Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 42

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Albums by artist categories

As above As mentioned above in the discussion of chronologies, several albums are categorized under persons who appeared on the album in addition to the artist that is credited with the release. E.g. Category:John Coltrane albums used to have several dozen articles that included his sideman work, several Fairport Convention albums were categorized under Category:Sandy Denny albums, etc. I am amending the wording of WP:ALBUM to make it explicitly clear that categorization by artist is for the artist credited with the release, not simply someone who appears on the album--even if said performer appears throughout the release. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Here is my attempt at explaining this. Please make it better. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Perhaps, if someone is known for having many guest appearances and the like, a separate category could be created such as "Albums featuring ARTISTNAME". –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Discographies In my estimation, this is best listified as a discography. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd noticed this as well (IIRC, Coltrane albums were filed under the McCoy Tyner category). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Categorization schemes

Please review I made a pretty bold edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body that more accurately reflects the various categorization schemes available for album articles. Please review this text and amend it as you see fit. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to reconsider the statement "these artist categories are themselves categorized by artist ... genre" – perhaps qualify this with "generally", if we are going to mention it at all. Someone like Miles Davis would have albums that fall within Category:Cool jazz albums, Category:Hard bop albums, Category:Modal jazz albums, Category:Jazz fusion albums and Category:Jazz-funk albums. If we then include Category:Miles Davis albums as a subcategory of all of these, then Birth of the Cool and On the Corner would belong to all of these, as well, which doesn't make sense. Also, as I had mentioned in the past at WT:JAZZ/Archives#Sub-categories,

…I recall that as per some guideline at WP:ALBUM, "Category:Albums by some artist" should be placed within "Category:some genre albums". (I think the idea (correct or not) was that albums should not go directly into "Category:genre albums", for some reason). This leads to a scenario where an artist with many albums may have only done one or two in a particular (sub-)genre, but all of the artist's albums will be categorized that way because of this hierarchy. I am not sure that Category:Jimmy Giuffre albums, Category:Yusef Lateef albums, or Category:Joe Zawinul albums properly belong within Category:Avant-garde jazz albums (or that Category:Albert Ayler albums and Category:Van Morrison albums should go in Category:Jazz fusion albums, or Category:Grant Green albums in Category:Latin jazz albums, etc.). Personally, I think resolving this is a daunting task, and it might be last on the list of anyone's priorities, but there you have it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 18#Artist+genre+album, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 17#Jazz albums. (or... don't.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Categorization by certification

I am just curious to see what the project here thinks about this. Is there really a need to have categories for every known certification level from every country that has an organization that certifies albums and singles as found under Category:Certified albums and Category:Certified singles? Albums like As I Am, Spirit, Supernatural are categorized in 19, 18, and 12 such categories, respectively.

It's overcategorization.
It doesn't define the album. How does each one individually represent a defining characteristic of the album. How does being certified gold in Italy or platinum in the UK define the album? While, after the fact, an album may be described as a "platinum-selling album", it means different things in different countries based on the sales level that makes the album platinum and only applies to those countries in which it was certified platinum.
It's not accurate. An album that is certified platinum in the US does not lose its gold album status, but the album is only being categorized by its highest level of certification. Although this could be fixed by making the gold albums category a parent category to platinum albums and so on.

Thanks for any feedback. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I stand about categorization by certification, but I'm sure we can't just categorize by one country (say, US) and not by the other. This would be very US-centric (just for example). UK is of course very important, but Germany and France are much more indicative of success in continental Europe. Of course, there is nothing like Polish certification to say if the album had any success in the eastern parts, except of course Russia. And for someone interested in music in Finland, categorization by Finnish certification is more important than US ones. I think the point is clear - each certification shows success in a specific region, and Wikipedia deals with them all. I think it's an all or nothing situation. As for you specific points, 1. Yes, it is overcategorization, but I have no solution to that. 2. The fact is, an album is often described as "platinum selling". It means different things in different places, but it's still definitive, given the context. 3. As you said, this could be solved. I also think everyone assumes that Platinum awarded albums albums had enough to award Gold as well, that is, the information is implicit. --Muhandes (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It just occured to me, is it possible to use pipelinks in the category? For the multi-platinum albums from the RIAA category, it would have "Category:Albums certified multi-platinum by the Recording Industry of America|2x platinum"? Erick (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In the autocat, sure. But would this be wise? It will mean they are not sorted alphabetically, which is , I think, what a reader expects when browsing such a category. If I understand correctly, it was proposed to gain back the capability to browse by number of platinum awards through some list, as yet unimplemented. But I think this is slightly beside the question here, which pertains to whether there should be categories at all. --Muhandes (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Kind of Blue

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kind of Blue has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Voice of Rock

I was talking with the owner of voiceofrock.com via e-mails a while ago, as he was wanting his website's reviews to be included on the album pages. He did post his website's reviews via this account, and all the Voice of Rock reviews he added were removed by the same user. The owner, whom I don't think does any of the reviews on the site, turned to me afterwards to see what I could do. There is a conflict of interest here, and the owner has stated that he has no intentions of causing any trouble. The owner pointed out to me that there is a designated staff that writes reviews, which I said earlier likely does not include himself; this staff receives the albums before respective release dates as well. The website is based in South Africa and caters toward playing and documenting metal music. Any thoughts as to whether this website should be on WP:ALBUM/REVSIT? Thanks. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 21:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm welcome to hearing opinions about this website. Does anyone have commentary to supply? Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still open to some opinions concerning the website. Would it be possible or not possible for the website to appear on WP:ALBUM/REVSIT? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 20:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Better Source Request template

I uploaded two album covers for two different album pages that I posted and immediately had the Better Source Request template attached to them. I had entered the album name, record company, and copyright year as the source information and scanned them from my own copies of the albums, so what else can I add to address the issue? -- Danaphile (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly nothing It seems like the template was placed here because you have an article about "Album X" and list the source as "Album X". This might come across as suspicious and a way of ignoring the requirement for sourcing images. What you've done is appropriate, though and I suggest amending the text to read something like "Cover scanned from my user's personal copy" rather than (e.g.) "Andy Williams' Greatest Hits Vol. 2, CBS Records, 1972". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Book Cite with Chapter URL for Rolling Stone 500 Best Albums

If you haven't noticed, Rollingstone.com reorganized their website sometime in the past making many of the links from the Album articles to the corresponding 500 Best Albums page on the RS website dead. I've been updating these as I come across them and replacing the reference link with a book cite to the book and using the chapter and chapterurl attributes to identify the Album specific cite info'. Here's an example for Rust Never Sleeps:

Levy, Joe (2006) [2005]. "350 | Rust Never Sleeps - Neil Young and Crazy Horse". Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (3rd ed.). London: Turnaround. ISBN 1932958614. OCLC 70672814. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Note I've been keeping the accessdate as the original not changing it to when I updated the reference. You can find the new page on the RS site by clicking on the Rust Never Sleeps link in the sample cite above, then navigating to the page where the Album in which you are interested is referenced, then copy the url and paste into your cite, and then change the chapter title to the desired Album order, title, and artist. Here's the text of the cite that you can use as a template:

{ { cite book |chapter=350 | Rust Never Sleeps - Neil Young and Crazy Horse |chapterurl=http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-19691231/rust-never-sleeps-neil-young-and-crazy-horse-19691231 |accessdate=6 October 2010 |last=Levy |first=Joe |coauthors=Steven Van Zandt |title=Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time |origyear=2005 |edition=3rd |year=2006 |publisher=Turnaround |location=London |isbn=1932958614 |oclc=70672814 |ref=RS500 } }

-- J. Wong (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This makes me uneasy only partially because our cite templates tend to stumble over themselves, esp. when mixing online with traditional sources. I can't fix them, but I can offer some arguments against doing what I think you've described.

Here, you've apparently (IIUC) updated the URL from the pre-reorganisation address to one which actually works. This is a great and important thing. Thanks.

Then, you've chosen (and presumably, changed to) a {{cite book}} template, even though your main ref is apparently still the online source. Beyond that, it does not appear that you're actually even looking in the book (and how are you getting the chapter title?). Also, leaving the accessdate for the new citation (with updated URL) to be the same as it was when somebody else saw the detail at a completely different page is misleading at best. Finally, if you're going to cite a book as your source, I would expect you to provide a page number as a minimum. I don't see this in the example you provided.

Have I misunderstood your explanation? Wouldn't it more accurate and honest to just update the URL and the accessdate using the existing {{cite web}} template or whatever is in place? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. While it's true, I don't have the book, I think we can assume the text on the Rolling Stone website is directly copied from the original article and the subsequent editions of the book. I have verified for a few of the pages that the prose on the archived page is identical to that on the new page so these aren't "completely different" pages. All Rollingstone.com has done is reassign the pages' url's and changed the presentation HTML.

My feeling on this is that hardcopy cites are to be preferred to online ones for precisely what happened here, namely the page "disappeared" because the site publisher moved it. On the other hand, it is convenient to provide an online link to the reference if possible. The book cite template supports this by providing a chapterurl. Admittedly, I don't think these pages are exactly "chapters", but they're close enough and reflect the presentation in the original article and books. I used the formatted heading on the relevant page as the "chapter title", namely <n> | <album> - <artist>. And yes again, I don't have immediate access to the book so I didn't provide page numbers (I might check it out from the library and update these references someday).

As far as just updating the URL, many of these are actually "bare" URL's so I updated them to cites tracking down and adding the original accessdate for the reference. I actually think that keeping the original accessdate is more useful than updating it whenever you correct a dead url or verify that the original url is still active since it identifies when that reference was first added so you can use history to verify the state of the reference at that time (supposing you can still find it archived). We are just "editors" after all and in this case not changing the original article but just updating the referenced cite.

Whatever is done, I feel we should have a consistent treatment of these references instead of the varied forms they take on the album article pages now.

Thanks again.

—J. Wong (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jihad / Freezing Moon

Does anyone know how to add another cover to an infobox that already has two album chronologies in it?Jasper420 22:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it be an issue to add more than one miscellaneous infobox section? There is a template separate from the extra chronology template at Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover. I did some preview stuff on the page without submitting anything, and it looks like it is possible to post an alternate cover on there with that template. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It can be done, but you won't have the banner that says "Alternate cover" (which for a split album where both covers are "front"s is actually OK anyway). I've done it at Ignite / Good Riddance and a number of other pages about splits. Just insert both {{Extra chronology}} and {{Extra album cover}} in the |misc= field. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

All finished. Long story short, I'm terrible with coding, so I just copied the infobox from the Ignite/Good Riddance split and changed the information.Jasper420 05:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That is my favorite way of learning and using wikicode! —Akrabbim^talk 12:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

With that said, thank you for your contribution to the page. It has proven useful. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 05:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that, but it's my pleasure.Jasper420 21:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I was referring to your addition of the picture on the Jihad / Freezing Moon page. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on chronologies

Please see here Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a reasonable consensus to change the chronologies from just studio albums to all album releases. Is this a fair assessment? If so, the template/WP:ALBUM need to be amended and I'll set about changing some for artists whose discographies I know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of the change; refer to my comments in that discussion regarding jazz albums. Speaking of chronology, aren't they supposed to be in order of release, not recording date? If this is the case then there is some work out there (sorry I don't have specific examples handy). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have wanted to see this change for a long time. As the originator of the linked discussion, I think it represents consensus for a single chronology chain for all album releases (+ EPs). Those who opposed based their arguments mainly on "studio albums are the most important", but notability doesn't have anything to do with placing releases in chronological order. And yes, Gyrofrog, they are supposed to be in order of release rather than recording. I've found that some jazz enthusiasts have a problem with this, as there are many jazz albums that weren't released until years after being recorded, but IMO that's just a part of their history. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Jazz albums So many of these are listed and categorized in order of recording rather than release and contain Category:PERFORMER albums when the performer is not the person listed as the artist, but just a sideman. I have personally fixed this several hundred times. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but I thought this was a done deal. Or maybe I'm just agreeing with you. Yes, there is a consensus to to use a single chronology chain in the album infoboxes. It was different before but now most editors agree that a single chain is best. — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Another "me too". I also thought/hoped this was a done deal. --Muhandes (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The single chronology format would be the best format, because all those micro-chronologies skip over albums and are not necessary. Single chronologies are easier to navigate. I just made an article about a full-length studio album, while placing split albums in both the last and next chronology slots. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 17:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Since we seem to have a lot of support for a single chronology chain covering all album types and EPs, I re-propose (from the previous discussion) the following change to Template:Infobox album#Chronology:

This group of fields establishes a timeline of an artist's releases. In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain (singles have a separate infobox, and thus a separate chain). Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies. If the previous or next release has a Wikipedia article, link the title to the corresponding article. Take care to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when release "A" points to "B" as the next release, "B" points back to "A" as the last (previous) release.

Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems like that is fair enough rephrasing. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 18:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than "Exceptions may be appropriate", might it be better to say something like "Additional chronologies may be appropriate". memphisto 18:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither the existing text nor the proposed wording mention that the chronology is by release date, not recording date. Is this, in fact, still the consensus? (I had assumed it was or I wouldn't have mentioned it in my earlier comment.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Per the above comments, how about this amended wording?

This group of fields establishes a timeline of an artist's releases. In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain in order of release date (singles have a separate infobox, and thus a separate chain). Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies which may warrant more than one chain. If the previous or next release has a Wikipedia article, link the title to the corresponding article. Take care to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when release "A" points to "B" as the next release, "B" points back to "A" as the previous release.

If there are no additional suggestions within a few days, I'll be bold and make the change to the documentation. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been a week with no objections, so I'm going for it. New wording is live at Template:Infobox album#Chronology. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of non-English song titles

I've been watching an article on an album by a Mexican rock group, and another editor just changes the track listing to use Spanish standards for capitalization(i.e. only proper nouns and the first word of the title are capitalized). It occurred to me that I don't know what WP's standard is for non-English song titles, and checking the relevant sections, I see that they explicitly cover only English language titles. So do we apply English capitalization rules to these titles, or just type them the way they would normally appear?--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion about this very subject earlier in the year, which can be found here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_40#Capitalization_of_foreign-name_albums_and_songs

In addition, there was an earlier discussion in 2008, in which consensus was reached that the foreign-language capitalization should to be used, rather than English capitalization. That is to say that song titles should be spelled and capitalized as in their native language—as they would be on the Wikipedia in that language (read the original discussion here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_26#Foreign_language_capitalization).

As far as I'm concerned, this is still WP consensus. The guidelines at WP:ALBUM used to explicitly state this but during the discussion on this subject earlier this year, Pmanderson saw fit to remove the text (see this edit), which I always felt was a poor show, since consensus had NOT been reached. I would like to propose that this removed text regarding foreign-lanuage titles be reinstated at WP:WikiProject_Albums#Capitalization, since there was no convincing evidence that consensus among Wikipedians has changed since the original discussion took place back in 2008. Anyone else agree? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Standards See Wikipedia:CAPS#Capitalization_of_expressions_borrowed_from_other_languages--albums and songs aren't special cases as far as I'm concerned. This states that foreign-language terms are to be written according to those languages' conventions, unless that term has been widely adopted into English. (Bearing in mind that article's titles and text are written in English, using the Latin script.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I was widely involved in the last major discussion about this. In fact, I was the only member of this project that defended the viewpoint that foreign language album and song titles should follow the capitalization rules of the relevant language, as it was stated in WP:ALBUMCAPS prior to that discussion. I was up against some very insistent editors, not members of this project, that argued that WP:UE is the policy to follow. Basically it says that we should follow English language sources whenever one exist. This boils down to replicating Allmusic, which is a reliable source and contain the large majority of albums. Allmusic applies English capitalization rules all over the board, and therefore so should we, was it argued. Personally I think it's complete nonsense, for all the (good, methinks) reasons I put forward in that discussion. Having said that, I must agree that the weakness of the previous version of WP:ALBUMCAPS was that it indicated an external user-build website, musicbrainz.org, as the place to look for capitalization rules for foreign languages. – IbLeo ^(talk) 20:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the relevant language should be used when capitalizing titles or applying any sort of grammar. Pushing English customs upon other languages is a clumsy idea and even a little bit ethnocentric. The languages should be treated with their own grammar rules, and not "Anglicized" or English-friendly. Would it make sense for the (example given, but doesn't have to be this language) Latvian Wikipedia to apply Latvian grammar rules to all languages of titles, including English? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. That was actually one of the arguments I put forward in that discussion. To no avail. – IbLeo ^(talk) 05:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the replies to this topic are all from regular contributors to this project and we're all basically in agreement that titles should be spelled and capitalized as they are in their native language, which is what the guidelines at WP:ALBUMCAPS used to say. Therefore, I propose reintroducing the text that was (wrongfully, I believe) deleted earlier this year with this edit. However, I think we should omit the text about musicbrainz.org, since as IbLeo points out, as a external user-built website, it's not really a reliable source. Would anyone have a problem with this? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Should it be mandatory though? When I went through mass changes to albums with Spanish names, this is how the discussion earlier this year happened. Erick (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about article titles, or track listings, or both? WP:UE nominally only applies to article titles. —Akrabbim^talk 18:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think at the moment we're talking about song titles in track listings because as you say, the guidelines at WP:UE should probably still be adheared to for article titles. As for whether or not spelling and capitalizing titles as they are in their native language should be mandetory, I think it should be more or less, yes. After all, the guidelines for this project (or any other part of Wikipedia for that matter) are there to standardise formatting and presentation across all relevant articles. If consensus is that foreign song titles should be capitalized this way, I can't see why there would need to be exceptions for some articles. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me and this is something I support, since I contribute to Spanish-language album articles a lot. Erick (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so would anyone object if I were to re-introduce this text to the main Wikiproject Albums page, under the "capitalization" heading... In titles of songs or albums in a language other than English, the project standard is to use the capitalization utilized by that language, not the English capitalization. If you are unsure about the capitalization standards of other languages, check with the appropriate WikiProject and language Manual of Style or with foreign-language Wikipedias.

If folks want to ammend this text or if they object to it being re-introduced to the guidelines at WP:ALBUM, now's the time to make your feelings known. If there's no objection, I'll add it to the guidelines myself in a few days. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be all for that notice. However, if someone would want to be capitalizing a phrase or song title of a language they do not know and/or aren't even close to being fluent in, then would there be a use for them to still go to a foreign-language Wikipedia for help? I guess they can get the gist of what the foreign-language page is stating via a translator (keyword: gist), but that would still come with some complications. There are always WikiProjects, though, which can help with that, as well as hopefully other pages on the internet which would illustrate effectively the appropriate capitalization of what is in question. If the foreign-language capitalization referencing can be accomodated for, then that would be fine to post for this WikiProject. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess if an editor isn't fluent in a language then they may not want to use a foreign-language Wiki, but I still think it's worth mentioning in the guidelines for those editors who may want to use that method. As for using other pages on the internet, that's OK in principal but they would have to be reliable sources. Part of the reason I'm not proposing to reinstate the sentence about using the MusicBrainz website, is that it's not a reliable source. Perhaps at the end of the text in question, it should also say "or check with a reliable third-party source", with a wikilink like that. What do you think? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the reliable source pointer is a good idea. The notice seems worthy enough to be posted, then. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 20:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm gonna add this to the guidelines now then. Thanks to everyone for their contributions in this discussion. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A little bit more about categorization

Please review I have added a little more to the body section of WP:ALBUM to discuss categorization and I take this as normative about everything related to categorizing album articles (and lists and redirects, etc.) If there is any other relevant consensus, please add it there and correct me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix - Blue Wild Angel: Live at the Isle of Wight

This is not the place to discuss issues with specific articles. I copied the message to Talk:Blue Wild Angel: Live at the Isle of Wight, where any discussion should continue.

The lead of the above article states that this was Jimi Hendrix' last live performance. This is not correct. Jimi Hendrix' last live performance was on 6 September 1970 at the Open Air Love & Peace Festival on the German isle of Fehmarn: see here. I suppose what is meant is that his appearance at the Isle of Wight Festival was his last performance in the U.K., but I can not find a source for that. Maybe someone here can? Regards. 81.83.135.14 (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the text to read 'last U.K. live performance', but still can not find a source. Regards. 81.83.135.14 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Album ratings bot

Hey folks. You'll recall from the #Album reviews discussion here, and from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space, that we're working on moving the album ratings from the infobox to the album ratings template. You'll also recall that Tim1357 has been hard at work on an album ratings bot that will do all the hard work for us. Well, last night and this morning, the bot updated another big batch of articles -- more than 3,000 of them. Here is a link to a list of the changes. Interested editors are strongly encouraged to check the bot's work, and leave any feedback here in this talk page section. Thanks! — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed that the bot went through more review relocations. It's great that the bot reduced the backlog by that much. I don't feel like I have any complaints about it, as far as I have observed. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the bot's activity picking back up on my watchlist. All edits look okey-dokey to me. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The bot updated another batch of 1,000 articles earlier today. Here's a link to the list of edits. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The bot finished its first iteration over the articles. The majority of articles skipped were skipped because there was neither a {{reflist}} nor a <references/> on the page. For the second iteration, I want to add some logic so that the bot can automatically place a ==References== section on the article, along with a {{reflist}} template. I need some help, however figuring that out. I, admittedly, do not have much experience with the MOS, so I was wondering about the guidelines for placing a ==References== section. Thanks Tim 1357 ^talk 22:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. For this next run, I will post the bot's error logs so that skipped articles can be dealt with by us air breathers. :) Tim 1357 ^talk 22:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Tim, this is going really well. As for adding a section for footnotes: (1) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Standard appendices and footers lists the preferred order of sections and other stuff that comes at the end of an article. Take a look at that, I think it will help you program the bot to decide where to put the section. (2) According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes), the name of the section can be either Notes or References, and either <references /> or {{Reflist}} can be used. I prefer References and {{Reflist}}, respectively, and I get the impression that the majority of editors feel the same way. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on WP:APPENDIX, a References section should be placed before any "Further reading" or "External links" sections, but should otherwise be the last section in the article, and would come before any of the templates, categories, or interlanguage links at the bottom of the article. So I'd say the bot should add a References section header and a {{Reflist}} template at that location. — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I started randomly looking through Category:Infobox album with reviews, and it looks like a fair number of those articles do have footnotes. So I'm wondering if the bot missed that, or if it skipped them for other reasons. Here are a few examples:

(Magic may have been skipped because it has more than 12 ratings in the infobox.) — Mudwater^(Talk) 13:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Presumably because of other issues. E.g., in MagentaMantaLoveTree, the infobox has both a plaintext external link AND footnotes to references, which the bot probably isn't equipped to handle. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A Gigster's Life for Me uses the review author's name as the link, rather than the word "link". The Seduction of Claude Debussy has the links as the review source titles rather than as a separate word. Make Another World's reference to Q uses an issue and page numbers, not a link.

In short, all these use a nonstandard case which the bot cannot (yet) handle. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Found a couple of articles the bot handled in a less-than-perfect way. [1] [2]. Not sure I know what can be done though. (Addendum: found quite a few more of these) --Muhandes (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You are just referring to the extra parenthesis, right? It looks like it is caused by having {{rating}} enclosed in parentheses. I don't think this would be hard to fix? Instead of looking for {{rating|xx}}, you would look for {{rating|xx}} or ({{rating|xx}}). —Akrabbim^talk 12:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. --Muhandes (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey folks. We hit 50% today on moving the ratings from the infobox to the album ratings template. Thanks to everyone for their work on this. Hopefully the bot will be active again soon, that's how we made a lot of that progress. — Mudwater^(Talk) 03:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! I'm very impressed with how the bot has been doing, and of course very thankful not to have to do the job manually. Kudos to all involved in making this happen. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It is very awesome that we reached 50% completion. This is a notable advancement in review location reassignment, and I woud like to thank everyone who has participated and has helped with the process. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

One more time with feeling

So, if Tim can make the one small change with the parentheses, I would advocate one final unrestricted run on the remaining 25,000 articles. What do people think about this? —Akrabbim^talk 14:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. For the most part the bugs seem to have been worked out from the bot, and it's done a great job overall. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would also support this deed. That would be the quickest way to get them out, now that article conversion, while still active, is at a slower rate than it was. That would end the era of reviews in infoboxes. However, I would be concerned about pages such as this one which has the review infobox space filled solely for demonstrative purposes as opposed to hosting actual reviews inside. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 06:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he is running it outside of the article mainspace. I will check. —Akrabbim^talk 01:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Young5Deep

He's been uploading a lot of oversized album covers. Anyone else wanna pitch in and scale down?Jasper420 00:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A bot should get them soon if you tag the covers with {{non-free reduce}}. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Prepositions needs to be changed or removed

Due to album collaborations words like "With" are being capitalized in songs. This has been going on for years. I think and feel it is wrong to change what is released by an artist and we should respect what is done by the label, song-writer and/or artist. It's not our place to change that post false works. It's misleading and incorrect and this is an encyclopedia that's suppose to do everything correctly. So can we please fix this? Thanks. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 09:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Like book titles, film titles, etc., album titles should also comply with Wikipedia's manual of style. See WP:CAPS where it says: "In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ('a', 'an', 'the'), the word 'to' as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., 'on', 'from', 'and', 'with'), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle. --194.176.105.147 (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point about the word "with", JamesAlan1986. If I see it around, I will make sure to correct it so that it complies with WP:CAPS. Any examples that you would want to bring up? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, JamesAlan1986 is wrong. With is a preposition and should not be capitalised. 194.176.105.147 provided the relevant link. --94.2.120.57 (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I was thinking that JamesAlan1986 was wanting the word "with" to be lowercased as well as us; you and I have interpreted it differently. Whatever the case, it is what WP:CAPS supports, so lowercased "with" is what should be condoned. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 20:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay first of we're not talking about album titles we're talking about song titles. Many songs use capital "With". This is why I've heard wikipedia is not a good source for anything. You guys gotta do things the right way or not at all. A song like "I Can't Be With You" or any other word that shows the song with a captilized "With" needs to be posted as such cause that's how the artist wants it and it's our job to make sure it shows when we talk about the song. that's my point. We have to do things correctly not cause our opinions are they are wrong. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 18:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"I Can't Be With You" is written by The Cranberries. I own all their albums and the way I am writing the song title is how it is shown on the album. So there needs to be exceptions with "with" being capitalized it should be if the artist advertise it as such. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 18:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference Reference 2 Reference 3 Reference 4 JamesAlan1986 *^talk 19:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

JamesAlan, Wikipedia uses standard English capitalization rules regardless of how these things are printed on the album covers. Many album/song titles are printed in ALL CAPS, yet we do not print them in all-caps here on Wikipedia. Similarly, many song titles are printed on albums sleeves with improperly capitalized coordinating conjunctions (and, or, etc.), articles (a, the, etc.), and prepositions (of, for, with, etc.), but we do not repeat this stylistic mistakes on Wikipedia. For more information on this, please see WP:ALBUMCAPS. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

First off The Cranberries aren't even an English band, they are Irish, and second it's their work and we put it as their work. Sorry but I don't agree with it. It needs to be changed. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 14:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

*Sigh* It makes no difference. This is the English Wikipedia and the album is printed in English, not Gaelic, so we follow the English style standards. It makes no difference how they capitalized it on the album, Wikipedia will capitalize it according to standard English. Your arguments are increasingly flimsy and unconvincing. The sooner you get over it, the better. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that's what I call disrespecting artists then I think now more then ever I'm permanently no longer contributing to Wikipedia cause that's wrong to do. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 14:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not "disrespecting artists" to follow widely-accepted style standards used throughout academia. For example, on the band's first 2 albums their name is printed in all lowercase, as "the cranberries", yet we still capitalize it as "The Cranberries" throughout those articles according to the standard rules of English. Similarly, the song titles on the back of Weezer's blue album use wonky capitalization, yet we use proper capitalization in the Wikipedia article. There are thousands of albums on which the song titles are printed in all-caps, yet we use standard capitalization here on Wikipedia. This is not "disrespecting artists", this is creating an encyclopedia with consistent style standards, following the standards used throughout the academic world. If this really irks you that much, I'm sorry, but it is certainly not "wrong to do". --IllaZilla (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If that's how they wanted it done that's how it should be, it's not our place to change it. We do as what's shown to give accurate information. Also how The Cranberries did their band name was changed later down the line on their album "To The Faithful Departed". That album also has a capitalized "The" but on here it's lower cased. Like I've said there needs to be exceptions to this cause we should put is as the artist do it not what we think. This has been one of Wikipedia's biggest problems. Instead of doing things by the book like an encyclopedia would do it lets users destroy things by their opinions I'm sorry but that's how I feel. Just cause it's not correct in English doesn't mean we change it for that reason. If it's advertised as such then that's how it should be. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 15:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

We are doing things "by the book"...those books happen to be the style guides for the English language. This is exactly what encyclopedias would (and do) do. What you are suggesting is doing everything by no book, and displaying every print word exactly as it might appear anywhere else it happens to be printed. That's not accurate, it's anarchy. I assure you that capitalizing the "w" in "with" was not some bold artistic statement on the part of The Cranberries, but rather a common trend among albums to capitalize every word regardless. We do not repeat stylistic errors simply because they are widespread. If we did, half of our song article titles would be in all-caps or other improper capitalizations. Wikipedia follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners. It is not a "big problem" to aim for consistency and standardization in an academic text such as an encyclopedia. Rather, to throw the rules to the wind and capitalize things willy-nilly based on "that's how they wanted it done that's how it should be" would be a "big problem". Seriously, this horse ain't gettin' any deader. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Then we are in the wrong. That's what it is we are doing it wrong. Opinions are not what we base things on or how it should be done, we do it by what they do that's all their is to it, no more. Now the horse is dead. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 15:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, because that point of view won't fly for writing an encyclopedia, or any other kind of academic work. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of widely-accepted style conventions that have been developed by academics and writers of academic works over many decades. These are the standards; It is your opinion that we should ignore them, and you are in the extreme minority in that regard. If you ever send a thesis or other academic paper for copyediting, I promise you that the coordinating conjunctions, articles, and prepositions in the titles of works are going to be lower-cased. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Gotta say, I can't believe that JamesAlan1986 is even suggesting this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such, should conform to standard English text formatting and capitalization rules. I mean, that's really a bit of a "no brainer" as far as I can see. I'm with IllaZilla and the rest of the Wikipedia editing community on this! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, so it remains that song titles with the word "with" in it should remain lowercased. I am totally fine with that. It is not disrespecting artists just to go by commonly accepted capitalization rules; those rules don't merely go by the opinions of a small group of people, either. Would you think that The Cranberries get vehemently mad if someone else lowercases the word "with" in any of their songtitles, while the word was capitalized on their releases? <sarcasm>What a depraved practice to not capitalize!</sarcasm> Also, images do not count as reliable sources on Wikipedia. I guess JamesAlan1986 left over this. Okay, then. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 23:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Naw. We just have a wikidiva on our hands. I read his talk page, and I think he's pulled this before. He's just looking for attention, waiting for people to beg him to return.Jasper420 18:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:I_Can't_Be_with_You#Move Back. It's like Kotniski said at the end about "it seems that those who want to blindly follow rules outnumber those who are willing to apply their brains a little" that's my final stand on this. And so no I'm not a wikidiva and personally attack me like that again I'll report you cause that's offensive. I'm sick of coming on here and getting personally attacked for speaking my mind. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 11:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Why so serious?Jasper420 19:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It's equally offensive when people suggest that anyone who disagrees with them isn't using their brains, but you don't see anyone getting their pants in a twist over it. We have a MOS, and that's the end of it. Another reason nobody's mentioned yet is that different releases of a song may have different capitalisation. I'm certain there are instances where a song on a single might have different capitalisation to the same song on an album. Having a uniform policy for everything removes that issue. Allowing exceptions leads to nothing but chaos, and that's why MOSs exist. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the manual of style overrules what is on the back cover of the CD or vinyl, and that is how it is. Making exceptions would add inconsistency and unencyclopedic content. If the track listing on the back is cApitALizED LIkE ThiS, then the respective Wikipedia page will not be recommended to capitalize the track titles in the same manner and instead abide by the Manual of Style. And no, that does not disrespect any artists or musicians, either. This is something that some of the mc chris album pages have trouble with, and I will want to address that on the respective pages later. Capitalization issues are not worth causing all this drama (and that's not a personal attack, either). End of story. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 23:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Another point to consider is that the band probably had no input whatsoever in to how the titles were printed on the release. It's more likely to have been an arbitrary decision by the graphic artist. There are very few documented cases of titles being a specific way for a specific reason (such as Bowie's "Heroes"). Without the evidence, from reliable independent third-party sources, it is merely speculation that the capitalization is the band's preferred way. --194.176.105.147 (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"And so no I'm not a wikidiva and personally attack me like that again I'll report you cause that's offensive." Ahem 144.80.93.56 (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

ProgArchives ratings in ratings-box

I noticed that many of the review/ratings-boxes for progrock albums contain a rating from the ProgArchives website. Since the heading of the box is "Professional ratings", it could be argued that these ProgArchive ratings (which seem to be an average of user submitted ratings on the ProgArchives website) do not belong in this box. Regards. 81.83.133.29 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As a matter of fact, on WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, progarchives is listed under non-professional reviews which shouldn't be used on the album pages. Therefore, if you see the progarchives reviews around, then feel free to remove them from the page. Thank you for bringing this to attention. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 20:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally like progarchives, but yes, please remove such ratings. They sadly aren't a professional review site. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I went and removed a few dozens of them, but there are many more. To bad there isn't a good method of locating them. Searching for the website yields mostly external links and references. Perhaps someone can device a script for locating the "progarchives" inside the album reviews templates and inside infoboxes? I have no idea how to write such a thing. --Muhandes (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I had noticed ProgArchives in a few ratings boxes and suspected that they don't meet the standards for a professional review site, but wasn't sure. Now I'll be sure to remove them when I see them.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems with DASHBot resizing album and single covers

Per the comment in the last section about the use of Template:Non-free reduce. I have noticed that DASHBot reduces the album cover size to approximately 400px, example:File:Hard-Fi - Tied Up Too Tight.jpg, rather than "no more than 300px on at least one side" per Template:Infobox album. I discussed this with the bots operator User:Tim1357 last month [3] but have not received an adequate reply, and DashBot continues to reduce the covers to 400px. example:File:Strangers From The Universe tful282.jpg

My concern is that DashBot reducing the album covers to 400px will make users think that this is an acceptable size for album covers; and also that if these album covers are reduced to 300px in the future, they will have been resized twice, lowering the quality of the image. memphisto 09:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I had the exact same response at the beginning of the year. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the Approval and if I understand correctly, the bot is approved on the assumption that it will re-size to 325px, not 400px. If it does otherwise, this may warrant discussion at WT:BRFA. --Muhandes (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

unbroken

who's that boy ft. dev is a single for unbroken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.104.33 (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. Who is "Dev"? Is "Unbroken" an album or a song? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 04:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP's referring to the song "Who's That Boy" from Demi Lovato's upcoming album Unbroken. IP, please post the information on the article's talk page. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternative covers all over again

in the last week I noticed again two attempts to remove alternative covers which are sufficiently different and have a proper FUR, see [4] [5]. It is my understanding that for quite some time now alternative covers are acceptable. Can someone suggest a proper link to the consensus discussion, or even better, add it somewhere where it can be quoted? --Muhandes (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one who removed the images, but the FUR is inaccurate on all three of them and I agree with their removal. The FURs for the alternate covers say that the images shows "the primary visual image associated with the work". This is certainly not true; there can only be one primary image associated with the work. Unless the alternative cover is the subject of specific (sourced) commentary in the article, only the cover of the original release is needed. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever a formal coronation of the wording, but after the most extensive of the previous discussions, it appeared that the following had pretty widespread backing (and I think pretty much reflects the standard that in practice has been applied since):

...ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion."

So specific (sourced) critical commentary is certainly one possibility, but not necessarily the only one. The reason we have covers is essentially twofold: (i) for reader recognition, that this is a subject they may already be aware of; and (ii) to show the presentation and marketing of the material. If covers are very different, say for the U.S. and Europe, or between an original limited release and a later much more successful mainstream release, then it may well be that one cover would be the one that some readers would immediately recognise, but for others it would be a quite a different cover that they would associate; and both add materially to the understanding imparted to the reader. Jheald (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I support the above wording (I think it was actually my wording originally if I recall correctly, but I might be wrong. I've been involved in several discussions on this in the past). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's good wording, which is exactly what I practice. I'd be happy to see this somewhere prominent, with a shortcut, say WP:ALTCOVER, since the issue sure comes up a lot. An anecdotal amusing case which isn't an example for anything: Amorica didn't have the censored cover until I added it on July 31.--Muhandes (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there any objections? If not, I'll make the change to the template documentation in a couple days. I'll post a note on the template talk page too. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the proposed wording change. J04n(talk page) 21:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Re “...ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification”, this implies that NFCC has “criteria for identification”—it doesn't. Re “an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion”, if this is true, it should be added to NFCC, not the infobox. Uniplex (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This is all covered by existing policy/guidelines. WP:NFC#Images: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This is criteria for identification, and also covers critical commentary. WP:NFCC#Policy #8: "Contextual 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." Consensus here has generally been that if an album has an entirely different cover in a significant portion of the world, or if the original cover is done away with at some point and replaced by a new one (such as for albums with controversial cover art), then using both covers significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic and omitting it would be detrimental, particularly if the article specifically discusses the change in cover art using sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My point was not that the thought behind the wording is wrong, but that if the wording implies things that aren't true, then it can probably be improved. Uniplex (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm not clear on what it implies that isn't true. NFC specifically says that cover art can be used for identification in the context of critical commentary, and pretty much any image that's the subject of specific, sourced critical commentary passes NFCC, so this is merely taking what NFC and NFCC already say and putting it in the context of album covers. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The text starts with ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria—referring to NFCC; it then talks about passing the criteria for identification. NFCC doesn't have criteria for identification; NFC does though, so a step of explanation has been missed. Secondly, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion is worded too strongly: the statement seems to override NFCC; if it were as true as it purports to be, we could paste it directly into NFCC. Uniplex (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've checked up on this over at WP:NFCI: it seems that the second bit is in fact fine, but the first bit is not—there's now a footnote at NFC that covers this. Uniplex (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be "single publication" rather than "single published"? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification; however, it seems the whole thing has kicked off again over at WT:NFC. That's probably the best place for suxh discussion, and the best place to capture any resultant guideline text. Uniplex (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Based on some current highly-misleading categorizations, this discussion, and a few others, I propose to expand along the following lines the paragraph beginning "Albums are only categorized by arranger, conductor, ... " at WP:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body:

Albums may be categorized by arranger, conductor, cover artist, producer, record label, or recording location, only if these persons/qualities are notable—WP:NOTABLE and WP:MUSIC discuss Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If an article does not exist for the arranger, conductor, cover artist, producer, record label, or recording location, then it is not a notable feature and an album article should not be categorized by this scheme. Furthermore, for each of these categories other than record-label, categorization should be made only if it is reliably, secondarily sourced that the person/quality in question is the sole arranger/conductor/etc. of the album and that the sourced attribution applies to the vast majority if not all of (the tracks on) the album. Note that albums are frequently released by different record labels in different markets or are re-released by a different record label over time—all of these labels should be included as categories if they individually meet the notability requirements.

Uniplex (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? Why would we categorize albums if only one person arranged/conducted/produced them (not that this is not done in practice at all)? If two persons produce an album, why wouldn't we categorize it by both producers? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Why???... For the reasons given above. It's simply a case of being clear to our readers. For example, "Double Fantasy" should not be categorized as being an album “produced by Yoko Ono”, simply because it isn't—it was produced by her and two other producers. If OTOH, we do as you suggest, we could also categorize Strawberry Fields Forever as being a song “written by Paul McCartney” by virtue of the fact that the actual writing credit is John Lennon and Paul McCartney. By all means, have "Albums with production contribution by Yoko Ono" if that's what you want to convey in your category. Uniplex (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Right But to use your example, songs are categorized by each writer... E.g. Losing My Religion is in Category:songs written by Michael Stipe, Category:Songs written by Bill Berry, Category:Songs written by Mike Mills, and Category:Songs written by Peter Buck. If someone stumbles upon an article in Category:Albums produced by Yoko Ono and wants to know her specific contribution, then they can read the text of the article. This reductionist approach results in several immediate absurdities: an album that was produced entirely by one person, but with one track who was co-produced by someone else has no category by producer? An album that has orchestration on all but one track and consequently has a conductor has no category by conductor because of a single instrumental interlude without an orchestra? This criterion of having produced/arranged/conducted the entire album seems patently unnecessary and simply useless, as well as out of step with practice and the example that you yourself just gave. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For reasons unknown, you are arguing that the proposal inflexibly mandates "all", where in fact in has "the vast majority"—of course there will be the need for case-by-case consideration in unusual circumstances; this is the case with every guideline.

The proposed text (which simply reflects a consensus already gained in the reference discussion) is a common-sense move to promote clarity over ambiguity. Your pointing out that similar ambiguity exists elsewhere is akin to WP:WAX, merely highlighting further improvements that can be made.

The fact is that "Produced by person" is widely used in both primary and secondary sources to mean exactly that: the album was produced by that person, not "produced by that person to an unspecified level that may or may not be insignificant compared to some-other-person". You can have all the categories you want, e.g.

Albums produced by Yoko Ono
Albums co-produced by Yoko Ono
Compilation albums including tracks produced or co-produced by Yoko Ono

Don't deliberately and unnecessarily mislead WP readers by pretending that these are the same thing. Alternatively, consider Spellcast's advice from the previous discussion: “This is a perfect example of why an article is better than a category”. Uniplex (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

AGF If you're going to accuse me of lying, then I'm not going to discuss this with you. There are several reasons why there will never be a category scheme of the sort "Compilation albums including tracks produced or co-produced by Yoko Ono" and I don't think that it's a problem that Losing My Religion is under four author categories--I'm arguing that it's an asset. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has accused you of lying. The consensus from the previous discussions, is that the distinction which exists in English, and which is widely observed by WP's reliable sources, between terms such as ‘producer’ and ‘co-producer’, should be honoured in titles of WP categories. This thread exists to capture that consensus in a few words for the guideline, and only that. If you wish to discuss other matters such as appropriate titles for categories that fall outside of the set (album producer, album arranger, etc.) described in the guideline as referenced above, then please do it in another thread. Uniplex (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay I really don't know how to characterize "Don't deliberately and unnecessarily mislead WP readers" other than an accusation of lying, but it's certainly not an assumption of good faith. I don't see any consensus to create a category scheme around co-production. Of course, it makes sense to mention this in the text and explain it with sources. It does not make sense to create a category scheme around this distinction. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't know how to characterize it, then I'll do it for you: it was a plea to common-sense (which fell on stony ground). Please stop polluting this discussion with "straw men": nobody has claimed that there is a "consensus to create a category scheme around co-production"; please read the proposed text and comment on it only as it reflects the previous discussions. Uniplex (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I’d like to make some points regarding this discussion. I am concentrating on album by producer, but that shouldn't exclude by arranger etc.

That there should be an article page for the "producer" is a given as WP policy.
Uniplex’s very reasonable suggestion of “applies to the vast majority if not all of (the tracks on) the album,” should be adopted, which will hit on the head the concept that because a “producer” “produces a song on a compilation album, then they are credited with production of the whole album, i.e. Come and Get It: The Best of Apple Records where there is 21 songs and 11 producers, 5 of which are categorized as “Album produced by...” It’s not as if the article has bothered to say which song was produced by whom! Also, none of those categorized as such actually produced the album; they produced song(s) on an album – totally different thing.
None of these categories should ever contain a category that only contains self-produced albums. This also removes artists who are “executive producers” and who only get the credit because they can claim it. I have two analogies for self-produced albums, the clean version is I cooked my own meal last night, but that doesn’t make me chef!
In an ideal world I would suggest that Albums by producer should only contain categories for people who are known producers, i.e. George Martin, Phil Spector, Timbaland etc but I guess the fancruft promoters would object to this vehemently.
Comparison with Songs by songwriter and albums by producer is totally misleading as a song may be recorded by other artists, but a producer’s work relates to a specific recording of a song/album. However, in the text of songs by songwriter there generally are the words “songs written or co-written by...” When appropriate there is no reason why there should not be similar wording in the producer categories, this would avoid any sub-categories like “albums co-produced by...”
I concur that lists are a better way of dealing with production credits because every nuance can be stated (i.e. with vocal production done by Vera Vocal-Coach), however, that should not preclude a categorization scheme as well. That’s WP policy anyway.
Any talk about albums (or songs) by producer, should remember there are completely different ways of working in the digital age, some producers only do the backing tracks, sometimes different producers will work on different tracks, a song (or album) will be sent to another producer to make certain tracks have a specific “feel.” Also with the digital age it is possible for artists to self-produce (there is an “undo” button in pro-tools, which wasn’t there in the age of analog recording). In many cases the musicians don’t meet, let alone the musicians and producer.
Finally, be wary of producer credits at the best of times, a friend of mine produced a Grammy-nominated album, but his name isn’t mentioned, the “executive producer” who is much more famous took the credit. At Allmusic I am credited with the production of one album – which I did not produce, but for those I did I don’t get a mention. It’s all politics, business, marketing and mirrors. I point this out to emphasis why self-produced albums are not necessarily what actually happened! I can't imagine Yoko Ono (or even John Lennon) saying or doing, "add a low bass filter to track 5 during the bridge," feasible in the digital age, but not likely in the age of analog.

Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Produced by X" should only apply if X produced the majority of the album. I deal mostly in country where it's very rare for one track to have 20 writers, six artists and eight producers like in rap or pop. Tony Brown has produced all of George Strait's albums from 1992 onward, no argument, but George's box set includes many tracks produced by others, so the box set shouldn't include any Produced by X categories. It also makes sense that Produced by X categories shouldn't exist unless X has an article, a precedent also established by the Songs by Songwriter tree. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Known for production It's difficult to say if band members are known for production. For instance, R.E.M. have produced or co-produced several of their own albums and individual members have produced others' work as well. I think that Peter Buck is known for producing (e.g.) Uncle Tupelo and maybe Michael Stipe is known for producing Magnapop, but does that mean that Document (album) is in Category:Albums produced by Scott Litt, Category:Albums produced by Peter Buck, and Category:Albums produced by Michael Stipe, but not Category:Albums produced by Bill Berry and Category:Albums produced by Mike Mills? Or is it not categorized under Category:Albums produced by Scott Litt at all because it's produced by him and R.E.M.? This would mean that none of the band's albums are in this category! Scott Litt is not only known for being a producer, but he's known for being R.E.M.s producer—what's the point of Category:Albums produced by Scott Litt if it excludes the albums he's most famous for having produced(/co-produced)? This criterion seems reasonable, but results in absurdities. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My main opinion about all this is that if an album is produced by a band, it should be in a category of "Albums produced by [band]", but it should not be put into categories of "Albums produced by [member of band]". For example, Anthem of the Sun was produced by David Hassinger and the Grateful Dead, but it's currently in these categories: Albums produced by David Hassinger, Albums produced by Jerry Garcia, Albums produced by Bob Weir, Albums produced by Ron "Pigpen" McKernan, Albums produced by Phil Lesh, Albums produced by Bill Kreutzmann, Albums produced by Mickey Hart, and Albums produced by Tom Constanten. All except Hassinger were members of the band at the time the album was produced, but these categories are, for lack of a better term, incorrect. Anthem of the Sun wasn't produced by Jerry Garcia, it wasn't produced by Ron "Pigpen" McKernan, and it wasn't produced by any of those other individuals. It was produced by David Hassinger and by the band known as the Grateful Dead, and it should be in two categories that reflect that -- Albums produced by David Hassinger, and Albums produced by Grateful Dead. — Mudwater^(Talk) 20:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mudwater, I am still not convinced that self-produced albums should be categorized by artist, it is generally no more than a significant repeat of the Album by artist, but, having said that, cutting back to Songs produced by [band] would be a significant improvement on all those duplicate cats we have for Grateful Dead and other bands. Thanks for your input, most helpful. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:CLN notes that "Restraint should be used, however — categories become less effective the more there are on a given article" and WP:CAT tells us that categories must be "defining" features, meaning here, presumably, that the album is frequently introduced (in sources) as being an album produced by X, and not just mentioned in passing or for completeness. This seems, as Richhoncho suggests, to rule out categorisation by self-production in most cases. One of the problems in spawning multiple categories from a single credit is that what appears at the top of the article (in the info box) is different to what appears in the at the bottom (in the list of categories): you have to spot them all the co-producer categories (which may not even be called 'co-produced-by', and if one co-producer is not notable enough, may not be there at all) and mentally stick them back together to get the true picture. If Scott Litt "defines" the albums he co-produces or produces, then have a category "Albums with production by Scott Litt", into which should go only albums where his contribution is noted in the album article lead (and is hence discussed in detail in the body). Other albums, where his contribution is not defining, will be findable in the category system, by other attributes i.e., most likely by artist name, the most common defining attribute of popular music albums. Uniplex (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my previous comment a bit, I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not it's helpful to have a category of "Albums produced by [band]", where the band is credited as its own record producer. I'd be fine with not having that. What I do think is inaccurate and unhelpful is adding "produced by" categories for the individual band members, when the producer credit on the album does not name them. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Given all the above, here's another attempt at text for the guideline:

Album categorization is per WP:CATEGORY: an album may be categorized by characteristics such as performer, producer, conductor, arranger, artwork artist, record label, recording location, etc., only if these are “defining” characteristics of the album, meaning that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the album as having the characteristic (not just mention it in passing or for completeness).

If a notable album is defined by a particular characteristic, then it is likely that the object of the characteristic (the conductor, producer, etc.) will be notable in that capacity (per WP:NOTABLE and WP:MUSIC) and qualify for it's own Wikipedia article: if such an article does not exist, then the characteristic is probably not defining.
Note that characteristics that commonly define one class of album may not define another class of album. E.g. 'conducted-by' commonly defines classical-music albums but rarely, if ever, defines rock-music albums. 'Produced-by' sometimes defines pop- and rock-music albums, but rarely defines classical-music albums.
Each defining characteristic usually qualifies an article for precisely one categorisation, named as the characteristic that defines the album (e.g. 'albums produced by X'). Where a team of people is credited for a characteristic, the official (legal) credit must be respected and not split into multiple categories for individual team members in such a way that the official credit could be inferred incorrectly (note that credits embodied in category names may be seen in the article unordered, disjoint, or incomplete). This precludes, for example, categorising as 'produced by X' where X is in fact a co-producer in a team.
If the above seems to disallow grouping articles as you think they should be, consider using an alternative mechanism such as a list-article instead (see WP:CLN).

I think that is in line with the goals of the category scheme i.e. that every article should be in a few categories according to it's most significant ("defining") attributes, not every category that one could possibly apply. What do folks think? Uniplex (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I approve of your text above, but would like see added :-

"applies to the vast majority if not all of (the tracks on) the album" (which is from your original post above, shame to lose it now), and
Categories should not be created that substantially overlap with another existing category.

Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

PS. I thought it might be useful to show a couple of recent deletion discussions that resulted in delete. Might help with "defining characteristic."

Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, useful examples. Back to your two bullets re the text: Second bullet seems fine. As for the first, I was uneasy about that as it smacked of original research. Without it, we're left with primary source information (e.g. the disc label or sleeve) and secondary sources (e.g. what reviewers say)—I hope that, subject to printing errors, these should be the same thing and that if the disc label/sleeve doesn't give a 'produced-by' credit (for the album as a whole) then it seems unlikely that 2ndary sources would define it otherwise (for legal reasons if nothing else). For example, Come and Get It: The Best of Apple Records doesn't qualify for produced-by categorization because 2ndary sources don't define that album by its producer(s) (instead, predominantly by its record-label). So, maybe it's no longer needed? Uniplex (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that, "applies to the vast majority if not all of (the tracks on) the album" is original research, like you, I am tring to stop producer cat entries that exist just somebody has a track on an album, i.e. Come and Get It: The Best of Apple Records. Perhaps slightly different wording would be better? I suggest you revisit your proposal above, with any changes that you feel should be included as a result of the discussions here, together with a date to implement, providing there are no further suggestions/amendments that have been brought up. Otherwise we have long discussions and no resolution. Over to you. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

3rd proposal

Here's an updated draft to hopefully clarify a bit more:

An album may be categorized by characteristics such as performer, producer, composer, record-label, etc., only if these are defining characteristics of the album (i.e. reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the album as having the characteristic—not just mention it in passing or for completeness).

If an album is defined by a particular characteristic, then it is likely that the object of the characteristic (the performer, producer, etc.) will be notable in that capacity and qualify (per WP:NOTABLE and WP:MUSIC) for it's own Wikipedia article: if such an article does not exist, then the characteristic is probably not defining.
Each defining characteristic of an album usually qualifies its article for precisely one categorization, named as the defining characteristic (e.g. 'albums produced by X'). Where a team of people is credited for a characteristic, the official credit must not be split into multiple categories for individual team members.^[1] So, for example, if Y is a member of an album's production team X, categorization may not be as 'albums produced by Y'; 'albums produced by X' might however, be included as a sub-category of 'albums produced by Y', or the album might be categorized directly as 'Y' (perhaps in addition to 'albums produced by X').
Characteristics that commonly define one class of album may not define another class of album. E.g. 'conducted-by' commonly defines classical-music albums but rarely, if ever, defines rock-music albums. 'Produced-by' sometimes defines pop- and rock-music albums, but rarely defines classical-music albums. Large record-label companies don't often qualify as a defining characteristic of an album; small, specialized record-labels however, may do.
If the above seems to disallow grouping articles as you think they should be, consider using an alternative mechanism such as a list-article (see WP:CLN).

Uniplex (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

^ Otherwise, the categorization loses potency as it is no longer per the defining characteristic; also, the official (legal) credit could be misconstrued (category names may be seen in the article unordered, disjoint, or incomplete)

Looks good to me. If there are no objections I suggest you add to WikiProject albums in 7 days time. That gives plenty of time for further discussion, yet ensures all your good work doesn't go to waste. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me if this is a little off topic, but I did some mention in the discussion regarding Come and Get It: The Best of Apple Records. I don't believe compilation albums such as this should be placed in "Albums produced by" categories. Greatest hits, etc. are typically compiled of previously recorded/produced material, so the compilation is not produced but compiled. There is usually an executive producer overseeing the project, but that's hardly the same thing. Even if all the tracks in a compilation were produced by a single person that does not mean the compilation was produced by that person because the production was already completed as part of the albums from which they originated. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say extremely on topic. My feeling is that compilations shouldn't generally be categorized by producer as it would fail "defining characteristic." Come and Get It: The Best of Apple Records should never have been categorized by producer. On the other hand, if you have any wise words that could strengthen the proposal along those lines I'd certainly have no objections.--Richhoncho (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Objections I suppose that my objections are substantially the same as before, but to take Star...'s example: Sure, a compilation album (e.g. 1 (The Beatles album)) may not be known for being produced as an album by George Martin--instead, it is made up of an assemblage of tracks that Martin produced for other albums and singles. But, the same thing is true of the performance of those tracks by The Beatles... They didn't record an album entitled 1--it was just made up of things that they recorded for other albums, so is it not notable as a Beatles album? I'm not trying to be a jerk here--I really don't get it. For that matter, very few albums are really known for being released on a record label of by having been produced by someone in particular. Is (e.g.) Automatic for the People known for having been released in 1992? These category schemes are necessary for diffusing Category:Albums and they are all equally defining or valid even if an individual album itself isn't known for being on a certain label, or being released in a certain year, or being a type of genre, or something. What am I missing here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is (e.g.) Automatic for the People known for having been released in 1992? Yes, it's there in the lead sentence of the article (per WP:DEFINING). Same for '1' being an album 'by the Beatles'. Uniplex (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In terms of production, I am talking about the assemblage of the album. This doesn't even have to do with who produced the album as a defining quality of the album, but just the fact that most "best of" type albums are not produced but compiled. The individual songs on an album may be produced by different people does not earn each one a credit as a producer of the album. As long as the "Albums by producer" categorization scheme exists, though, I think it should be reflected accurately for each album. A producer of a song is not a producer of every album that that recording of the song ends up on. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It my is understanding of the proposal that it says categorization must be a "defining categoristic" and it also goes on to say "Each defining characteristic of an album usually qualifies its article for precisely one categorization," this, in my mind, means that if a producer has produced a majority or all of the songs on an album then that would entitle the categorization by that and only that producer. Therefore, taking 1 (The Beatles album), it seems logical that it would not be wrong to categorize as an album produced by George Martin, but not Phil Spector who only produced one track on the album. Is anybody saying this is incorrect? Albums compiled by... would be a different category and more than likely non-defining.

As an interesting aside, wiktionary describes an "album," inter alia, as "A book specially designed to keep photographs, stamps, or autographs," and, "A group of audio recordings, on any medium, intended for distribution as a group", which, to all intents and purposes, is a compilation of songs to create an "album" anyway.

Leaving aside defining, I think what we are all trying to achieve here is meaningful categorization and at the same time avoiding fancruft categorization, any suggestions along those lines are welcome. Cheers --Richhoncho (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the rule of thumb about defining characteristics being mentioned in the lead of the article is a good one. So, for 1 (The Beatles album), for example, the defining characteristics are likely to be things such as (or derived from): “compilation album”, “by The Beatles”, “released on 13 November 2000”,“ best-selling album in the US from 2000 to 2009”, “the fastest selling album in history”; “produced-by” OTOH, is not mentioned in the lead and so, per WP:DEFINING, is probably not defining for this album. Uniplex (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Uniplex, thanks for you comments. However, I looked at Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (as we seem to be using the Beatles as the gold standard), and noted it has 20 non-hidden categories, but only 5/6 of them are actually covered in the 2 paragraph article lede. I am not convinced all 20 categories should or could be covered in the lede, equally, I am not convinced that any category should or needs to be removed. I would be interested how you and other editors intepret the proposal in the light of this article. I am playing devil's advocate, but I still whole-heartedly support the thrust of the proposal. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This album has several "Certified platinum" categories—I think this is covered, or rather summarized, in the lead by "worldwide commercial success" (i.e. the album has several defining attributes of commercial success quantified in several countries). As for the other categories, I'm not an expert in how this album is defined in all regions of the world; however, some appear debatable. Remember, the requirement that a category must be a based on a defining characteristic is not specific to the proposal, but from WP:CATEGORY. Usually, it would be done the other way round, but if we're sure that a category is defining and it's not currently mentioned in the lead, then we can probably add it to the lead (and body). For example, if we're sure that Sgt. Pepper is defined as being a "Concept album", then this can be reflected in the lead: "Sgt. Pepper is a concept album by the Beatles, released in 1967". One of the most suspicious current categories is "Fictitious sergeants" (which maybe is a trivial intersection between fictitious things and sergeants, and should be applied to an article about the character, not the album). The category for RIAA platinum is probably superfluous as it's covered by the RIAA diamond category. Uniplex (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Good answers. Be interesting to see somebody else's comments. I could query Category:English-language albums as this is the English wiki and as for categorization by genre - it is the deepest darkest pit on WP and I have no intention of going there! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, with no further comments I've edited the proposed text into the guideline. I'm sure a few more tweaks may be needed to cover situations we didn't think of above, but we can address these as they come out of the CfD process. Uniplex (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing Rolling Stones best lists

hello,

I have currently an issue with User:Uniplex edits on All Things Must Pass. He removes the rankings (such as "500 Greatest Albums of All Time") as he thinks it fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body (Due to their proliferation and dubious value, lists (e.g. Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Punk Rock Albums of the Early 1980s) may not be included.). But this is odd, as the guideline was edited by only a few people, and it is a WikiProject guideline, not important like WP:MOS. Everytime he removes that information, he cite Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body as a source! I don't understand why he do that and why only on All Things Must Pass. The main issue is not that he only change it on ATMP, but that he don't remove the rankings on the remaining 499 articles. I wrote this comment to avoid edit conflicts/edit wars and to reach consensus. This issue needs to be resolved and I need your help. Thanks.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey ^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 16:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't studied this specific situation, but I'd say "500 Greatest Albums of All Time" is a valid list to include in the articles for the relevant albums. It is a much more significant list than, say, "100 Greatest Debut Alternative Rock Albums of 1998", which would not merit inclusion (unless, perhaps, the album was #1 on said list). –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The article body guideline is meant to summarize the consensus that has been formed through various discussions and collaborative work, across this WikiProject. Just because it hasn't been heavily edited doesn't mean it doesn't represent the views of many editors. You are doing the right thing, though, by bringing it up on a talk page. All of our guidelines should reflect what people decide during discussions like this. —Akrabbim^talk 16:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how the guideline currently reads (and I think it needs to be revised), Uniplex seems to be misinterpreting the guideline or at least reading way too far into it. The spirit of the guideline seems to be that extraneous lists, like the theoretical "Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Punk Rock Albums of the Early 1980s", should be omitted. Other more comprehensive, high value lists, such as those that were published as books (*cough* 500 Greatest Albums of All Time *cough*) or those that take all of music's history into account, are worth mentioning, in my opinion. Otherwise, how are supposed to prove that a prominent album is as highly regarded as it is? Are we just supposed to not mention in the article on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band that it is one of the most highly regarded albums ever? Numerous album articles that have made it to Featured Article status give mention to lists of these sort and they made it all the way through numerous promotions without objection. I don't why this is coming up now.... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We are not supposed to prove anything: we're supposed to cite secondary sources—if they give due weight to an album's inclusion in a magazine list then of course, so can we. Uniplex (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If I'm understanding what you're saying then, you're objecting to any mention of an album in a "greatest list" unless some other source has mentioned said mention on a list? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The community objects to such lists in terms that are expressed in the guideline. My supposition is that the guideline is a view of WP:RS (and other policy) as it generally applies in practice to such lists. Uniplex (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're making a mistake in assuming the guidelines are absolutes. They aren't. There will always be exceptions to every rule. Unfortunately, you took Rolling Stone's use in the fictional negative example as an absolute for any list by Rolling Stone, and indeed for any list, when I think what the example is trying to show is that trivial lists are not to be cited as WP:RS. (The fact that Rolling Stone hasn't actually published such a list as described is perhaps an indication of its triviality.)

So the gist of WP:RS is "it depends", which is true of a lot of the guidelines. So how might we evaluate reference to a list such as "500 Greatest Albums of All Time"? Well, Rolling Stone did compile and publish it, and Rolling Stone is a reliable publisher of information and opinion on popular music especially rock music, so that's one point. So, any list published by Rolling Stone is WP:RS? No, the negative example shows that isn't an absolute. "500 Greatest Albums of All Time", however, was published in a special edition of the newspaper, was later compiled into book form and published, has its own Wikipedia article, and is posted on its website.

Is that all? No, again it depends on context. The guideline that Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body#Critical Reception is suggesting is that "dubious" lists aren't to be included, which I'd argue boils down to a notion of "triviality", and the triviality of a particular reference depends again on context. Either the list itself or the item's placement on the list can be deemed trivial. Music lists by non-specialized publishers such as USA Today? Yes, trivial. Music lists by notable experts such as Robert Christgau? Usually not trivial. (Pazz & Jop has its own article and is published in The Village Voice; his decade personal bests list were published in The Village Voice]].) Placement on such a lists in the lower reaches? Probably trivial although I have seen references with placements in the 'teens of the Pazz & Jop lists. Again, depends on context. Is the artist otherwise notable? Yes, then lower placement for early albums might be deemed non-trivial. It's my opinion that placement on the "500 Greatest Albums" list is non-trivial, in any case, it's at least a "gimme".

I think what is at issue here is your interpretation of the consensus as an absolute and not whether the consensus has changed. It isn't absolute and the consensus has not changed. From the discussion here, I would conclude that reference to "All Things Must Pass" on the "500 Greatest Albums of All Time" list meets WP:RS.

-- J. Wong (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with J. Wong; consensus doesn't need to change, but Uniplex, you should probably drop the stick: you've been reverted by multiple users, and clearly your argument isn't gaining any traction here. Radiopathy •talk• 03:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone was waiting for a response, I should point out that I'm a disinterested party: I have no comment other than to note that those who have suggested that the guideline does not represent the consensus view, that it “needs to be revised”, and have needed in excess of 400 words when trying to apply it, might want to propose an amendment to clarify/improve it. Uniplex (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reward board#Various song/album/artist articles to GA

Just posting this for anyone who may be interested in it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox album - adding a Discography section

There has been a recent change to the album infobox so that it is no longer a navigation aid to articles on the band's significant releases (what is conventionally regarded as their Discography), but rather a Chronology of all releases, apparently also including films (though this is unclear). There were some queries and objections raised during the discussion, mainly along the lines of the loss of navigational aid for readers. I often use the Infobox to move from one major album to the next, and I don't wish to be taken to dead end of no article, or to compilation albums or videos. I feel there is a benefit loss by removing the discography, and that a number of readers will be inconvenienced. I accept, though, that some people feel there is value in having a Chronology of all releases in the Infobox. So, rather than arguing for the merits of Chronology over Discography, or vice versa, perhaps it would be appropriate to have a Discography field to run alongside the Chronology field. In the Discography field the links would follow the established discography, as in R.E.M.#Discography, so on the Out of Time (album) article, the next album shown would be Automatic for the People rather than the video Pop Screen. The Infobox would, however, also contain the Chronology field, so people could see at a glance what the next release was, and click on it if they wanted. This would restore the widely accepted use of the Infobox (and so pre-empt any future likely edit wars), as well as preserving the recent change. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think this is necessary. The purpose of the chronology is to show where this release falls in relation to the previous and next releases...it does not matter if those releases were "major" or not. If all you're after is to navigate between like albums (studio, live, etc.) the navbox at the bottom of the article should serve this purpose (as should the artist's discography section/article). The infobox is primarily for information, not navigation. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with IllaZilla. The infobox is for information, the navbox is for navigation. The current page should always appear bolded in the navbox so you know where you are, and can easily go to the next release of the same kind, or you could go to the discography article if there is such from there. I see the chronology in the infobox as just something for orientation, whereabouts the release was. I'm not sure we want to clutter the infobox. --Muhandes (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I gotta say, I'm in agreement with IllaZilla and Muhandes on this, for pretty much the exact same reasons they've outlined. I say leave the album infobox as it it is. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's probably me just taking time to adjust to having to change the way I navigate, and also on a personal level given a choice of being informed about the next trivial budget compilation compared with the next major release, I would rather prioritise the major release, and allow the trivial releases to be displayed further down in the navbox at the bottom of the article. I expected (hoped!) there would be others who shared my view. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, although this has been discussed quite a few times and I don't think it's going to change. There's no infobox purpose for a chronology of every live DVD and single and demo and label compilation. The only use of that field is as a navigational aid, and people navigate by category, not by date. If we've decided it's not a navigational aid, then there's no reason to even have it. It violates the "principle of least astonishment"—someone reading about an album sees a weird link to a release they've never heard of, and are wondering why it's there: is it a a compilation? an internet-only release? vandalism? The only way to find out is to click it, and now they're taken away from the article they were trying to read.

An infobox is for information about the article at hand. That can include logical predecessors and successors (as in Bill Clinton→George W. Bush→Barack Obama) but just a chronology of every release we happen to have an article on? Even albums released by the label that have nothing to do with the band? It doesn't make sense. The navbox does a better job. We should stick to logical chronologies or not include them at all. —Gendralman (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Further complexity arises when you realize that the boundaries between categories. Is a Christmas album a "major studio album"? Is No One's First and You're Next a long EP or a short LP? What about when singles and their b-sides are marketed as EPs on iTunes? There are many, many similar questions. I believe this was what precipitated the discussions that led to the "every release" rule. I don't right now know of a clean solution to deal with all of this. —Akrabbim^talk 19:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Switchfoot - Vice Verses deluxe edition

Is it appropriate to mention this in the Vice Verses page?

Then a new page would be created for Hello Hurricane Live, which comes in the deluxe edition, and this album would also be added to the chronology? I've never done either of these before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossidor (talk • contribs) 04:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If Hello Hurricane Live is not a separate release then probably no new page. There is a precedent for putting deluxe editions into the chronology though. Uniplex (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In this case the deluxe edition was released concurrently with the original release (it isn't a nostalgic or new-and-improved version of an older album). It just comes with extra content, etc. At this point, I think all of this would fit on the one Vice Verses page. I doubt that the coverage would ever be large enough to justify splitting off into other articles. —Akrabbim^talk 12:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone links

I've been working on article citations and I see that a large number of links to Rolling Stone album reviews, etc., have gone dead. There could be hundreds of dead links, each of which may be a significant source for the album article, etc. For example, this link[6] from this article: Smash (album). If someone is interested in fixing this there might be a simple way of doing it with a bot or AWB setting. Otherwise, the references may get lost. Will Beback talk 06:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I guarantee there are hundreds (if not thousands) of such dead links. They were caused by Rolling Stone's (awful) redesign of their website a couple years ago. Not sure what the viability is of a bot fixing the links...much of the past content that I tried to search for manually (articles, reviews) is simply gone. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. That's too bad. Will Beback talk 07:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Lucky for us, I think most of the website is available on the Wayback Machine. For instance, I just corrected the link you mentioned above. --Muhandes (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. So perhaps there is a possibility for a bot or tool which could fix them all. Or maybe some really dedicated volunteers... :) Will Beback talk 08:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And I just updated the archive link that Muhandes put in place as a web cite with a news cite to the original article and an archive closer to the access date that the reference was added.

Unfortunately, although many links to the Rolling Stone articles have been archived at Wayback Machine not all have been. Or a different link to the same article has been archived and you must use some ingenuity to find it. (You might find an archive link to another album by the artist, and then select the Album Review link on that archive page to get to a list of album reviews for the artist where you might find a link to the album you want.) So, I doubt that a bot could be used to do this.

I might point out that for many "major" albums, the Rolling Stone website still provides access to the article for the album using a different url (search for the album title). In this case, I would suggest that you correct the link, but provide the archive url with deadurl=no so that editors can see the original text from near the date the original reference was made. For example, here's the cite I used for All Things Must Pass:

Gerson, Ben (January 21, 1971). "George Harrison All Things Must Pass > Album Review". Rolling Stone. No. 74. Archived from the original on 17 June 2008. Retrieved 9 November 2009. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I think it is important to provide the archive to the original link. In one case (I don't recall immediately but you can look at my history :-)) the current article on the Rolling Stone website is truncated, but the truncated text was available on the archived link. (And the quote in the album article was from the truncated section!)

Yes, I have actually been doing a lot of editing of these dead Rolling Stone reference links, turning them into publication cites. I have access to some PDF/HTML copy of the Rolling Stone articles from 1990 to the present through my local library through EBSCOHost; you might too.

You might notice that the date provided in the archive link is not the original publication date of the review, and the archive that Muhandes provided did not include the issue number, which Rolling Stone stopped posting with its articles at some point. However, an earlier archive of this link did include the issue number from which I was able to retrieve the actual publication source at EBSCOHost. That gave me the actual publication date, the page number, and the title and text, from which it was clear that this wasn't just a review of the Smash (album) but was a joint review with a Bad Religion album.

As far as I can tell, the dates posted with articles at the Rolling Stone website are the original posting dates only if the article was published before the existence of the website. Articles published after that may have a posting date that is (usually) earlier than the publication date.

Other notes: some Rolling Stone album review archive pages have star ratings although the published review, itself, did not. You should disregard these. As far as I can tell at this point, Rolling Stone did not start rating reviews until around 1982. Later archives and active links to those reviews on the website do not have ratings unless originally published with a rating. Also, the archives sometimes show that the website switched the review being linked from the original published review to a later published "Hall of Fame" review, which was usually rated, or visa-versa.

Let this be a lesson to us all! There is a reason that published works are to be preferred over web links. If a cite instead of a reference had been used, then the original article could be retrieved independent of what happened on the website whether it had been archived or not. Use publication cites if available not web cites!

-- J. Wong (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to album notability guidelines

I thought I should probably bring this discussion to the attention of editors involved in WikiProject Albums, because this could have a significant impact on Wikipedia's coverage of albums: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Delete_.22Every_album_by_notable_musician_gets_own_article.22_guideline.3F Opinions welcome. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

[1] Otherwise, the categorization loses potency as it is no longer per the defining characteristic; also, the official (legal) credit could be misconstrued (category names may be seen in the article unordered, disjoint, or incomplete)

[1]