Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Broadway Cast Recordings are not Soundtracks

Respectfully suggest that there should be separate "type" categories for Broadway Cast Recordings and Original Broadway Cast Recordings. A show cast recording is an entirely different thing than a soundtrack. The former is related to a staged production where performers of the show record that show's songs in a studio; the latter has to do with the music used with a movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.58.159 (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are they not studio albums? -- Pepve (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see why people consider them to be soundtracks, because they're the music that goes along with shows. But they're really recordings of performances, so wouldn't that make them Live albums? -Freekee (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I list them as live albums. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Certification

Is there a place for certification in the albums infobox, ie. platinum? I know that the singles infobox has a spot for it.Grk1011 (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. -Freekee (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well can someone put one in then?Grk1011 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope again. Sorry. This has been discussed many times. It comes down to the complicatedness of album charts. There are too many different charts and too many different countries to put charts in the infobox. -Freekee (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Help

I am still trying to figure out image uploading, and then putting into a page. I am trying to add the album cover for the split between Cipher System and By Night, but for some reason it will not show up. It is uploaded, and viewable at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cipher_system_and_by_night_split.jpg and so I followed the way that Dimmu Borgir's album "For All Tid" is edited, but it does not work. Can someone please help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pogrom666 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have worked though. But you might want to remove the white border around the cover, it isn't needed. -- Pepve (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Did it myself. -- Reaper X 05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about listing personnel

Sometimes albums get a little creative with the manner in which personnel are listed. For example, I'm working on a page for Lari White's Lead Me Not album, and the liner notes credit one person as contributing "ridiculously high harmony vocals" on one song. In creating the album's page, would it be acceptable to use the liner notes' phrasing? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you put in in quotes and reference it with a citation to the liner notes, then that would probably be OK. Otherwise just simplify it to "backing vocals" or something. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial album titles

How should we format unofficial titles like The White Album, The Blue Album, or Led Zeppelin IV? Do we italicize those or what? Italicizing kind of gives the impression of an official title, but I guess we can offset that by specifying in the intro that it's an unofficial title. What do people think? Torc2 (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

personally i'd say italicize for consistency but, like you say, clearly emphasising that it's unofficial. tomasz. 10:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. First of all, since everything should be sourced, do it like how everyone else does. Second, since they are capitalized (see rule #1), they are stand-ins for official titles, and should therefore be italicized. They're unofficial titles, but they're still titles. Third (see previous two rules), it's not incorrect to put them in unitalicized lower case, if you want. Like to say, "fans didn't know how to differentiate the blue album from the green album, so they started calling them The Blue Album and The Green Album." -Freekee (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Personnel

Hi. I'd like to include a statement in Personnel something to the effect that "At minimum, personnel should include band members. A full listing should incorporate guest musicians and technical personnel." Similar language is present at the assessment scale under the various rankings, but given what I've encountered in my futile album ranking quest, I don't believe this is widely understood by editors attempting to follow the format. Any objections? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree on more detailed guidelines, then incorporate them into the project page? For example, in the "Personnel" section, there could be one subsection, named after the band, listing the musicians in the band, a second, optional subsection called "Additional musicians", and a third subsection called "Production" to contain the technical credits. — Mudwater 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly how I do it, and I think that it's the best solution (see The Clark Family Experience (album) as an example). If a solo musician uses his own backing band and a set of studio musicians, I list those in separate sub-headers as well (see Swimming in Champagne as an example). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To keep it simple, I added another person as an example. See section. I think that makes it clear that technical personnel should be added to the section, while keeping it short and to the point. Sound reasonable? Mudwater, I think you can tell from this answer, that I prefer not to go into too much detail in the guidelines. I'd prefer the project page didn't get out of hand. But I do like to see album articles set up like you suggest. Well, actually, I prefer a break in the bulleting to separate subheadings, but I wouldn't change an existing article for it. -Freekee (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully that will take care of it. :) On a related note, one thing that often puzzles me when I'm ranking albums is how to handle articles about solo musicians or musicians who carry the only name in the band. Take, for example, From the Choirgirl Hotel. The sole name on the album is Tori Amos. But she did this album with a full band, many of whom are regulars at concert and in subsequent album releases. According to the quality assessment, you need band members at least to rank as a start class. It's okay not to have guest musicians, though you need those for B. Does that make this one a stub? Or do they not count as band members even when regulars if the front person gets the sole name? I usually skip those articles, because I'm just not sure how to handle them.

Occasionally I also run into articles (though now that I want one, I can't find one) that omits the traditional personnel section in favor of the band infobox. Many of these have rotating band members in tiered levels. There's no way to know which band members performed on that particular album. Those I sometimes will rate as stubs, with a note that specific band member info is needed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here's one now! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The navbox at the bottom? Doesn't count. It's a navigational aid not a source of information about the album. That article has only an infobox and track listing. The personnel list in the navbox does not tell which members played, or what they played. I'm not sure it has enough text to meet Start class either. As for the minimum size of the personnel list, use your judgement. If it only lists one person, I wouldn't pass it.

But back to the original question about how much guideline to give. The assessment section would be the place to say how much info is required to pass a certain level. The main project page would only need to say what sort of information is expected. -Freekee (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for the list of "OK" review sites

Are there any criteria for the current listing acceptable review sites (see ALBUM#Review_sites). Someone added a bunch of links to reviews from Paste, they were all removed due to COI issues, but in reality, aren't reviews from Paste as credible or moreso than many that we've listed?

In truth, I've never liked the list. It will never be complete, and often times the best reviews are in genre specific publications. Isn't the only real criteria for this that the publicaitons should be reliable sources. -MrFizyx (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The list is merely a guideline to show what kind of publications are acceptable, like all guidelines on wikipedia it is not set in stone and common sense applies. It isnt for us to decide which reviews are the 'best'. I would think it would be good practice to include reviews from the most verifiable sources. --neonwhite user page talk 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Titles in Spanish

In Spanish, titles like other text, the words must began with capital letter only if they are names or the first word (Real Academia Española: Ortografía 3.3.3.g; Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas 4.17).

Example: El tren de los momentos is OK. "El Tren de los Momentos", "El Tren De Los Momentos", etc. are wrong.

Eloy (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in English, I'm pretty sure that we capitalize like your second example and since this is the English wikipedia, we follow that rule. Its like if you are writing an essay for school, if you only capitalized the first word of the title, you would be wrong. Grk1011 (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I read the project page and it states the rules for English only. I make a lot of articles for Greek albums and singles and always use the English standard for capitalization. If we had a special standard for each and every language it would be too complicated. Also I would have to disagree with the usage of accents like in "Española". Shouldn't it be Written "Espanyola" since the "ñ" with the accent doesnt exist in English? It should be written Espanyola (Spanish: Española). Grk1011 (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's taking it too far. Following the English standards for capitalization is fine, but eliminating characters just because they're not part of the English alphabet is just silly. The rule is for capitalization, after all, not spelling. You're suggesting spelling things out phoenetically, which isn't good writing or grammar. The ñ is, after all, in the special characters box right below the edit window. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also consider the common English term El Niño. -- Pepve (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese names are written following the English capitalization guidelines. For example, a song which is usually written completely in uppercase is "proper cased" following them. I don't see why Spanish names should be different. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that the letter is available below, but so is the whole Greek alphabet, if i wrote in that an English speaker wouldn't know what to think. But back to the topic, User:Eloy is changing every single album, single, song, and artist page to no caps except the first word. Should we be reverting his changes and telling him to stop, or letting him continue? Grk1011 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese titles are special because they use all caps extensively which reduces readability. We should not apply English standards blindly. El tren de los momentos is perfectly fine in my opinion. Jogers (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

MusicBrainz for example, have language-specific capitalization guidelines. I find this approach very reasonable. Jogers (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I will just copy a related comment I previously posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Capitalization of foreign titles: The artist's official website renders the record's title either in all-caps or in common title case ("El Tren de los Momentos"), hence we are certainly at the liberty of using the latter. Also, while my experience on this may by no means be exhaustive, I am under the impression, that many high-profile English publications chose to apply title case to foreign language media (see an example in the NY Times). - Cyrus XIII (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what authoritative style guides say about this. Jogers (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Sources" tag placed on album articles containing only infobox & track listing

For a little light relief, check out Those Who Are About to Die Salute You and its talk page. A very determined editor has run through the album catalogue of Colosseum, tagging each album article to request verifiable sources for the information which, in most cases, consists only of an intro, an infobox, a tracklist and personnel. This comes 24 hours after he did the same with two albums by an ARIA Music Awards-winning Australian band, My Friend the Chocolate Cake, resorting to tagging one album article for deletion when I removed his "Sources" tag.

The nub of his reasoning, as explained at both the talk page above and his own talk page, is that these albums may all be hoaxes unless their existence is proved by a source for the information, which is clearly the album covers themselves. My point, argued repeatedly, is that Wiki's WP:V and WP:CITE guidelines require sources cited only for information likely to be challenged. He feels every Wiki article – even those containing little more than a tracklisting, should state its source, presumably on the grounds that the accuracy of every tracklisting is suspect. He also feels that sources denote notability to readers unfamiliar with the albums. Judging by his user contributions, he is one busy boy, hell bent on flagging every album article lacking a source. At what point does misguided and pigheaded zeal turn to vandalism? Grimhim (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a point-making troll alright. Have you considered bringing this up on WP:ANI? - Cyrus XIII (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely bring it up at WP:ANI. Given how new the account is and how quickly they came up to speed on Wiki policies, it's probably a sock as well. That said, if they believe their edits are improving Wikipedia, it's technically not vandalism, although it is definitely disruptive.

As for sources, the AMG link provides a sufficient source for most of the information, and the album itself can be assumed as the source for the rest. I don't know if we have to cite the album in an article about the album itself - it seem pedantic and unnecessary to me. We know the album is a primary source. The main thing to remember is not to be confrontational and not always assume the tags are wrong. Torc2 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Something related is this list (not updated recently) of album articles with a sourceneeded tag. User:Alai/sourcealbum It's a loooong list.--Fisherjs (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes nonsensical source requests for trivial things like track listings and personnel all the more irritating, is that genuine verifiability issues will fail to sufficiently stand out if the respective categories become watered down. I can imagine that quite a few albums on that list could still use some references, i.e. on concept and creation. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My edits are in good faith. As I understand Wikipedia policy, all articles must have sources per WP:V. Grimhim continually removes my tags without providing even the usual AllMusic source. I fail to see why the tags are bad, perhaps Grimhim feels they are not aesthetically pleasing. I am pretty sure that WikiProjects are supposed to uphold Wikipedia policy first, rather than protect "their" articles. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a few of Blast Ulna's tags do have merit. Adding the unreferenced tag to Home Improvements, Bread and Circuses (album), Tomorrow's Blues, and Daughter of Time was entirely appropriate, since they don't list any third party reviews in the info box and really have absolutely nothing aside from a primary source; while primary sources are allowed, they're not allowed to be the only source for an article. Also, The Devastations article really doesn't assert notability enough to escape a notability tag, and the AfD for that is somewhat appropriate. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 11:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point that AfD nom is appropriate for The Devastations is wrong. According to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, notability is achieved by any of the criteria which includes "(5) Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels ... The article's discography lists two albums on the Beggars Banquet Records label. (The BB link was wrong, admittedly ... I'll fix that in a moment) Grimhim (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really; the article still has only the band's own webpage and their myspace page. Nothing verifiably notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Meeting the minimum of the minimum requirements without a single secondary source does mean it's appropriate to at least question the notability of the band. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 09:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy says things must be sourced and articles should assert there notability, whilst common sense does apply there is nothing wrong with asking for sources for article that don't have any. If an album cannot be well sourced then it probably isn't notable enough to have an article and should be redirected to the artist page. Not every album is notable. The The Devastations should still have sources that assert it's notability or it's accuracy is may be rightly questioned, i have dealt with articles before that have fabricated info about releases. --neonwhite user page talk 17:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• While I have your attention, and while you guys are looking at my tags, you know what would be awesome cool? It would be as you remove prod tags from some articles, you guys add prod-2 tags to some articles you agree should be deleted. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Diff

By the way, here is the diff between one of the articles before I tagged it and now. It seems to have been much improved, especially considering how small an article it is. So, are my tags disruptive, or do they help improve Wikipedia? Blast Ulna (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll preface my answer by saying I haven't checked out any of the articles in question, aside from this one, or noticed your edits to any articles I've edited. I feel that it was an inappropriate use of the RS tag (February 12). There was only one fact in that article that wouldn't have appeared in the liner notes, and it was not controversial, to say the least. As for the changes made since that time, while the article was improved, it was only in minor ways, and no changes were made that satisfied any of the three tags you applied, except maybe the "vague" tag.

It is obvious that the information in the article is taken from the album itself. There is no need to state the obvious. If you don't trust that the information is accurate, stating that the information is taken from the album cover will not solve the problem. Inaccuracy is different than no citation.

A larger question at hand is whether placing a tag on an article in hopes that it will stir editors to action, will help to improve this encyclopedia. I think the answer to that is a qualified yes. Yes, some articles will be improved, but others will not. And if you're running around tagging articles, wouldn't your time be better spent improving articles? But the most important factor, I think, is what effect these tags have on the perception of this encyclopedia. If an article is bad, it needs to be tagged as such. But if there's nothing wrong with it, I believe that tagging it as having a problem is detrimental to Wikipedia. People come here because they're after information. If they stop believing they can trust this info, they stop coming here. And these people are the ones who become editors.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm going to start removing "unreferenced" tags, unless the appending editor can (and does) point to specific problems - controversial facts. I believe these tags should only be used when there are facts in question that have a good chance of being false. If something just sounds a little odd, please use the talk page. And while I'm at it, remember that reliable sources don't have to be found online. So liner notes qualify as RSes. Don't tag an article just because nobody's linked it to AMG.

-Freekee (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone cares to use it, there is actually a template for citing album liner notes: Template:Cite album-notes. I use it from time to time. It's especially helpful in album articles for citing personnel and recording details. I think that would solve most of the "unreferenced" problems that Blast Ulna perceives. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think that's the answer in this instance. The tag would certainly be helpful in the body of an album article providing the background, for example, to its recording when this is detailed in the liner notes. But in most cases it shouldn't be necessary to provide a source for album liner notes when the information in contention consists only of tracklisting, personnel, release date and label in stub articles. The source will naturally be the album cover/liner notes and providing a footnoted reference for this is stating the bleeding obvious. Yet this is what Blast Ulna has been seeking. This user has tagged a record label in an infobox with a {fact} tag. There has to be a point where common sense and good faith are more important than blind devotion to the notion of proving everything. (Do I exist? Please cite your evidence).Grimhim (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[to Illazilla] In what situations do you feel it would be important to use it? -Freekee (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One instance in which I used it was Black Flag band members, to cite which lineups of the band played on which recordings. Another was Further Seems Forever, where I cited a quote from the liner notes, and Guttermouth where I cited a band history that was written in liner notes. I can't think of an example from an album article offhand, though I'm working on several right now where I intend to use it to quote stories in the liner notes told by the band members about the recording of the albums. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are excellent examples of when to use it. They are items where the source isn't obvious. What I was getting at was was pretty much what Grimhim said (when I made my comment, I hadn't noticed that he already posted a reply). -Freekee (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could also use the same reference format and simply put the album itself as a "General Reference". That way you wouldn't need to cite every factoid, but it would be obvious where you got the info and that there's some external confirmation of the info and of the album's existence. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Album covers and liner notes are the best kind of "primary sources" to use for verification purposes. However, they won't be able to attest to the notability of their albums, which is done by reviews (favorable or unfavorable), charts, awards and some books, which are called "secondary sources". Sources that compile primary and secondary sources are called "tertiary"; for example, All Music Guide and encyclopedias are tertiary. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true. Why do you bring it up? -Freekee (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if people knew. Blast Ulna (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I was just wondering because as far as I could tell, we were talking about the need for references, not types of sources. -Freekee (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cover in infoboxes

Are album covers ok for infoboxes? If no image of the artist exists isnt it legal to use an album cover and just set the caption to say that its an album cover? Its either that or not picture at all. Grk1011 (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring here to infoboxes on artist articles. Here's the rather lengthy policy on the use of non-free (e.g.copyright) images: Wikipedia:Non-free content. Criterion 8 states: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Under Images (acceptable use), it says: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." By tradition, album covers are allowed in infoboxes at album articles, even though in most cases there is not a word of critical commentary. Album covers are, however, explicitly deemed unacceptable in discographies. There is nothing explicitly mentioned about an album cover in an artist infobox.

My advice, then, is this: Do it sparingly and see if you can get away with it. Some editors take a very strict approach and hurry to delete such things, but this, to my mind, is an overly stern approach and probably reflects (a) A very strict religious upbringing, in which any hint of flexibility and common sense in the application of principles and guidelines is deemed sinful; or (b) A history of being the victim of childhood bullying, in which, from the protection of anonymity, WP editors can now take their revenge on the world by assuming great powers and imposing their own hardline view on others by always taking the higher ground. Grimhim (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

@Grimhim: While I don't agree with your opinions about WP editors who are strict about non-free content, I've been guilty of this practice once or twice in the past. I'd like to point out, though, that there's also the issue of 3(a) in NFC: "Minimal use: "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." If you apply that criterion to this situation, I think it pretty clearly means that album covers should not be used in the infobox of the artist article; the cover should only appear in the article about the album itself. As to your comment about the cover art criterion, it says the cover art can be used if there's critical commentary about the item, meaning the album as a whole and not the cover specifically. True there are a lot of album articles out there that are stubs or don't contain much critical commentary, but that just means those articles need to be expanded. IMHO any editor/admin with a basic understanding of NFC will see why it's inappropriate to use an album cover in the infobox of an article about the artist, rather than using a picture of the artist.

@Grk1011: It's probably an extremely rare case that no image of a musical artist exists. Even if you can't find a free image, almost every notable artist has promotional photos taken of themselves for use in the media. The best solution in my opinion is: If it's impossible to find a free image to use (ie. if the artist has been dead for a long time, or it was a band/group that broke up a long time ago), then use a promotional photo instead under a claim of fair use. Just make sure you explain in the image rationale why it's impossible to find a free image instead. But don't use an album cover. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What license can I use if I use a press photo from an official website? I cant seem to find any licesne that fits into that. Also, being an American, I don't have much access to free use picture of Greek artists. Grk1011 (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Non-free promotional}} is the license tag. I don't know why it no longer appears in the dropdown menu when you're uploading an image. Keep in mind, though, that WP considers fair use images of living persons to be invalid, since those are obviously replaceable by free images (it might not be easy to get a free image, but it would certainly be possible). So if the artist you're working on is still alive (or still performing together, if it's a group), then a promotional photo probably won't be allowed. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

When trying to locate free images, Flickr is usually a good place to start. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 06:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line of the strict adherence to what is a fairly strict policy is the issue of whether Wikipedia is itself being too damned cautious? Are we pre-emptively blocking the use of, say, album covers, on artist articles when it's highly unlikely that either the recording or graphic design artist would object to their work being given the wide exposure WP provides. Artists surely would be delighted if their work was splashed all over the internet. Grimhim (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the wishes of the artist or the label. In fact, they could say "we allow Wikipedia to use our images for whatever they want, but only Wikipedia" and we would still have to be just as strict. The reason is because Wikipedia is trying to build a free-content encyclopedia, one without copyright red tape. Not just for our uses now, but so that other people can reuse our content. -- Ned Scott 09:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Song titles in foreign languages

There's a debate on whether or not to use the original, foreign-language title for song names or use the translations (at Smile (album) specifically, but this applies everywhere). Personally I believe that original titles with translations should be used. What's the standard? (The archives here were no help.) = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 15:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Which album by that name exactly? There is quite a few of them. Personally, I always give preference to original titles or official translations (if available), while avoiding unofficial translations, per WP:OR/WP:CRYSTAL. Though limited use of unauthorized translations may still have merit in the context of a referenced discussion of the song in question. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 15:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he was talking about Smile (Boris album). What I do when i make pages for greek albums and songs is to translate the letters not the meanings. ie, Είσαι η Μουσική Μου → Eisai I Mousiki Mou. When i do translate, i do this: Eisai I Mousiki Mou (You Are My Music) is and album... This way the original title is there. I don't leave it in greek characters because who says that the average wiki user cam read greek? Grk1011 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If the original title is in Greek, it should be there in Greek. It's not a question of readability, but of accuracy. I don't see any harm in indicating what the English translation of the title is, but unless it's indicated on the English version of the album, it's not an official title and should be mentioned only for informative purposes. (200 Po Vstrechnoy is a good example of this, though I hate the formatting.) If there's actually two versions of the album with translated titles that are otherwise identical, list both the original and translated names and indicate that in the text. If there's actually two different versions with changed lyrics or a different tracklist, the tracklists should be listed separately. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry—I forgot to watch this page for responses. Yeah, I was talking about the Boris album. I was hoping for a response like Torc's, but any other opinions or if there's a convention I'd love to hear them. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 01:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Torc's "hate the formatting" comment prompted me to give the 200 Po Vstrechnoy article a makeover, so for the purpose of this discussion, he was probably referring to this revision. I agree with him in that titles should always be mentioned in their original script, regardless of an expected reader demographic for that kind of information. Yet per WP:UE, romanized titles should always be given preference (in article titles, text bodies, wikilinks, etc). – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, very nice! Good job on that! —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen that template before. Very nice. I might have to start using that. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, on both, that rewrite and the template. As you can see on the latter's talk page, I'm still not 100% satisfied with it (as one of the creators, that's probably natural), hence no bells 'n whistles announcement for it here yet. Still, reactions so far have been very constructive and encouraging. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 00:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The recent change to the guideline says: "Article names for foreign albums should use the Latin alphabet, with the title transliterated." Is that right? Do we want the transliteration as part of the article name? I would think it would go in the intro with the original-language title. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are three forms for any foreign-language title. Original language (200 по встречной), transliteration (200 Po Vstrechnoy) and translation (200 [km/h] Against the Traffic). The article name should be the transliteration. This is because in the English-language Wikipedia, we can't use non-Latin characters. Also, the translation is not strictly accurate. The original-form should (must) appear in the opening line of the article. The translated version should appear in the article as well, but this is not mandatory, it's just a good idea for informational purposes. Those instructions are according to the Manual of Style. -Freekee (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for all the help. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 18:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, some of the commas threw me off. I thought it was looking for two forms of the title in the article name. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Would this sound better?

The article name should use the Latin alphabet. If the album title is in a foreign language, use a transliteration, and include the title in its original language in the opening line of the article.

-Freekee (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also a debate (well, I'm debating it) on Rossz csillag alatt született as to whether the track and album titles should be capitalized or not, since (apparently) Hungarian standards say they shouldn't, BUT since the album is by a Canadian artist and this is the English Wikipedia I disagree. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 01:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks too informal when not capitalized. Grk1011 (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question of looking "informal" or not. The album and song titles are in Hungarian, and applying English grammar rules to foreign titles would obviously be silly. The titles should be capitalized, but not according to English capitalization rules. (Aaron lives in Hungary by the way.) my previous conversation with 5th Eye KovacsUr (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

RockReviews.org

Just letting people from the project know: I've removed album reviews from RockReviews.org. As far as I can tell, these are not professional reviews from a well-established website and most of the reviews were added by the single-purpose account Wiki4U (talk · contribs). Pichpich (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Live albums in chronology

The guidance says that live albums should not be included in the infobox chronology, which is fair enough. But what, then, do you do with the Chronology field in the infobox for a live album? Just leave it out altogether? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you could still insert the previous and next chronological studio albums, or just completely omit that section of the infobox. Keep in mind that there are some instances where live album could be included. They're not absolutely forbidden, just typically excluded. I think if you could make a case for a critical live album (Frampton Comes Alive! or At Budokan for example). —Torc. ^(Talk.) 10:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Remix album

I'm not sure what to do about Remixes 2004. Its technically a remix album, but charted in Greece on the singles charts. Is it a single or an album? Grk1011 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like both. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 22:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say single - a single can have remixes, that's the norm in pop/rap/hip-hop singles.-^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the record is not listed on her own website. Do any of the charts list it? What about the record label? It was a Billboard #1 - was that a singles chart? What did they call it? -Freekee (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a single with remixes of a specific song, they are remixes of past songs that she has released. There are no new songs on the cd. And the billboard thing, the Greek version of "Call Me", is on the cd, but the cd was not on billboard. Grk1011 (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like an EP then. I would still hope to find an outside source that calls it something, though. Fan sites call it a single. There's no reference to it anywhere else. -Freekee (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's apply some duck typing: No title track, more than four tracks, probably runs for 20+ minutes, right? I'd call it an EP, though the whole issue could probably be avoided altogether by simply merging it into the Paraksenes Eikones article and just call it a "bonus disc", seeing that it was never released separately. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it was never released separately. *slaps forehead* That's why it doesn't show up in searches, and yes, that's what it says in the opening line of the article. OK, it definitely should not be its own article. Merge and redirect. -Freekee (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It was released separatly. [1] But then Paraksenes Eikones came out, it was then sold with it as a bonus. Just as Elena Paparizou's Fos (song) was released sep, and then included as a bonus on Yparhi Logos. Grk1011 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should I believe you? I think this is a conspiracy between some of her fans to make people think she's released more albums than she really has. That's why the album only appears on fansites. I just haven't decided whether you're in on the conspiracy, or whether you fell for it. -Freekee (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AMG reviews with multiple star ratings

I think these are only on Classical albums, but what do we do in situations like this? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Like in Firefly (soundtrack)? That's a tough one. Giving both ratings without explanation is not good, since a reader will have no idea what it means. Explaining them doesn't seem great because it takes up too much room in the infobox. You can't show only one of them, because you could be misrepresenting the review. Leaving the stars out doesn't leave you with much of a review. If you had a article section for reviews, it would be fine to explain it there. It might be best to leave the review out. -Freekee (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see justifying the removal of valid information just because it's difficult to include it. There's got to be a better way. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 03:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's hope someone can come up with a suggestion. My main concern is that the current form (in that article) is meaningless without an explanation. Any of the other ways I mentioned would be preferable. -Freekee (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, over at Notability (music) ....

Discussion you may be interested in over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Albums and songs. At issue is the wording of the guidelines at WP:MUSIC that help determine the notability of albums for inclusion in WP. My own starting point is a wish to see more, rather than less, album content on WP to strengthen its reputation as an authoritative knowledge base on albums. Not all see it this way, of course, and this divergence in opinion is acknowledged at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Notability. Contributors are referred back to WP:MUSIC for more information. Since that's where guidelines are formulated, you may wish to offer your opinion if you have one. Grimhim (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Writer's credit for people who use stage/nick names

I've had quick look through Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs and the archive here regarding this issue but can find no reference to it. Is there a Wikipedia guideline for how a writer's credit should be represented for people who use a stage/nick name but publish under their legal name? I seem to have found myself in an edit war with Rock Soldier with regards to the writer's credit for Lemmy on all of his songs. Although he is always credited as Kilmister on the releases, Rock Soldier contends that as his Wikipedia article is at Lemmy, the writer's credit should be changed to reflect this, my assertion being that this this does not follow Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are many other composers/musicians to whom this also applies, how should wikipedia handle this? Drwhawkfan (talk) 13:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had some issues with this myself. In one case the singer of a band contacted me to address how he was incorrectly listed in all the articles relating to the band. He changed his name legally sometime around when the band started to match the name of the band, but he uses a completely different pseudonym for songwriting credits, so people were assuming that the credit name was his real name and even using Wikipedia articles as a source. Anwyay, the solution I've used is: in the "Track listing" section, list the names as they appear in the album credits (first & last names if they are known). If the person uses a stage name that's different from the name they use for songwriting credits, then in the "Personnel" section list their stage name first, and their real name in parenthesis (if known, and with a reference). If they use another pseudonym altogether for songwriting, as they guy in my example does, I list him as "xxxx (credited as yyyy)". --IllaZilla (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Another offhand example would be the Ramones. As performers they were always listed under their stage names (Joey Ramone, Johnny Ramone, etc.) but for writer's credits they used their legal names. So I would use the legal names in the Track listing section, and then in the Personnel section I'd use the stage names but in parenthesis put the legal names, so the reader knows which stage name matches to which songwriter. Example: "Joey Ramone (Jeffrey Hyman) - vocals" --IllaZilla (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Drwhawkfan, your opinion is what I believe to be correct. I put the stage names in the personnel section, and the text of the article, and the credited name in the writing credits. It's important to make it known who we're talking about, so Zilla's method is good. At least make sure that the name is linked to the proper person. Like Jeffry Hyman. -Freekee (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your replies. I'm happy to say that all parties have accepted IllaZilla's advice as the solution to this problem. Drwhawkfan (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Creation of Tori Amos bootleg articles

Hey. A user named Broken fixed has been creating a great number of articles about each stop on a Tori Amos tour. The articles claim that they're official bootlegs, whatever that means, but I don't know that they're notable on their own. Can someone else take a look at this and give their opinion? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Sony BMG has set up a website that sells so-called "official bootlegs" (no-so-polished but still professionally done live recordings, I suspect) in FLAC and MP3. I think there is something similar for more recent Metallica tours. While great for fans, I doubt that such releases have sufficient standalone notability and should at the very least be limited to one article, that explains the website and lists the shows available. If track listings are available and said user would like to keep them, suggest the tracklist template with the "collapsed" option enabled. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 11:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great response. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire "Instant Live" series could be handled that way. Keep in mind those are physical releases with label numbers and everything. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've demoed the approach for The Original Bootlegs (also by Amos), seeing that there were only more or less orphaned article stubs for each of the individual releases. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 18:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one questioning the validity of all of those articles. I'm a Tori Amos fan, but I don't see the need in having an article created for each of the 27 live shows that were released. In their current form, each article has a generic intro and then the track list, and that's about it.

I do like your demoed approach for The Original Bootlegs series, Cyrus XIII. Do you think a similar format would work for the Legs and Boots series? Keeping in mind that there are only 6 shows in The Original Bootlegs series, whereas Legs and Boots has 27, would it be cumbersome and/or ugly to have collapsed set lists for 27 shows in a single article? There's talk of a DVD release (or two) from the tour, and in that case the track lists/set lists can be presented in an article devoted to the DVD releases. I agree that the series should be represented with a single article, I only wonder if listing the track lists for all of the shows is necessary. --Pisceandreams (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Album Cover for NKOTB

I found an album cover for New Kids on the Blocks "Merry Merry Christmas" album http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/5673/1251b220dca054b51f75301tg2.jpg

I'd up it myself but after what happened last time I'll not be joining.68.32.76.156 (talk)

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/628/200707441gt6.jpg Jon B's Bonafide (album)68.32.76.156 (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of conjunctions in titles

There is an open request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) that discusses whether or not all conjunctions in the title of a published work should be lowercased, regardless of their length. As this obviously concerns music-related articles, input from members of this WikiProject would be much appreciated. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Costello Music peer review

I don't know if this sort of thing is allowed or usual, but as peer reviews get so little attention - if anyone could check out the peer review for Costello Music and make a comment or two I'd be really grateful :) -- Naerii · plz create stuff 23:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Christgau's Reviews

This picks up from a disussion in the archive where several posters recommended deleting his reviews. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_21#Removing_Robert_Christgau.27s_Reviews_From_Album_Pages

I also think Christgau’s reviews should be deleted, for several reasons. If individual reviews are allowed then the review section could easily become very large. You could easily end up with dozens of reviews. Another problem with Christgau in particular is that he uses a very awkward scoring system that is very misleading at first glance. What would you assume *** means? If you didn’t know you’d think that it means 3 stars out of 5, or perhaps 3 out of 4, but in fact it means, “Honorable Mention is an enjoyable effort consumers attuned to its overriding aesthetic or individual vision may well treasure” (http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bk-cg90/grades-90s.php). He uses letters, stars, and symbols in a system that is not easily understandable from just a quick glance. Also note that Christgau is often very out of step with other reviewers. The album Twin Cinema by the New Pornographers is a good example. Christgau’s own Pazz & Jop poll, which in 2005 polled 795 of what Christgau himself considers to be the top reviewers, ranked Twin Cinema as the 9th best album in the world. Christgau himself, on the other hand, only gave it a **. (You’ll have to look up what that means). Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but if Christgau can be that out of step with 800 of the top reviewers in the world then I don't think Wikipedia should value his reviews enough to allow them to be put in the review section ahead of other individual reviewers. Alternatively, if individual reviewers are going to be allowed then clearly there are dozens and dozens of reviewers who thought Twin Cinema was an outstanding album, and their reviews should be put into the review section along with Christgau’s in order to put his review in context as being out of step with the vast majority of the top reviews. I think the most reasonable solution, however, is to not use Christgau’s reviews at all. BigRockFan (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I can't support cutting Robert Christgau. He is a notable, published, professional reviewer. Moreover, on some of the older jazz artists, he and Piero Scaruffi (another individual reviewer on the list) are often the only journalists who care to weigh in. Given that, I don't find eliminating Christgau reasonable. The fact that some reviewers disagree is inevitable. It seems to me that eliminating reviewers because they are not in range with other reviewers is problematic with regards to WP:NPOV, as we're supposed to represent significant viewpoints, not necessarily normalize them. The link to the reviews in the infobox, with grades provided, seems to me sufficient to provide "Background...on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the solution is to limit Christgau to his areas of expertise? No one can be an expert in all areas. Perhaps Christgau is very good at reviewing other genres of music, but I think the Twin Cinema example is one that suggests strongly that he is not an expert in this kind of music. Another example is Broken Social Scene’s You Forgot It In People, an album that also made the top 40 on his own Pazz & Jop list but that he gave a scissors grade to. (Again, you’re going to have to look that up to understand what it means.) http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=broken+social+scene http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/pnj/pjres03.php

There is still the problem that his grading system is extremely awkward and misleading, but if the jazz people think he’s good and are willing top put up with his grading system then I don’t have a problem with that. As a reviewer of this kind of indie music, however, I don’t think he’s credible. I suggest that his performance shows quite clearly that he is not an expert in this area, and therefore that his reviews are misleading rather than helpful in assessing this kind of music.BigRockFan (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would hesitate to include one of his reviews, if it was way out of step with everyone else's opinions, only on account of giving undue weight to alternative opinions. Even so, I might include his opinion in a text section, explaining it and using it as an example of a contrary opinion... if I thought it made sense. -Freekee (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a few days late with this. It's been busy times at work, and when on Wiki I've been distracted by other matters. The jazz people (including this one) are sometimes grateful for any kind of reliable sourcing we can find. :) (Jazz albums seldom go gold. They seldom make hits.) But even in terms of rock, I would argue that he is regarded as credible...at least by respectable industry publications like Rolling Stone. Note this, this, this, this and this. I don't think the fact that a critic disagrees with other critics invalidates him as a professional in his field. I would disagree with Freekee below above, too, that reporting a professional reviewer in terms of the infobox who is out of step is undue...unless you report it multiple times or include quotes from it. :) Take the movie Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, for example: a movie that has received very mixed reviews. Steven Holden of the NYT, a top critic according to "Rotten Tomatoes", loved it: "How light is this movie? So buoyant that even an air raid warning, signaling that this whole world is about to crumble under the blitz, can’t dampen its giddy spirits". Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe, another topic critic, did not: "If dour Miss Pettigrew does indeed live for a day, good for her. That's 24 hours longer than this movie seems to". Wall Street Journal? "At least "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day" has the good grace to go wrong quickly"; San Francisco Chronicle? "Frothy and exuberantly entertaining...it's the best romantic comedy so far this year." (Both critics for those sources also labeled "top critics".) The fact that critics disagree...even violently...does not mean their professional opinion isn't credible. :) In the interests of WP:NPOV I think that the best thing to do is include a representative sample. If Christgau is the lone low (or high) score among a list of reviewers, Wikipedia's readers ought to be able to figure out that his view is not the dominant one. The link gives them the opportunity to figure out why. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I supported retaining Christgau's reviews the last time this was raised and see no reason to change that opinion. He's a pro and that should be sufficient to include him. I could go into more detail but Moonriddengirl has said pretty well all I'd want to say. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Moonriddengirl. I didn't say I wouldn't include Christgau, I only said I'd hesitate, to make sure not to give undue weight. This is how I feel about any set of reviews. Reviews should be representative. -Freekee (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think his reviews being "out of step with 800 of the top reviewers in the world" is proper reason to exclude him. If we wanted all of our reviewers to have an identical opinion, then we would only need to include a single review for each album, right? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Track listings

I was wondering in what situations a table would be preferable to a numbered list. I personally feel tables are better for track listings, as they are easier to read. However, when I create track tables they are often reverted. ReverendG (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tables are rarely, if ever, desirable, in my experience. If songs have extra writer info or stuff like that you should use the tracklist template. I don't think info about charting should go in the tracklist itself, probably a separate paragraph or the individual song articles instead. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that one should use that template. It has been created, and discussed among a small group of users. The template may be used, however. :-) In answer to ReverendG's question, I don't usually find tables easier to read, unless there is a lot of information to get across. -Freekee (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, I don't mean it should be used, sorry... I just think it's a good idea because I quite like the template. It of course depends on the article. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Da Yoopers albums

Recently I put all of Da Yoopers' albums up for deletion; the consensus was to merge to a separate discography, as they don't appear notable enough for separate pages. Since they have at least a dozen albums out, a suggestion was made to create a separate discography page composed of each album's track listings. I've gotten a start at User:TenPoundHammer/Yoopers sandbox, using the {{tracklist}} template to make hidden track listings. However, I would like to know whether I should also include an infobox for each album, given that most of them have been reviewed on All Music Guide. Also, I welcome any other suggestions as to how I can better organize this info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There are AMG reviews for most of them, yet they are considered to lack standalone notability? This sounds a little off, have hopeful stubs come that much out of fashion? As for an example of an article that collects multiple albums with infoboxes for each of them, take a look at Music of Final Fantasy VII. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 12:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The AMG reviews are only two to three sentences at the most, and the albums haven't been covered in any other reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that certainly puts things into perspective. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 14:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Time Off" magazine

• A user added a review from "Time Off" magazine to an article on my watchlist. Further inspection shows the user to be quite dedicated to adding reviews from the publication. i am wondering whether this falls under notable review sources, and literally cannot decide. Thoughts anybody? Thanks. tomasz. 13:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's a rough one. I downloaded the pdf of their latest issue from their website; it seems to be a free, advertiser-supported e-zine. I didn't look that closely; there may be a print correspondent. They invite submissions of news events, but they do seem to have a regular editorial staff who do reviews. The WikiProject indicates that professional reviews may include reviews "found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." On that basis, I'd be inclined to say it qualifies. That doesn't mean that the user doesn't have a COI and isn't in violation of Wikipedia:SPAM#External_link_spamming. Might just be a music fan who has found a review site, though. Early contributions suggest good faith. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Albums of unclear notability

Hello,

on Wikipedia, there are currently more than 300 album articles with their notability questioned. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here.

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged e.g. to the corresponding band articles, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mouled Sidi El-Latini

Hey guys, what's up?! nice project you got there, keep it up! If you people dont mind, i added the article Mouled Sidi El-Latini to the project and i would like to request a rating and if possible some suggestions on how to improve the article! Thanks guys :) Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replied in the project box on the article's talk page. If you want to discuss my recommendations, please drop me a note on my talk page or respond here. Note, however, that I'm about to go off-wiki for a week (starting Friday) and may not see your reply. If you think I've missed your note, please feel free to prompt me after April 5th. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Chronic Peer Review

It says on the Peer Review page that I should ask around WikiProjects for people to help out reviewing the article. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Tracklist}} template

I just found out about this template: Template:Tracklist. At first I didn't like it (maybe I fear change), but I'm warming up to it a little. Does anyone involved in this WikiProject have any opinions of it? If it is to be used, I think we should at the very least mention it on the main project page, if not make it the standard. My own opinion is that we should be consistent with this kind of thing. Anyone have any strong feelings about it? Drewcifer (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

When last I spoke to any of the creators, I asked why they didn't mention it here, and they said they were perfecting it first. It seems done to me. Not sure why they seem to have dropped the project. -Freekee (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, we're not dropping it. Said process of "perfecting it" just gradually turned into a "wait and see" approach, making a few non-critical adjustments now and then while waiting for reactions on the whole thing. So far, "What links here" indicates usage in 100+ mainspace pages, while the talk page has remained very quiet, so my best guess is that people basically like what they see. While it would certainly be great to see that gizmo become a project standard at some point, for now it might be more prudent to just mention it as an alternative to numbered lists, replacing regular tables. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been using it quite liberally within the Japanese music articles, which often have varying composers for lyrics and music song-by-song, along with other criteria that is worthy of mention in line with the tracklist, and I've found it to be quite useful. It can also work in lists of singles that don't necessarily have their own page (as I'm working on in my own sandbox), as it can be collapsed and expanded at will. I would like to see this used for track listings with more than three fields, as mentioned on Wikipedia's criteria for table use. --Jacob ^Talk 01:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this could be very very useful with Rap albums since they are always subject to significant changes with each track; example. But with Metal or Rock or Jazz, i dont think that's needed! However, since i encourage writing the articles with similar style, i guess if it is to be used in some albums, then it should be used in ALL albums! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Release dates listed pre-release

I noticed a lot of editors removed the release dates of upcoming albums, citing Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Released as policy against release dates listed before it. I will quote this section for you:

Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified, using a single occurrence of  (), for example July 31, 2007 (2007-07-31) (or July 2007 (2007-07) or 2007 (2007) if the exact date isn't known). Later release dates can be mentioned in a Release history section.

I don't notice anything prohibiting release dates inserted before the album release. So, that should clear it up once and for all, right? If not, please be so kind as to point out what I'm missing. Tom Danson (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the section says nothing about the scheduled release dates of upcoming albums. I think that as long as those dates are referenced for verifiability, it is perfectly appropriate to have them in the article and would be fairly neglectful not to include them. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not upcoming dates (when sourced) should be included in the article, but rather where in the article. Certainly, upcoming, sourced dates in the body of the article are fine. The "Released" section of the infobox, though, is a bad place for this.

I often run across articles where a future date was added in that section (usually, the source (if it exists) is buried in the article somewhere), time passed, the album was delayed or cancelled, and no one updated the infobox. Once the "Released" date (which was actually a "Scheduled release" date) passed, the article wrongly stated that the unreleased album was "released" (no vandalism or ill-intent required) on that now-past date.

It seems to me that either the infobox should be adjusted to include a "Scheduled release" field or any future date should be augmented by "(scheduled)" (or somesuch).

At present, though, the field calls for "Only the earliest known date that the album was released..." Before an album is released, there is no date that the album "was released". The field is "Released". Yes, put the date in the article, just not in the infobox where it can create problems later. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This was also discussed at Template_talk:Infobox_Album/doc#Release_date (with links elsewhere). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• For my money, the infobox is as editable as the rest of the article and thus future release dates, where aptly sourced, are as appropriate there as in the rest of the article. tomasz. 14:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Editable, yes. Include cited info? You bet. I'm talking about making it clear what the date is, no matter how long it stays there. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with what Mdsummermsw says; I'm not sure if I can add anything to the discussion because she has managed to cover all the bases. In trying to clean out (not too successfully) the Unreleased albums category (cancelled albums, not-yet-notable future releases, albums that have been released but still are tagged as unreleased, etc.), I frequently find albums where the infobox "Released" date has passed yet the album has not been released. I am all for future release dates appearing in the body of the article (properly sourced, of course), where it can be put in the proper context ("The album is scheduled to be released on April 3, 2008"). I would be amenable to a "scheduled release date" field being added to the infobox. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(Exdent) I have just invited several other editors who have crossed my path on this issue (sample invite). I am specifically trying to avoid "stacking" this discussion, but would like as many voices on this as possible. So far, I have posted messages for User talk:Freekee‎, User talk:Torc2‎, User talk:Huntster‎, User talk:Hello Control‎, User talk:Tom Danson‎, User talk:Admc2006‎ and User talk:Spellcast‎. Without intending to speak for any one of them, I think Freekee is for some kind of change, Torc2 is weakly for, Hunster is for, Hello Control is for, Tom Danson is against (or at least disagree with my interpretation), IllaZilla is against, tomasz. is against, Spellcast is against, Admc2006 is against and you all should know where I stand. I think we have a decent sample of those involved, but bring more if you find anyone else interested. Again, my goal is to find a solid concensous on this so we can all move ahead. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm for it. Since the release date is already specified in the body of the article, we should wait until the release date occurs to add it in the Released section. Admc2006 (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

On further thought I think I agree with Mdsummermsw. The fact that the field says "released" (past tense) causes confusion if the date listed is a future release date. That being the case, I say leave it out of the infobox but put it in the opening paragraph with a reference for verifiability. Once the album has been released, add the date to the infobox (and adjust the opening paragraph wording, of course). I think this is a simpler solution than adding a "scheduled release date" field to the infobox, esp. since that field would only apply to a particular category of articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Although people know what a future date in a "Released" field means, it's not grammatically correct so I don't think it should be added. Two possible solutions is changing the "Released" field to "Release date" or modifying WP:ALBUM#Released to say future dates should only be said in the article. I prefer the second option because the less redundancy in the infobox, the better. Spellcast (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the best answer is to change the infobox field to "release date". That would be better than changing the guideline to exclude future dates, since that's harder to police. Having said that, I wouldn't complain if the guildeline were chaged. The third option, adding a field for "Scheduled date," would be fine too. The fourth option, to make no changes (or to explicitly allow future dates with no changes in wording), would not upset me either. It's only a minor grammatical issue. But my preference is for the first thing I mentioned. -Freekee (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Freekee, changing the field caption to "Release date" would be the most sensible route. Excluding future dates from an infobox would unnecessarily gimp its one-glance value for the reader and make things more complicated for editors as well. If anything, the template manual should be updated to include a "refs still go into the article body" rule; I still have nightmares from previous revisions of Blink-182 and System of a Down. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 10:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing "Released" to "Release date" is fine with me. I think a lot of people don't even read WP:ALBUM and they'd add future dates anyway, so the first option works for everyone. If there's no objections or anything in a few days, Template:Infobox Album should be slightly modified. Spellcast (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply changing it from Released to Release date doesn't solve any of the problems (other than the semantic ones). I say either add "Scheduled release date" or disallow future dates from the infobox. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting an extra field like "Scheduled release date" is WP:RECENTISM and isn't useful in the long-term. There's always going to be future albums and people will always be adding it even if the template says not to. Changing it to "Release date" solves the issue altogether. The template should be made in such a way that it's applicable at any point in time. Spellcast (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. In the instance of a pushed-back or shelved release, once the "Release" date has passed, it would give the appearance the album has been released even though it hasn't. If there are "Scheduled" and "Released" fields, it would serve much the same purpose as (and more clearly than) Amazon's "original release date" field and the actual release date that appears in parentheses next to the album format. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, that idea sounds ok. I've just released the problem with "Release date" is it's totally redundant once an album is released. Once future albums are released, "Released" is much better and less redundant than "Release date". Adding an extra field or disallowing future dates are both fine with me. Spellcast (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the point of having separate fields is that you'd only use one of them - the future or past field, and the one that's blank wouldn't be visible. -Freekee (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

^I agree with this one 100% (almost posted the suggestion myself). Makes the most sense to me. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 12:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving ahead. 1) Any objections to change? 2) Which option: a)change "Released" to "Release date" or b) add "Release date" (or similar) to be used pre-release only or c) update infobox guide to bar future dates from the box?

My opinion: b. Changing to "Release date" just changes the nature of the problem. Usage instructions are widely ignored. Adding the new field preserves the "at-a-glance" nature of the box for future albums while avoiding the "we're saying it was released because we haven't updated it yet" problem. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Option A is out the question. I'd choose C. For B, once an album is released, the template will have a useless field in the source (even though it may not show in the article). Since a future date is only a small piece of info and that it's only temporary, an extra field just isn't worth it. The template not having a future date is hardly a loss and it would already be said in the article anyway. Spellcast (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Release dates listed pre-release (section break)

Okay, I think we need to be clear on this issue. Let's answer this question first, and then decide how to handle it, if necessary: Should scheduled or projected release dates appear in the infobox? -Freekee (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the opinions seem to be:

- No, because the field is never updated as the future date is missed.

- Yes, because future dates are going to be added no matter what.

- Yes, as long as it is clearly identified as "projected future".

- No, because it can't be identified properly given space constraints.

- Umm... what else?

-Freekee (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly that it needs to be in the infobox. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we just put TBR next to the date in the infobox in <small>? Then someone would see that, say Oh the date has past and change it. Grk1011 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Stubs

Some of the album stub categories are getting rather large. I have been working through the Category:2000s album stubs and this has led me to propose some further splits (breaking down jazz, folk and R&B by decade). Any comments are welcome (especially here). Waacstats (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I want to re-open the issue dealing with categories. I think that it is a waste of space to create a category that contains only one or two albums in it. Please shed some light on this issue. Undeath (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Space is cheap. And it's a navigational aid. Once one knows that every artist has a category for its albums, one can always find them with ease. One can go through the band's articles, or through the category tree. -Freekee (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a naming convention for soundtracks?

Is there a naming convention for soundtracks? In a list I am creating in my user space, I have been using film name (soundtrack) or television series name (soundtrack). I added The Big Chill on the list as The Big Chill (soundtrack) only to find it as The Big Chill (album). Several of the soundtracks use (soundtrack) after the name to disambiguate them. Which would this project prefer? - LA @ 08:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

afaik (soundtrack) is much the preferred format. tho if i am wrong, i suspect i will be quickly corrected. tomasz. 11:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 12:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - LA @ 12:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it not by the actual title as printed on the soundtrack itself, ie "xxxx Original Motion Picture Soundtrack" or "Music from xxxx", rather than just by the film title? I would tend to use the title as it appears on the album cover. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends. I looked at Category:Soundtracks briefly and the articles there are very inconsistent. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My inclination is to title the article as the title appears on the album cover (as mentioned above), but then defaultsort it as "xxxx soundtrack" for categorization purposes. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on what the article is about. If we are dealing with a single soundtrack album that bears the exact same title as the film/TV series/video game/etc. the music was taken from (with none of the usual additions IllaZilla mentioned) the standard "[Title] (album)" disambiguation should be sufficient. If the intended scope of the article goes well beyond an individual album, elaborating on several different records or (if still notable) the music alone, the "[Title] (soundtrack)" or "Music of [Title]" formats would be more accurate. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought this was a simple question with a simple answer. I am looking at the cover of The Fifth Element soundtrack. The words "Original Motion Picture Soundtrack" are in a different font and at least 2 font sizes smaller, so if an article was to be done on it, I would title it The Fifth Element (soundtrack), the same for The Big Chill (old cover, same font just smaller and not directly attached to the film title). - LA @ 22:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, there seem to be a lot of variant titles for different editions of The Big Chill soundtrack. This is definitely a trickier question than I thought it would be. I think that even if the words are smaller and in a different font, they are a subtitle and should "count" as part of the article title. Kind of like Spawn: The Album or Alien Resurrection: Complete Motion Picture Score. The subtitle "Original Motion Picture Soundtrack" or whatever is largely how the music industry distinguishes soundtrack albums as soundtrack albums, I think. When in doubt I think it's better to use the subtitle that's on the album cover in order to differentiate it from the film itself, rather than imposing (soundtrack) or (album) as an arbitrary disambiguating term. Of course, if the album has no subtitle, I'd say go with (album) as the dab. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree—my suggestion is name the article either The Fifth Element: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack or The Fifth Element (soundtrack), preferring the former. There should be some cleanup in this regard and a standard established. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 00:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the cover art, Fifth Element and Alien seem to have the the soundtrack phrase as mere descriptions, while Spawn seems to intend "The Album" as part of the title. I'm not sure what you mean by "standardization." -Freekee (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with most people here, so I'll just reiterate: take your best shot at determining the actual title. Then, if it needs disambiguation, tack on (soundtrack). And feel free to set up some relevant redirects. -Freekee (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Would someone here be willing to help me find the titles of various soundtracks for a special project I am working on in my user space? I am trying to put together a list of media franchises from a list of my favorite films and television series which will possibly be used as a base by WikiProject Media franchises. You could also use this as a base for WikiProject Albums, maybe as a little side project or task force since there are soundtracks and scores for a good number of films released. (This is an invite to edit that page in my user space, so if I don't have the right title, please correct it. If a seperate article has not been started for the album, please make the red link. Click on the numbers in the soundtrack column to get to the headings for each franchise. Feel free to expand any section that is incomplete.) - LA @ 07:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Automatically assessed Albums articles

This category page is a redlink, but is being heavily populated by {{album}}. Should this actually be at Category:Automatically assessed Album articles, say? If so, someone needs to fix the twisty maze of nested templates that will put about half the article-space on the job queue. Otherwise, the page could just be re-created. Alai (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, for the time being I've filled in the category page. Feel free to adjust it to some other solution. Alai (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding tracklist

On a few pages, I'm seeing mini edit wars based on the composers and producers of certain tracks. Can the liner notes themselves be a reference, or must there be an actual print source somewhere else stating the fact? I'm sorry if such a question sounds stupid, as to me, the liner notes should suffice, but it seems as though not everyone agrees, so I want to bring it up here. Thanks in advance. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would think that the liner notes would be acceptable regarding the composers of tracks. I use them as a reference in album articles all the time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Unless contradicting information can be found in a reliable source (e.g. the album credits one person but it later turns out that it was someone else). In this case I would think a more-or-less unimpeachable source should be used. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can readily think of cases where the liner notes were deliberately "wrong" (Motown songwriters getting shafted, EVH's guitar on "Thriller", Stings vocals not credited on first pressings of "Money for Nothing", Eric Clapton/the BeeGees as "the Bunburys", etc.). That said, any reliable source mentioning the "true" writer, guitarist, etc. almost invariably makes not of the conflicting label/liner info. Basically, Ten and HC have this wrapped up, but I'd just add that a source that is conflicting the label/liners that isn't noting the conflict is probably simply wrong. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I try to use Template:Cite album-notes in most album articles as a primary source, or at least list the liner notes as a "general reference". This at least gives evidence that the basic info in the article as based on some good source. If there's a conflict between the liner notes and the actual songwriting credits, as in the examples above, that bears further discussion in the article and should reference secondary sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders may have an impact on the widespread use of Image:Nocover.png so comments from members of this project would be appreciated.Genisock2 (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC: Halo 3 Original Soundtrack

Eh, it's sorta under your scope, and its the first album article I've written, let alone put up for FAC, so any comments would be appreciated. You can find the FAC page here. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (soundtrack)

I wish to edit the section of the article regarding one of the cues not in the Special Edition. It says that the film version of 'Funeral Pyre for a Jedi' was replaced with the Alternate verision, but that info. is flat-out wrong. The tracklist from the SE called 'Light of the Force' uses both versions of Funeral Pyre for a Jedi, with the alternate version played first followed immediately by the film version.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.27.59 (talk • contribs) 04:03, April 28, 2008

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", so feel free to make the changes. The only thing you should be careful of is that the info is absolutely correct. And if you don't prove it, your changes could get reverted. So please source your information. If you can't figure out how to place the proper citations/references on the page, feel free to explain them on the discussion page, and someone else can take care of it. And please sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) -Freekee (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

EP formatting

So, just to clarify what is on the main page, EP is always preferred over E.P.? And EP should never be included in the title unless the name of the EP is already an article? I know this is made pretty clear, but there seems to be a need for unification. SorryGuy  Talk  02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; we should come to a consensus on how different kinds of releases are disambiguated. I see a lot of EPs and singles dab'd as (album), when I figure it ought be (EP) or (single)/(song) (I prefer "song" in the latter case as it's a more descriptive dab term than "single"). Anyway, yes, it's usually "EP" or "LP" as opposed to "E.P."/"L.P." I'm not sure why that is, though I tend to agree with it. I think it's just an industry standard not to use the periods. In record stores & on release titles I see it without periods more often than with. But you're correct, the disambiguating phrase is unnecessary unless there is another article with the same name as the title of the release. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont like that we use "song". Often ill be making a page for a cd single where theres say 4 tracks, all different. Sure its good when its one song with remixes, but it gets confusing when its basically a mini-album. Grk1011 (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. It should be (single) if it was commercially released in single format (ie. a CD single or a digital single on, say, iTunes with its own tracklist & cover art). If it's a song that wasn't commercially released as single, then (song) is probably better. Of course, this is only if a disambiguation is needed in the first place. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Song is better because—in most cases—the record would have achieved notability because of the a-side charting and the bulk of the article would likely be about that one song. It's easy enough to say "'Blahblahblah' is a song by The Blahblahs and was released as a single" and then include the track listing for said single. My rule of thumb regarding singles/EPs is that if the title of the record is the same as the first song on the record, it's a single, otherwise it's an EP. Mini-album is kind of an out-dated marketing thing and I avoid it unless the record specifically uses the term. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's usually my criteria too. Does it have more than a couple of songs on it? Does it have its own title, not just the title of the lead track? Then it's probably an EP. If it's clearly meant to promote a single track, ie. the first track title is the title on the cover, then it's a single. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"EP" should not be in the article's title unless (1) it is part of the record's title or (2) it is within parentheses as a disambiguator. -Freekee (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of the word 'so'

According to album capitalization guidelines like WP:ALBUM and WP:MUSTARD, conjunctions in album titles should not be capitalized. Depsite this I see the conjunction 'so' capitalized numerous times in articles such as "Don't Stand So Close to Me", "You Are So Beautiful", "You're So Vain", "(What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love, and Understanding", So Far, So Good... So What!, "You Look So Fine", etc. Can someone clarify for me what the official stance on this word is? Xnux the Echidna 22:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In those instances, so is being used as an adverb, and adverbs are capitalized in titles. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Beach Boys Love You"?

The page appears to be at the wrong title. Can someone look into this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Love You (The Beach Boys album). = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course; I messed it up—it should have gone to Love You (album). Crap. Well, a request would have had to have been put in at Wikipedia:Requested moves anyway. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now done so. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this an OK use for a track list table?

I was just looking at some of the album pages for Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, who are a punk band who only do covers. Would this be an OK time to use a table for the track listing, so that it will show number, title, writer and original artist? It seems like it would be a bit much to have a separate section just to list who the original performers were. As it is, they usually list the performer and not necessarily the writer in the parenthesis next to the title. -Joltman (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than a table, see if Template:Tracklist would work. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 15:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)