the issue of this wording was raised, I don't lose a lot of sleep over the section title used, nor about the wording being consistent across all articles. That said, I prefer Personnel (for similar reasons to those PEJL has articulated above) and I prefer articles to be consistent. If we are to change from Personnel, I'd support Credits as the best alternative - Performers is inappropriate for a section that can include technical/production roles. If we were to standardise subheadings underneath Personnel, I'd probably go for Musicians and Production ("Album production" is redundant, the article's all about an album). But from a practical point of view I'd recommend against changing from Personnel - it seems quite satisfactory to me. And if there was a new standard adopted, I'd hope a bot can be used to implement it - I for one can't see myself volunteering to change a few thousand articles, there's more important work to do. Cheers, Ian Rose 09:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Musicians" and "Production" seem like good choices, if we are to standardize the next level. "Production" already exists in quite a few articles. So does "Additional personnel", which seems less appropriate as it is longer yet devoid of meaning. Hmm, perhaps "Performers" would be better than "Musicians", as the former more obviously includes vocalists. Isn't "Personnel", "Performers" and "Production" a nice combination? On the other hand "Musicians" might be more widely understood. Like I said, I have no strong preference. --PEJL 10:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The distinctions aren't always clear, and sometimes people may fit into multiple roles (as with a performer/producer, probably the most common example). Also, if we're going to subdivide it, we're going beyond the bounds of what a bot can do. For both those reasons, I think it's better to stick with a single section, or at least make subsections optional. There's also a question about programmed digital effects (which may be added by either the producer or by musicians)--is that performing? Or production? With modern digital production (and with some older non-digital production), the distinction between musicians and producers can often be blurred. Xtifr _tälk 11:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters enough to hire a bot for the task. Sounds like a change it only if you happen to be editing the article anyway kind of task. And I don't think it's a problem to have people listed in both the performers and production sections. Is it okay to put album cover artists in the production section? -Freekee 15:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

But what about people where it's unclear whether they belong in the performers or the production sections? As with digital effects? Also with sampling and remixing, the borders between production and performance are increasingly becoming blurred in a lot of modern music. Xtifr _tälk 20:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer not to use headers to separate the lists, partly for that reason. I usually just use bulleted lists separated by a blank line. If I feel the need to combine them into one list, I can just omit the blank line. I can also add another blank line to separate band members from hired musicians. I prefer a little flexibility here. -Freekee 05:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's unclear in which section they belong, either should be fine. I'd prefer either using a single list or multiple lists in separate subsections with subheadings. Using subheadings will make it easier for a reader to find the information they are looking for in general, even if we account for cases when the grouping is unclear. This will hold especially true if we standardize the headings. --PEJL 05:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I see the valid arguments made in favor for using "Personnel" over "Credits", but I think that if the main reasons for using "Personnel" are simply to imply to editors to only list people and to list people first, then it would be much better to simply include that wording into the guideline. So what if we standardized the section title to "Credits" but included in the section usage guideline that only people should be listed and they should be listed first? --Leon Sword 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to agree with you. Why should the section be limited to individuals? In a lot of cases, the entire band will be credited with production, but I don't think it's appropriate to change that to listing each member as a producer if that's not what the credits on the album say. Further, if credits for production or editing or mixing or whatnot are given to a company, I don't see any reason we should leave that out. In many cases, producers or editors are credited as a company when it's really a one-man operation. I think we should just include the credits, call them credits, and be done with it. Xtifr _tälk 20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that using the term "personnel" necessarily limits the listing to individuals only. Companies or groups are made of people. -Freekee 05:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to Leon Sword, using "Personnel" to imply to editors the preferred format rather than explaining it in the guideline (which we more or less already do) has the advantage that it conveys the format to those editors who don't read the guideline, which will likely be the vast majority. --PEJL 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics

I think lyrics should be added to all pages about an album. It just seems like it makes sense to have everything about the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.198.12 (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ALBUM#External links. --PEJL 18:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are copyright issues regarding lyrics – you cannot publish them (including display on a web page) without permission of the owner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricadus (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that the project proposes "Appropriate links may include links to chords or lyrics for the tracks on the album. Note however that lyrics may be protected by copyright, and external resources that reprint lyrics may be violating that copyright, in which case they should not be linked." I take that to mean that if the lyrics are published on a reasonably official site, such as the band's official website or that of the record label, then it would be appropriate to provide a link to that source? I've never done it, just curious. --IllaZilla 19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that "should not be linked" is linked to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, which suggests that that would be acceptable. --PEJL 20:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Separation

I feel that genres / producers etc. should be separated by a break rather than a comma. It looks much more organised and is easier to read, especially for people on lower resolutions. SouperAwesome 03:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, SouperAwesome. --Leon Sword 04:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand the lower resolution argument. The infobox is a fixed width. The text in the infobox does not wrap differently on a lower resolution. As for which looks more organized, that's quite subjective. IMO using commas looks more organized. I also find lists delimited using commas easier to read, simply because there is a visible delimiter (a comma).

See for example the section for the label at the infobox at Courtney Love. "Sympathy for the Record", "Industry" and "Caroline" seem like plausible names of record labels. (There isn't an Industry Records, but there is an Industrial Records.) Using a comma avoids this ambiguity. --PEJL 07:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Further to that, on a lower resolution vertical space is limited as well. Using commas makes the infobox more compact, which means there is a lower likelyhood that scrolling will be required. --PEJL 10:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that commas should be used for the same reasons you present PEJL, what I disagree with is that we should be restricted from using line breaks. Ideally I would prefer if we used both commas and line breaks. I really don't think having to scroll through a page bothers too many people since it has to be done on a majority of websites already and the only articles you probably wouldn't have to scroll through are stubs. --Leon Sword 19:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Using commas and line breaks is certainly better than just using line breaks. Personally I prefer a more compact display so that values ideally fit on a single line. I tend to use {{nowrap}} in some cases to tweak how multi-word phrases wrap, where this doesn't cause more line breaks than not using it would. --PEJL 21:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote lower resolutions. I do feel that it's much easier to read something seperated by line breaks than just commas, but I think that using both commas and line breaks is also good. SouperAwesome 06:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Release date

It says the date in the infobox should be the earliest known date. So that means you don't add the U.S. release date of Curtis (Sept. 11, 07), instead we add the EU date, Sept. 7, but what are we supposed to do about the article body, still say it was Sept. 7? --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 21:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In the article body you may mention multiple release dates and explain what region they correspond to. In this case, mentioning at least the European date and the U.S. date in the body of the article seems quite appropriate. --PEJL 05:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Artist cats should match article

One of PEJL's recent grammatical edits highlighted something I hadn't noticed before. Under categories, it says, "For consistency, the artist name should be the same as the title of their article (in terms of punctuation, "&"/"and", use of "The", etc.) excluding any disambiguating terms" (emphasis mine). Categories that lack the disambiguating terms are routinely renamed at WP:CFD to match the full article name (usually with no dissent), so I don't think this correctly describes consensus. I was bold and removed the highlighted phrase. If anyone really thinks it should be re-added, they can explain why here. Xtifr _tälk 12:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We're supposed to have categories named Category:Cake (band) albums? Like nobody understands that Cake is a band, even though it's followed by the word "albums." This is contested? You've got to be kidding me. I think Category:Cake albums is fine. I could see it if there would be confusion. Let's say there's a band named "Photo." Category:Photo albums could be very confusing, indeed. -Freekee 03:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of consistency. Consistency with the lead article is something that's usually valued highly at CfD. Of course, it's the ambiguous or confusing ones that are brought for renaming most often, and I don't personally feel strongly about the unambiguous ones. But at the very least, we shouldn't flatly forbid using disambiguating terms, since that directly contradicts a broader consensus. I could see something like "with the possible exception of disambiguation terms", though, which would leave it open. Note that there's also cases where there are multiple musicians with the same name, and again, disambiguation is required there. Xtifr _tälk 09:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How about: "...excluding any disambiguating terms (unless needed to disambiguate the category)"? --PEJL 10:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That would contradict precedent at CfD. Matching the full main article name (including disambiguating terms) is always allowed--in fact, it's been proposed as a speedy-renaming criterion. And while I don't necessarily want to make dab terms mandatory (although some people do), I definitely do not want to forbid them under any circumstances. Xtifr _tälk 11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a good idea not to contradict policy. I wouldn't say anything more than necessary, though. -Freekee 01:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not policy yet. And, although I saw someone mentioning having nominated it as a speedy rename criterion, I haven't tracked down where that discussion is located. But it is a strong consensus, affecting more than just album categories. For example, Category:Kings of Georgia (country) was renamed to have the dab tag for consistency, even though the state hasn't had any kings. But consensus can change, so I agree that a neutral stance on the matter is probably the best position for the project to take. Xtifr _tälk 08:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To be as useful as possible for editors, I think it would be better if we described what they should do, rather than remain vague on the issue. If there is consensus for including the disambiguators in general, I think we should mention this. If consensus changes, we can change our guideline as well. How about: For consistency, the artist name should be the same as the title of their article (in terms of punctuation, "&"/"and", use of "The", and even any disambiguating terms). --PEJL 10:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed before that you and I, though we agree on many things, tend to disagree on the value and importance of Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. I'd still prefer neutrality to avoid creep, but if we must say something, then your suggestion sounds good. Xtifr _tälk 19:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that an editor that reads that section may well make the reasonable assumption that disambiguating terms should not be included. It's what I would have assumed, it appears to be what Freekee assumed, and the old wording ("minus any disambiguating terms of course") shows that the original author assumed so as well. I feel it is quite useful to mention what should actually be done, since it's clearly not obvious to all. In the interests of decreasing our instruction creep, how about we simplify this to: For consistency, the artist name should be exactly the same as the title of their article (even including any disambiguating terms). --PEJL 19:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The current phrasing is For consistency, the artist name should be the same as the title of their article (in terms of punctuation, "&"/"and", use of "The", etc.). I think this is good because (1) it keeps instruction creep to a minimum, (2) allows editors to include disambiguation if they wish to follow a certain consensus, (3) allows editors to exclude disambiguation if they wish to follow common sense (IMO). -Freekee 17:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well (1) the current phrasing longer is than my proposal, so depending on what you mean by instruction creep, it does not keep it to a minimum. (2) assumes that editors know about the consensus, which given this thread seems unlikely. (3) doesn't seem very appropriate if there truly is broad consensus on this issue. That said, I'd rather have this dab instruction in some general category guideline, to which we could defer. --PEJL 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) That one would also be great without the parenthetical phrase. (2) My point was that we don't direct them to do it either way. (3) The common sense way is to only disambiguate the cat if it helps with comprehension. I would rather not instruct editors to do it any other way. Nor would I direct them to violate this strange consensus. So I suggest leaving the instruction as vague as possible, while still giving direction to name articles in a way that makes sense. If it makes you feel any better, a strict interpretation of For consistency, the artist name should be exactly the same as the title of their article, could be to include the disambiguation.

This whole thing bothers me. First of all, we have been told since day one, not to disambiguate reflexively. And now a group with a consensus is changing that, and thereby adding a whole level of uselessness in category titles. It goes against common sense. It pisses me off. I will say no more on the subject. -Freekee 05:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your issues with the matter, but "don't disambiguate reflexively" still applies to articles. I would say that the new guideline which is evolving is "don't disambiguate reflexively, but once you do decide to disambiguate a name, do so consistently." Which doesn't strike me as being that far from common sense. Xtifr _tälk 20:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Using templates in albums & songs

Has anyone seen how the Finnish Wikipedia is formatting the albums and songs? There are templates for both album and song. Those templates would be quite easy to adapt also here, wouldn't they? Even I might be able to do that at some time. Lasse 13:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ALBUM#Discography, and note that there are no explicit guidelines for how a discography should be formatted. (Those templates are for discographies, right?) --PEJL 13:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sample articles for albums & songs etc.

There is also a very good sample article of an album at the Finnish pages. I found only one other example so far from a project page. Is there a collection of sample pages somewhere that I have not peeked? Please let me know. Lasse 13:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There are currently 20 FA class articles, see Category:FA-Class Album articles. Will any of those do? --PEJL 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

musicemissions.com spam

Hi, I hope this is an appropriate place to post this. I work with WikiProject Spam and we recently found several accounts spamming musicemissions.com reviews (see the spam report available at this link for the next few days and then in the September archive.) While we have found some definite spammers there are also good faith additions by long standing editors, so it's clear some people think this link is appropriate in some circumstances. Do you have any process for watching for this sort of thing - or can you provide advice or assistance in controlling the links that are spam? Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a list of notable review sources that are commonly included but should not be (at WP:ALBUM#Non-professional). At this page I found the following: How do I become an editorial reviewer? Open up an account on Music Emissions and start posting your fine "user reviews". Once you have reached a certain threshold (25 reviews) a red light goes off in our offices and alerts us that we have a "hot reviewer". Our editors will have a look at your writing quality and if it is above average we will contact you and approach you about being an esteemed editorial reviewer. Start writing. My interpretations of our guideline (at WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews) is that this should qualify these reviews as a professional reviews. --PEJL 10:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I understand these can be appropriate links - it's the inappropriate spamming of the site I'm concerned about and how to distinguish between appropriately added reviews and spam. For the most part the editors we identified did not add other content to Wikipedia or reviews from other sites, they simply promoted the musicemission reviews - which is pretty much our definition of spam. Is this not something that has come up before? -- SiobhanHansa 14:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that happen before with less professional sites, where an editor's entire history is adding reviews from one particular site. In that case it's pretty blatant spam, since their only goal on WP appears to be to promote a particular website. My past response has been to leave a polite notice on the user's talk page explaining WP's spam policies and our agreed-upon criteria for reviews, and to revert where appropriate. Also PEJL, my interpretation of Music Emission's criteria as you posted above is that the site will post almost ANY "user review," but only certain people are given the status to post "editorial reviews." In that case I would say that the "user reviews" are definitely not professional and should be excluded, and it's highly likely that those are the reviews being added. --IllaZilla 15:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at any of the reviews from that site, you'll see that the link is always to an editorial review. User reviews (if any exist) are shown below the editorial review, in a clearly marked section. So I don't think user reviews were being added, or can be added. --PEJL 15:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case it looks fine, though I'd still guard against editors whose agenda is to blanket WP by mass-adding links to one website, as that's still viewed as spamming. --IllaZilla 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added an explanation to the discussion on the wikiproject Spam. There are some problems which seem to come up, and I think that it should be streamlined somewhere. I have earlier blacklisted another review site (though that was mainly to stop the sock-attack they applied, the spam-bots went nuts), but I indeed feel that this case is more in good faith than that.

Still, these accounts were performing link additions only, with a quite single point-of-view: adding their reviews. The template albums have does in my humble opinion also invite this a bit. There are several links there, and it is then only a small step to add your professional review as well. That does result in some cases in true linkfarms (see e.g. this, 18 reviews. Would that comply with 'Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files'?).

I have suggested the editors to contact an appropriate wikiproject (I will add a link here to that suggestion), and I think that will be the way forward. I am now inclinded to treat such additions of links by accounts as spam, until the reviews are endorsed by this wikiproject as notable (and have been added to e.g. the list on WP:ALBUM). Additionally, would it be feasable to restrict the number of reviews in the boxes, e.g. via a guideline? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As I noted before, reviews from Music Emissions appear to pass our criteria for professional reviews. We don't have a white-list of acceptable review sources; the sites listed at WP:ALBUM#Review sites are merely examples. Note also the discussion above about moving the review out of the infobox. Restricting the number of reviews does sounds like a good idea, see below. --PEJL 20:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Restricting the number of reviews

More instruction creep and randomness: I propose we add the following:

Include no more than ten reviews. When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view.

--PEJL 20:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I support that. In some cases there are way too many reviews and it becomes just a repository of links, even if most or all of them are reliable & professional. One criteria I would suggest for selecting reviews is giving priority to ones that are contemporary with the album. For example, a Rolling Stone review of a Jimi Hendrix album taken from an issue published around the time the album was released would carry more weight than a review written in 2007 on, say, All Music Guide or Pitchfork Media. --IllaZilla 04:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I think you need a balance, contemporary (i.e. when originally released) and more recent - reason being that views change and you want both the immediate reaction and the long view. Cheers, Ian Rose 05:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points. How about:

Include no more than ten reviews. When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view. For older albums, try to include not just contemporary but also some more recent reviews.

--PEJL 20:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds really good to me. There are a lot of articles that could use this type of balance. Is there a good website with a repository of contemporary reviews that maybe we could recommend in the list of recommended sites? Like, do Rolling Stone or other publications have online databases of original reviews from past decades? --IllaZilla 07:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Old reviews from Rolling Stone can be found using the normal search on their website. --PEJL

This sounds indeed like a very good plan. I asked User:Eagle_101 to query a recent version of the database for the number of links in the {{Infobox Album}}. He will probably be reporting that here soon (the script is running as I speak).

I am quite active in the wikiproject on spam, and every now and then someone adds high numbers of reviews (and we do see most of those additions). We are inclined to remove all links added by such accounts, even if they would be working for the Rolling Stone, per quite some policies and guidelines (I wrote a treatise for Archivists, I guess these can be included as well: User:Beetstra/Archivists. As can be seen there, such additions, however reliable, can be questioned against quite some policies and guidelines). One of my solutions there is that an appropriate wikiproject is contacted, and they endorse the link (and probably guide/tutor the editor(s)). At this moment we then enter in a grey area, and I therefore would stronly endorse a) restriction of the number, b) a guideline on what criteria one should have to add a certain link to the infobox .. and when you exceed the number, which one to remove (well, it is then for sure -> do not add the link, go to the talkpage or to a wikiproject).

I do want to say, 10 is IMHO a bit high, 5 would be more the number to aim for, 2-3 from the past, in the time of the album, and 2-3 recent ones. I mean, is the 6th review really going to tell more about the album, something that is not in the other 5 (and then, this rule is not set in stone, in that particular case the 6th one can ben endorsed, e.g. via a remark and an explanation on the talkpage)? Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I"m working on running a scan of the database dumps for you guys, I did happen to notice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/69_Love_Songs has quite a few non-free iamges. What do you all think? I think thats above what is normal, I just don't see how we can justify that much fair use in a free encyclopaedia. If there is something unique about the cover, fine thats one image. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 10:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not appear that many have this problem (over 5 external links), so this looks to be less of a problem then we thought. The real problem I'm seeing here is that most of the articles you guys have under your care are unsourced. There is not a reference or a notes section. When the output finishes, I'll let you guys all have a look, its really a good overview as to the status of your project, what needs work and what does not need work. Its up to you guys to do something about this though. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 12:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that not all reviews have external links. Counting the number of list items would be a better method. --PEJL 12:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

External links is the problem from the spam point of view. We can re-run this later when you guys manage to clean up what has already been identified below. You guys have a large number of albums missing references, which makes it hard to tell if they are a) verifiable, and b) notable, the problem of references needs addressed, as does the problem of spam. The spam problem is the one highlighted in the report below, but I ask you guys to please take pains to get some decent references for these, or determine that the garage band is really not notable and delete them. There should be an assertion that the album is notable somewhere, that is where references are good. (note you can probably make use of some of the reviews as references, but you should find other references as well. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Eagle_101 has completed the full scan. The original list can be found here (zipfile on toolserver), I have sorted the list (decending on number of links in the infobox), and isolated the more concerning parts (the total list is huge), resulting in the current version of the page User:Eagle 101/AlbumSpam. As Eagle_101 says above, the lack of references in the documents is a bit concerning, as are some pages which have abnormal numbers of external links. A third thing may be that I found some links to lyrics pages. Though I am not sure about the nature of the case I saw (a Björk album with 98 external links), those links may be in violation of WP:COPYRIGHT.

I'll leave up to you what is to be done, I'll keep an eye on the link-additions. Keep up the good work! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys need any further help with this? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. I've added the text proposed above, which limits the number to ten. Five might be more appropriate, but that's a much larger change from current practice, for which I think we'd need a stronger consensus. --PEJL 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you also pruned the links from the pages which at this moment 'violate' this guideline? And I also think the other issues should also be addressed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No. --PEJL 09:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixing articles in violation is something I would do only if I happened across one of them. I'd rather spend my time fixing something that is in danger of deletion. BTW, what do we do with the excessive reviews? Move them to a reviews section? -Freekee 01:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, delete them? The argument that we have too many external links applies just as much outside the infobox as inside it, I would think. --PEJL 15:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I'm more concerned about the excess of info in the infobox (so I hadn't really noticed that you weren't talking about only the infoboxes). Just the basics for the box. Having more info in the rest of the article doesn't bother me much, as long as it's not trivial drivel. But whatever. I really don't care that much either way. -Freekee 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Album dab should match artist article

In my experience album names that use the artist as a disambiguator generally include the full artist name, include a possible "The" at the beginning. Prompted by the move proposal at Talk:Zeitgeist (The Smashing Pumpkins album)#Moving the page to "(Zeitgeist (Smashing Pumpkins album), I thought it best to discuss the general issue here. WP:ALBUM#Naming just says to use the artist name. I would argue that the disambiguator should be exactly the same as the artist name, for correctness. That would also be consistent with #Artist cats should match article. --PEJL 07:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree and really don't see why some people insist on leaving out "The" out of band names like "The Beatles" or moving to the back with a comma like if it was a first name of a person. The band is not called "Beatles" it's called "The Beatles". --Leon Sword 02:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This issue varies on a case-by-case basis. For example The Beatles used a "The" in front of "Beatles" on nearly all of their record covers, with only a few exceptions. Therefore the band's full official name is almost always recognized as The Beatles (note capital T). The Ramones, on the other hand, never used a "the" in front of "Ramones" on any of their albums, just "Ramones," so "the" is technically not part of their name. So it would be proper in those cases to disambiguate, if necessary, "Help! (The Beatles album)" or "Rocket to Russia (Ramones album)." Then there are bands like the Smashing Pumpkins, who are inconsistent in whether or not they print a "The" in front of their name or not (the earlier albums didn't, then there were 3 that did, and the new one doesn't). So in those cases I really don't think it matters, or maybe we should go with what's on the individual album covers. I mean, we're dealing with something that only happens rarely, with 2 levels of disambiguation: the album title matches the title of another article, there is an article about another album with the same title, and one of the groups has a possible "The" in its name. Does it really matter at that point, as long as the disambiguation links to the proper article? --IllaZilla 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale

This has been brought up dozens of times and I thought our last round of discussions really did the trick. I have since edited nearly all of my FURs to include much more relevant information consistent with the most recent discussions. Image:No Regrets (album).jpg is an example of the one I have been using and until now none of the images I have updated have been tagged for "bad rationale". Can someone please enlighten me on the problem(s) with this rationale so it can be further updated. Thanks in advance. (Sampm 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

You should ask Betacommand. It's probably his bot malfunction again. Jogers (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw this post and its reply (which is not exactly assuming good faith). The bot is certainly not malfunctioning, if it is reporting, there may be something wrong, e.g. a typo somewhere. In this case, the rationale is for No Regrets (album) (which redirects to the disambiguation page No Regrets), while the image is actually used on No Regrets (Andrew Copeland album). Hence, there is no fair-use rationale on the page for the latter. You might want to correct this (minor) mistake. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I wasn't assuming bad faith. Bots make mistakes and I'm perfectly aware of this as Jogersbot operator. Thanks for clarifying the issue. Jogers (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, I know what mistakes bots make, maybe it was me, feeling that things get blamed too easily on User:Betacommand. By the way, the above scan gave this hit, would that be allowed under our Fair Use Rationale (though that is not my specialty)? Is only the last image not enough? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Added WP:NOLEAK redirect to the "dating" segment

I don't think I need to elaborate on the title. I've made the shortcut WP:NOLEAK to map directly to the dating segment so that it can be put into edit summaries to explain why any leak information is removed. I might also make up a banner to post onto talk pages to this effect also. I'll get to that later. This works for now. linca^linca 01:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I was a little bored, so I created this:

It doesn't require much to pop into a talk page, simply {{noleak}}. What do you guys think? linca^linca 02:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Shortcuts to a section of a page are problematic because they don't work in all browsers. In some browsers they just go to the top of the page, which is confusing. As such, I recommend against using such shortcuts. WP:ALBUM#Dating on the other hand works in all browsers. --PEJL 05:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I use all browsers interchangably whether I'm at work (IE6), on my brother in law's computer (Firefox 2) or my own (Safari, Opera, AWB, IE7) and have never experienced any trouble with this, but I'll take your word for it. What if we were to expand the rationale on leaks and make it its own section, so you could have WP:ALBUM#Leaked albums or something, as I'm a fan of not being ambiguous about steering people to the right section for their issue.

Perhaps (and this is possibly a big effort job) we could split the page up into segments such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Leaked albums and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Dating, and transclude the information to the main project page. This means we could just link using a shortcut to that sub-page for instructional use. It could also make editing the page itself simpler, because you simply edit the section you need to update. linca^linca 05:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

At a glance, it makes the guideline look more copyright-motivated than it really is, which I'm concerned might cause more knee-jerk reactions than it should. Maybe play that down a bit, a little less stern-sounding, and play up the notability issue more? –Unint 06:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the template sounds like that? Or the WP:ALBUM guideline sounds too copyright originated? Is there a probem with stating this? I mean, there are liability issues relating to this, so to harp on that I don't think there's an issue, but you're right that notability is definitely an issue since, there's only about 3 or 4 albums out there that would justifiably have this on their article. I think there's enough information and clout behind the topic to warrant its own section on the project page. Thoughts? --linca^linca 11:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I implemented a much simpler solution, by just supporting WP:ALBUM#Leak. Personally I don't see any problem with just referring to WP:ALBUM#Dating. --PEJL 15:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we see a little more explanation of the problem on that template? Something like, Such a date is non-notable information and has been removed. For further information, see the WikiProject:Album guidelines, WP:NOLEAK. -Freekee 03:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the adjustment I've made? I've made it so that it equally addresses both issues, i.e. notability and legal implications. As to my earlier suggestion, what does everybody think? About segregating the page into several different sub-sections to allow things to be more easily organised? --linca^linca 13:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording further. There are already sub-sections, so I assume you're referring to your previous suggestion to split it into sub-articles and transclude those on the main article. How exactly would things be more easily organized if we did that? I just don't see the benefit. --PEJL 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks guys! -Freekee 01:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It makes linking to sections easier for a start, plus it means that whenever rearranging anything on the page, it doesn't involve a massive cut and paste that could ultimately foul things up (even though it's revertible). I've seen it happen (hell, I've done it a couple of times to pages myself) and I think it'd make matters simpler for providing a link. It means that, in this case, the WP:NOLEAK redirect could be directly to Wikipedia:WikiProject Album/Leak or if a person needs to refer to the discography section, they can use Wikipedia:WikiProject Album/Discography (which could also have a redirect set up, if there was a need/demand for it). I just think for this purpose as well as your concern of mid-page redirects, this would be a suitable solution. Is there any particular reason it shouldn't be done? If it's to do with server issues, that's not our problem (there's a policy on that, but I can't remember where). --linca^linca 03:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The advantages don't sound very convincing. I'm not sure we'd be less likely to muck things up if we had more transclusions, since that introduces additional complexity. Supporting WP:NOLEAK also doesn't seem very important. Using that shortcut rather than one using WP:ALBUM#Leak has the disadvantage that it isn't obvious to a reader that it is in fact part of WP:ALBUM. I would argue that WP:ALBUM#Leak is a better shortcut, for that reason. I really don't see any advantages to doing this.

We have an example of a guideline which uses transclusions as you propose, at WP:MUSTARD. I've always found that difficult to use. For example, to add WP:MUSTARD to your watchlist you have to add all of the transcluded pages to your watchlist, but this is not obvious from the guideline itself, because it hides the fact that it uses transclusions. Granted, we wouldn't have to hide that fact, we could use {{template doc page transcluded}}, but that would involve adding a number of such notices, which wouldn't really be an improvement. Furthermore, we'd get a number of additional talk pages, which would make discussions more difficult to follow. Granted, we could redirect those to the main talk page. In short, I think this adds considerable additional complexity for very little gain. --PEJL 06:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You pose a good argument. Though, if we were to simply transclude those sections that would need it...? Such as the leak section (because it's becoming an increasingly popular thing to add to pages despite the warnings about it) and anything else that people want to refer regularly (this is the most common to me from here, but there may be others). --linca^linca 10:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see the need, and question whether there are "sections that would need it". I refer to various sections of WP:ALBUM daily using edit summaries like "rv, per WP:ALBUM#Genre". What's the problem with just referring to WP:ALBUM#Leak in a similar manner? --PEJL 11:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at List6

SkierRMH is on vacation, BetacommandBot is running, and we have backlog at the list of album covers with disputed fair use claim again. Jogers (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ask for help / exchange of experiences

Hello everyone! I have just one question about minimal requirements for the films and music albums articles... The story is: in Russian Wikipedia (200.000+ articles) we are working on minimal requirements for the articles about films (here) and music albums (here), basically it's all about the main information which must be covered in each article on film or music release. Background is the following: lots of films and music albums articles end up in ru-wiki on the "Articles for Deletion" page, because: first - there is a plenty of such stubs, second - some users find them too short and do not think that such articles can ever be developed to overgrow the size of a short stub. I was looking for such minimal requirements or criteria for articles about films and music releases in other Wikipedias - a kind of experience exchange. Is there something like that in English Wikipedia? You know anything similar in other Wikipedias? Thanks in advance! (also asked here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films) Alex Ex 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You can find our standards at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment#Quality scale. If an article meets our standard for Start class, I would hope that it would be complete enough not to be deleted. -Freekee 07:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And what usually happens with an article which is a short stub for years? Alex Ex 18:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Usually nothing. --PEJL 18:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Short stubs are often expanded at some point, because it is so easy to grab the record, copy the track listing, list the band members and copy a few more key bits of info into the infobox. It's an easy way to help expand Wikipedia. I think most albums languish in the Start phase. -Freekee 01:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Track list automation

Are there tools that will automagically pull track lists from freedb?LeadSongDog 04:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I use a script to generate stub album articles from albums in iTunes, including track listings. --PEJL 18:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-English reviews

It has been proposed that non-English reviews should be prohibited unless the language is "particularly relevant". I don't think this is compatible with presenting a world-wide view, so I would like to get a clear rationale for this. I think the reason it is being proposed is that non-English sources are hard to verify, is that correct? Kappa 13:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The guideline about normally not including non-English reviews has been in effect since June, albeit with a different wording. As for the rationale, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 17#Non-English language reviews. The point of the current wording "As the number of reviews should be limited..." is to explain why we cannot just include the non-English reviews in addition to the English ones. I don't think it is appropriate to make this guideline only apply to cases when there are more than ten reviews (which there should never be, per WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews). --PEJL 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The link to WP:MOS-L mentioned in the archived discussion no longer works. The current link is WP:MOS-L#Non-English-language sites. --PEJL 13:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK here we are, from that discussion the rationale is "Editors who don't know Polish are also unable to assess if that review source meets the requirements on review sources ". How about we exclude foreign-language sites unless they are in the list of acceptable professional sites? Kappa 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That was one of the rationales mentioned. The other rationale is the one which the current wording refers to, the one which the WP:MOS-L link above backs up, and IMO the more important one—that most readers will find a review in a non-English language less useful than a review in English simply because they don't know the non-English language. As for your suggestion, what list of acceptable review sources? No such list exists. --PEJL 14:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Less useful" is a reason to prefer an English-language review over an equivalent non-English review, but not to prohibit non-English reviews altogether. The list I am referring to is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Professional_reviews. Kappa 14:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh, there is no list at WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews. Such reviews are generally less useful, so they should generally be avoided. That's what the guideline currently says. --PEJL 15:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Note also that "less useful" is putting it mildly. "Completely useless" is a more accurate description for a reader who doesn't understand the language in question, which can be assumed to be a large proportion of readers. --PEJL 15:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Review_sites. A link to a foreign language review is informative in two ways, even if you don't speak the language: it will have a star rating, and it will tell you that the album was notable enough to be reviewed by that source. Kappa 02:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've noted above: "We don't have a white-list of acceptable review sources; the sites listed at WP:ALBUM#Review sites are merely examples.". Ratings are generally not considered useful without an accompanying review, per previous discussions on this talk page. I doubt many readers who don't understand a certain non-English language will be familiar with many review sources in that language, especially ones which would enhance the notability of an album which has already passed the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Can you give a specific example of a review which you feel the current guideline inappropriately excludes? --PEJL 10:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No? Then I'll remove the disputed tag. --PEJL 15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

single vs 12" single vs EP vs album?

I've noticed that What a Fool Believes (Matt Bianco 12" Vinyl) was tagged jazz-stubb in June and jazz-album-stubb on 10 September. Also, Talk:What a Fool Believes (Matt Bianco 12" Vinyl) was tagged album|class=Stub today. I have a couple of questions:

• This recording is an "EP" not an "album". With-respect-to tagging, does it matter if it's an EP and not an album?
• What's the difference between tagging the article, and tagging the talk page?

Thanks, Pdfpdf 12:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

EPs fall under the auspices of the Albums Project. Is that really an EP, though? It looks like a 12" single. I notice it's not listed on Matt Bianco's discography. Also, I think it is named incorrectly. It should be What a Fool Believes (Matt Bianco single) (or EP, whichever). In addition to that, this article could be speedily deleted, since it doesn't assert its own significance. Is this song or record significant? Did it chart? Is it on a major label? I recommend you expand it as much as possible. -Freekee 16:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree, except it should be "(Matt Bianco song)", not "(Matt Bianco single)", per WP:SONG#Naming conventions. --PEJL 18:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't have time for a full answer now, but:

• Is that really an EP, though? It looks like a 12" single. - I agree, but that's the label have classified it as ...
• No, it shouldn't be renamed to either be "song" or "single", because they would refer to a different recording of a different version.
• However, perhaps it should be merged into a page with that name that mentions all of their different versions of this song. Yes, I'd agree with that.
• I notice it's not listed on Matt Bianco's discography. - Significance of comment? I'm sure there are many recordings "not listed on Matt Bianco's discography".

More later Pdfpdf 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't a record be listed on a band's discography? If it's not even important enough to be listed in the band's discography, I question whether it should have its own article. Since the article doesn't assert the song's significance, I don't know whether it should be an article. I trust you will have time to expand this article in the near future. And unless it's going to be deleted, the name needs to be changed from 12" Vinyl to EP. Articles should be about releases, not the physical format. In other words, you don't find one article entitled Joshua Tree (LP) and another Joshua Tree (CD). -Freekee 03:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't a record be listed on a band's discography? - One reason might be: because the list is incomplete.
Articles should be about releases, not the physical format. - That seems sensible. Sometimes it can be ambiguous; e.g. many artists have separately released a '12" single' which is a quite different version of a song than the "original" single (mostly, much longer), and these are known as the '12" single' version - this is a different situation from your Joshua Tree example, but I still think your point is relevant.

So, I'll go back to asking questions:

• Can someone explain the difference between tagging the article, and tagging the talk page please?
• It seems to make a difference whether it's classified as a 12" single or an EP. Can someone explain the significance of the difference in their treatments on WP please?
• How do you decide if it's a 12" single of an EP?

Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf 07:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"*How do you decide if it's a 12" single of an EP?" a single is a promotion of one track or song, an EP is a release that doesn't have that many tracks on it. If it's only boosting one song, then it's a single. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Another way to tell is to see what the record company calls it. As for how we treat full albums versus EPs... we treat them the same. Same templates, same project guidelines. The only difference is that we call them EPs or albums. EPs really are just short albums. Singles, on the other hand, like Viola mentioned, are intended to sell a single song, even though they have other tracks added, to make them more appealing.

That's a good point that the format sometimes differentiates different releases that have the same title. But I would also point out that these different releases would most likely be included in the same article here at Wikipedia. For example, a band could release a song as a CD single, a 12" vinyl single, and again as a CD, but with different songs as "b-sides." All three of these releases should be included in the same article, since we write articles about the songs, rather than the plastic. We really are most interested in the song itself. How it is released is part of that, but the different formats can be included in the text of the article. Also, keep in mind the (currently vague) notability requirements. Although we write articles on every album ever released (if by a notable band), we only write articles about notable songs and singles. Usually this means a single has charted. -Freekee 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response - I didn't notice your reply.
I found your and Viola's replies quite helpful. Thank you.
Applying all of the advice above, I would conclude that this information (data?) should appear on the Matt Bianco page, and that the What a Fool Believes page should contain a link to the relevant section on the Matt Bianco page.
Do you agree? Pdfpdf 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the song, should be wikilinked to that article. I would have set it up exactly that way, with the exception that I would not have made an article for the three-track 12" vinyl. I recommend grabbing the infobox template from this project page and filling in the info for the album articles. That's pretty simple to do. -Freekee 00:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new section: Release history

Our guideline is that the infobox fields "Released" and "Label" should include only the original release date and label, and that additional dates and labels should be included in the article rather than the infobox. Despite this, quite a few articles include more than one release date and label. Many articles that do adhere to the guideline include such additional information in table in a section commonly titled "Release history" or similar. To make our guideline about release dates and labels easier to uphold, I think we should recommend using such a section. Thus I propose we include a new section "Release history" between the sections WP:ALBUM#Certifications and WP:ALBUM#External links in the guideline:

Albums are often released on different dates, on different labels, and on different formats in different regions. This information can be included in a a table. Note that the infobox should only include the first release date and label.

Followed by an example table, based for example on The Beatles (album)#Release history. I'd also like to propose we make a minor tweak to that table, changing "Country" to "Region", to encourage using "Worldwide", "Europe" and similar where appropriate. We could also make references to this section from the release date and label sections of the template documentation. Any objections? --PEJL 19:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I sugggest that the text within the table be a smaller size than that used for prose text in articles, as the frequent use of capital letters in titles, country names and catalogue numbers (which are all capital letter height) in that Beatles example creates an optical effect whereby the text appears larger than the general prose text. Also, some albums are going to have very extended release history tables, yet for most readers such tables would only be supplementary information to the general prose of articles. Some tables may need extra columns adding to them (e.g. where there are different language versions, such as Kraftwerk's albums, e.g. Trans-Europe_Express_(album)#Release_details), so a smaller text size would minimize the risk of tables clashing with info boxes that are placed aligned-right or running too wide to be viewed in full without horizontal scrolling. Ricadus 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Optical effect? That seems very subjective. The text seems just as large as normal prose to me. On the other hand smaller text would look smaller, implying lesser importance. Tables using class="wikitable" have a default formatting that is generally considered appropriate for tables. If using smaller text was generally considered appropriate for tables, that's what class="wikitable" would generate. Note also that changing the font size is discouraged per WP:MOS#Formatting issues, and that chart information tables and track listing tables both use normal table formatting per WP:ALBUM#Track listing and WP:CHART respectively. In fact I think the example you provided would be improved if it used class="wikitable" and proper table headings. --PEJL 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. Certainly clearer than prose in cases of albums with long and complex release histories. Not necessary in all articles though, especially if the album's only been released once or twice and this is already expressed in prose. --IllaZilla 22:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. --PEJL 14:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Genres:commas vs. breaks

I'm assuming there's already been a long discussion about this, but I must disagree with the current protocol of separating by commas, because for many recent pop music artists, genre designations become a subject of ridiculously heated debate and must be sourced extensively. Separating by commas makes this look ungainly, whereas separating by <br>'s is much tidier. Chubbles 20:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Genres do not generally need to be sourced in the infobox. It's better to source the genres where they are included in the body of the article. Remember that the infobox is only meant to summarize facts stated elsewhere in the article. Do you have an example of such an article which you think looks ungainly? --PEJL 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles such as Red Jumpsuit Apparatus and Hawthorne Heights are frequently subject to genre warring, and so multiple sources have been added in the infobox. I suppose the genres and their sources could be moved to the first sentence of the article, but past practice (from what I have seen) has usually been to key the notes to the infobox. Chubbles 22:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. Note though that the articles you linked to are not album articles, so this guideline doesn't apply to them. --PEJL 07:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was only a couple of weeks ago. Personally, I don't see compelling reasons for either method. -Freekee 03:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also been discussed at length on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. Doesn't make much sense to me to have a different guideline for albums. Like Freekee, I'm pretty neutral on the whole topic, but like PEJL, I'm strongly opposed to cluttering up the infoboxes with citations. Which is exactly why {{Infobox musical artist}} says "aim for generality" for the genre field. A comment I think might be useful to add to {{Infobox album}} as well. Xtifr _tälk 13:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but I'd instead say that it doesn't make much sense to have a different guideline for musicians (because there is a guideline on how to delimit for albums but no guideline for musicians). --PEJL 13:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of refs in infoboxes isn't always a bad idea. It's better not to have refs in the infobox but is some cases, mainly when genre edit wars focus on the infobox, it's a good idea (Metallica's St. Anger come to mind). Refs have a restraining effect on disruptive edits. For the <br /> versus comma seperated genres: we should apply what looks best. Each infobox has different content, some contain 4 long genre names, and others contain 2 short names.

I think <br /> separated genre sections always look good, even with citations (like Lamb of God (band)). However, it looks better when the genres stay on 1 line using commas as separator (like Revolver (album)). When genres get wrapped I prefer having <br /> separated lists (certainly when 1 genre is displayed on two lines). Best is to have the same guidelines for both albums and musicians. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 14:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

DVDs

Are DVDs still a scope of this project? BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, music DVDs are, yeah. --linca^linca 06:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the immediate reply. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Are they? Shouldn't we be mentioning Template:Infobox music DVD on WP:ALBUM then? Looking at that template, it differs very little from Template:Infobox Album:

• It has an undocumented field "Rating".
• It has a field "Region".
• It has a field "Director".
• It uses different names for the "Last album"/"This album"/"Next album" fields, but they work the same.

Perhaps we should merge that infobox with the album infobox, by adding support for these fields to the album infobox (and noting that they only apply to DVDs, for example by prefixing the field names with "DVD ", like "DVD rating" and "DVD region". I know we shot down a proposal to merge all the music release infoboxes a while back, but these two seem quite similar, and apparently both fall under this WikiProject. BTW, the edit history of the template suggests that it's intended to be used for video releases on non-DVD media as well, so the name is a bit misleading. --PEJL 11:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For reference, the proposal to merge all music release infoboxes is here. --PEJL 11:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, i am supposed to put an "upcoming album" tag on this particular DVD page but i think its not appropriate. yes it is, its not. However, i just can't leave this page more stub if i will not put any template, which is supposed and need to be appropriate. And i think there is no such template as "upcoming dvd" which is more clearer to researchers. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do EPs use {{Future album}}? If so, perhaps music DVDs should as well. Maybe we should add a new parameter to {{Future album}} so that for example {{Future album|type=ep}} used "EP" in place of "album" in the template output. --PEJL

that's another point also. we should set parameter to this different thing. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For our purposes, EPs use all of the same templates as regular albums, because they are considered to be just short albums. Multi-track singles, on the other hand.... -Freekee 02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Loads more album covers under threat!

There are lots of album covers (among other things) sitting in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 13 September 2007, which are in the process of being deleted. I'd appreciate any help adding/improving fair use rationales for the covers which are being properly used. Remember you can only use album covers to illustrate an article or lengthy section about the album. i.e. you can't use them in lists or galleries, and you can't use them to illustrate an object/person whose picture is on the cover. Template:Album cover article rationale may be useful! Papa November 09:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

gahhh, this is rubbish. i will join with you in trynna save some of these. tomasz. 11:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

See also the list of album covers with disputed fair use claim. Jogers (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll lend a hand. I replaced one yesterday that was not only disputed in rationale but also much too big. --Moonriddengirl 17:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it's on the list--Image:Cherry Pie.JPG is gone, but the article Cherry Pie (album) is now using Image:Cherrypie.jpg. I don't know if I should delete the redlinked or not. --Moonriddengirl 17:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment on Tour pages

I just come to know that tour pages are unassessed. What proper template should be added? BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 09:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to raise this in this talk page since Tours are very much related to music especially albums. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 09:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably more appropriate discussion on the WT:MUSIC page, since tours and albums are autonomous entities (as sometimes, a tour may be in support of an album, though this isn't always the case). Maybe a taskforce of WP:MUSIC could be put together to tackle the subject? Just a thought, but nevertheless, not really the right topic for discussion here. --linca^linca 09:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for that. I'll ask same thing to WT:MUSIC. ^{(talk•contribs)} BritandBeyonce 10:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing Robert Christgau's Reviews From Album Pages

I think REAL music fans should start a protest to have Wikipedia remove Robert Christgau's reviews from album pages. Unlike Rolling Stone and All Music Guide, Christgau's reviews are very biased and pretty useless to people who want a properly critiqued opinion.

This is what he has to say about Paul McCartney's masterpiece "Band On The Run": "The instrumentals are doodles, the songs demos by a man who scores the occasional hit only to prove he's genius. Which he isn't."

I'm assuming he's jealous of the fact that McCartney's album outsold all of his hero John Lennon's albums. Lennon, by the way, is pretty much the only person Christgau gives perfect reviews to. I'm a big fan of Lennon's music, but like most fans, I can actually admit that a lot of his solo stuff was absolute crap.

Here's what he said about 8x platinum album "Core" by the Stone Temple Pilots: "the whole band should catch AIDS and die."

If that's his opinion, fine. But I don't see how it helps out people that are curious about the ACTUAL MUSIC ON THE ALBUM!

Pearl Jam's "Ten": "in life, abuse justifies melodrama; in music, riffs work better"

How exactly does that help me figure out what this album sounds like? Oh wait, it doesn't have to. Because 3/4 of this album is STILL PLAYING ON POPULAR ROCK STATIONS!!! THAT'S RIGHT, POPULAR!!!

The Doors' self-titled album: "Jim Morrison sounds like an asshole."

Aerosmith's "Pump": "If fried brains is your idea of a rock dream"

And finally, Elton John's "Yellow Brick Road": "this is one more double album that would make a nifty single."

Once again, thanks for the opinion, but that doesn't help anybody at all.

Look up your favorite album, if it's not one of Lennon's, prepare to see it trashed with no reasonable explaination.

I say we remove all of Christgau's review's from Wikipedia. All Music Guide and Rolling Stone are enough and both present unbiased, non-judgemental reviews of albums while giving music fans explaination for their reasonings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphtheman23 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 28 September 2007

I see the change you made prior to this proposal was this edit. I'm sure we'll all give your proposal appropriate consideration. --PEJL 18:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think AMG is crap and Rolling Stone is unreliable at best. I don't always agree with Christgau, but that's just how things go. I would sooner propose their removal, were it not for the fact that they're so highly regarded. It's deemed broadly that Christgau is also, and as such, his opinion is one that's suitably kept here. --linca^linca 00:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

All sources mentioned are imperfect but they all count as professional reviews. Use them all and ultimately people will make up their own minds with the information provided. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Christgau, whether anyone likes him or not, is a music critic, and a respected one at that, and believe it or not, that is one of the reasons his opinions are well known. I do not think his reviews should be removed, I do think that readers should have a choice of reviews to select. There are more than enough review sites out there, and of course they should be taken into consideration. --Johmbolaya 02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

chronology of Sigur Rós

I just added the EP Rímur (album). I'm not sure how to list the chronology section. The chronology of Sigur Rós albums and singles is a little messed up. Should albums and singles and EP's be mixed up? --Steinninn 20:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the chronology links at the bottom of the album infobox? Only albums and EPs should be included there. There is a separate infobox for singles, and singles will have their own chronology. Video releases also do not go in either of these chronologies. (Thanks for reminding me - I intended to fix one of those I found the other day.) -Freekee 04:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hardcore Jollies

There is something that needs to be changed on this page. The song Hardcore Jollies was played by Eddie Hazel, not Michael Hampton. It is an obvious mistake on the page when the song is referenced in "title track" because Hardcore Jollies is an insturmental. Please change this mistake. Also I appologize for posting under this discussion topic, I have yet to figure out how to start my own thread. --Chiknfulio 11:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Reviews format

In what format should dates be put in reviews section? Is "9/4/07" fine? Me and the other contributor have been arguing about that, and in my opinion such date format confuses non-American editors, because in other countries the date format is usually DD-MM-YYYY, not month, then day. Daniil Maslyuk 06:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I recently proposed standardizing the date format (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 20#Professional review dates) but nothing came of it. An alternative that I've considered since then is to just use the year, which is about the same length as "link", and sufficient to tell if it's a contemporary review or not. Full dates could be included (and auto-formatted) in a reference. --PEJL 13:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The current "link" usage is still fine by me but if people are dissatisfied with it I would support just using the year for the reasons PEJL puts forward. Admittedly it will look like a linked date fragment, which is a stylistic no-no, but better that than the dd/mm/yy or mm/dd/yy alternatives. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we currently recommend always using a date and say to only use "link" if a date cannot be found. Granted, that's not reflected in current practice, with most reviews using "link" instead of a date, but always using a date is the current recommendation. If that's not what we want, then we should change the guideline. As for the year looking like a linked date fragment, it will be discernible from that because of the different styles associated with external links (slightly different color and symbol). --PEJL 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fair point about the symbol, and clarifying the current standard. Well then, I propose we change the guideline to use just year for the link (if available). Cheers, Ian Rose 15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If so, let's change this:

The third bit is preferably a link to the actual review on an official page; it may also be a summary of the review located elsewhere (if the original publisher doesn't include it online). If there are no online sources, you may include no link at all, but should then cite the information properly. The link should display as the date of the review being published, preferably including the page number—even if there is no link, this information should still be included. If you can not find the date of publication, the word link will suffice. Either a link or a date must be included though.

to this:

The third bit is preferably a link to the actual review on an official page; it may also be a summary of the review located elsewhere (if the original publisher doesn't include it online). The link should display as the year that the review was published. If you can not find the year of publication, the word link will suffice. If there are no online sources, you may include no link at all, but must then cite the information properly. The citation should include the full date of publication and preferably the page number.

The only issue I have with this is that it will mean we get ten links which say "2007" for albums released this year, which may seem redundant. I don't think it's a huge problem though, as "2007" is no more redundant than "link", and starts becoming useful next year without having to change the articles. So I'm in favor of this change. --PEJL 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reads well to me. Cheers, Ian Rose 15:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me too. As you said, "2007" seems redundant, but no more than "link" does...

...That said, I'm still more a fan of having the expanding box to detail info about each proreview and add as a reference. It's a shame we couldn't get that to work. I quite liked the idea of it. --linca^linca 02:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. --PEJL 18:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)