This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This archive covers discussions from November 2002 to November 2004. Note that discussions are archived chronologically in the order in which they concluded, not the order in which they began. |
Hey there,
I think this is a very interesting project and I've devoted some thought to how it might be done myself. The template you've outlined here offers pretty much the same information as each www.allmusic.com entry, perhaps even a little less. So I don't really think such an undertaking is all that useful. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum, and so I don't think we should try to duplicate what is already done, and done well.
What I do think would be useful, and if done well could be really fantastic, is an examination of each album from a slightly broader perspective. In the examination of each album, how about a consideration of its specific influences, specific followers, where it fits in its genre and what leanings it may have toward others, etc? With regard to the Funkadelic albums, I'd much sooner go to allmusic.com for that information than to these wikipedia pages, but allmusic doesn't have the kind of musical matrix information that I think could be really exciting.
What do you think? I'm up for more chat on this topic. --
Tubby
01:20, 7 November 2002 (UTC)
Is it time to work out some more standards or goals? Please feel free to comment on the
Paul Simon article I've put together. Eventually I'd like to have a little something something about each song. Good work on those articles that you have written, at least the ones I've read are very well done.
I think some specific thing that I would like to see would be, say, on each album page, two links to other bands or artists that are similar in ways, but a few words on how they are different, and perhaps also a bit of a chronology to it. So, in a perfect world where every album is documented, one could travel back or forward or sideways, reading on one album page the description of related artists, finding stuff that may be more to their liking. However, this could lead to some repetition, with all albums pointing to only two other bands. -
Tubby
21:50, 19 November 2002 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, I'm fascinated by the chronology of music (and indeed of other things). So I've started a bit of a side project. See 1972 in music. On it I've basically just got a handful of the albums released that year, plus a little write up about Harvest. If this grows into other years and people include some specific innovations, it could develop into something pretty groovy. When does the first mention of punk come up, for example. I took the liberty of redirecting the 1972 link on the Ziggy Stardust article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubby ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 December 2002 (UTC)
Allmusic now has a page for each artist listing Grammy awards and Billboard music chart positions. I think this could be very useful, and have added it to David Bowie as an experiment. I'd like suggestions on formatting, though--it was tedious to do what I did, and it still doesn't look good. I'd like a chart, but it would be time-consuming and difficult to do all that (I think). Does anybody have any ideas? Billboard tracks the US and, I think, Canada. Who does it elsewhere, and is there a way we could easily adapt this information for Wikipedia (If so, it should probably all be moved to a separate page like David Bowie's chart positions or something). -- Tokerboy 05:03 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)
I'd suggest aligning the table holding the album cover to the RIGHT, rather than the left. Left alignment is unusual, feels rather unnatural to me, and results in varying results across browsers which are all rather ugly. Mozilla and derivitives render as shown in http://www.runawaynet.com/~nknight/crushold.jpg (problem area highlighted to better show the details, like text on the image). Konqueror shifts all text as far as the end of the track listing on the Crush page to the right, which is equally ugly and disturbs the flow of the page significantly. Aligning to right results in http://www.runawaynet.com/~nknight/crushnew.jpg, which I think is far more attractive and natural, individual browser glitches aside. -- nknight 13:20 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
Is does not appear to be a set image size for the album covers. If there is what is it? - fonzy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonzy ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 March 2003 (UTC)
(was CD Track List)
Some CDs have noticeable cultural and/or historically significance, so it may be of interest to list all the tracks on the CD. But, is the complete track listing of every CDs of every non-garage band to be included on Wikipedia?
For example, all CDs of Blink-182 have Wiki-pages, created mostly by one or two anons. But except to the band's zealous fans, none of them is significant. The only Wiki-pages that link to them are just back the Blink-182 page, the members of the band, and a one-phrase mentioning in an "n-year in music".
Are they really encyclopedic (again, except to the fans)? -- Menchi 18:11 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Other than garage/unsigned bands, what not to include? Nothing? Include all released CDs/albums? -- Menchi 22:46 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Is uploading an album cover "fair use"? My understanding of fair use is that it's not. Can someone enlighten me? -- ESP 00:10 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hi,
can someone clarify the Fair use issue for me? I just uploaded a page about Herbie Hancock's Head Hunters album, and within a few minutes someone (anonymous) had come along and removed both the Album cover art and the Tracklisting and the List of artists on the album. I'd have thought that all of these would be covered under fair use, and I'm tempted to just revert to the previous version of the page, but I don't really want to get into a war with the other guy. If tracklistings and lists of personnel are really off limits, then the whole album project is stuffed, really.
Any thoughts?
PS A couple of images I uploaded for other albums just disappeared - for example Bitches Brew. The page for the image is still there - which proves the image was succesfully uploaded (and I could see it on the page for a day or so) but now that image is nowhere to be found. Has it been deleted (no record of this) or is this just a glitch?
PPS ( ! ) I like the idea of a table for the cover, but I don't think we need to put quite so much inro in it. Maybe just artist, year, label, genre, but leave the reviews and contributors to the body of the text?
Cheers Ben -- Bwmodular 16:11, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
What does everybody think about having a table for this series, perhaps something like (crappily cribbed from the taxobox/planetobox) the below. There seems to be a stray /table somewhere in there, but I dunno where. I had included a track listing, but decided that was too difficult and not very useful. I can't seem to make the top and bottom section ignore the fact that there is a third column in the middle one. -- Tuf-Kat 06:49, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
I can't seem to touch the table without breaking things. All I did was try and delete the "major contributors" section, and now both tables, our comments and the wikilinks at the bottom are all part of one giganto-table. Isn't there a firm way to just end a table? (/table would seem logical, but there's a gaggle of those already). -- Tuf-Kat 17:47, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
A lot of Wikiprojects use different colors in the table to mean different things (for example, plants, animals and fungi all use different colors, but the same table). I'm not sure this really has any useful application to this project, but is worth considering. Dividing by genre might be nice, but would probably lead to arguments (fill in band name here is not punk enuff for the punk color!), and I'm not sure it's worth it. I've also thought about having different colors for notable bands (for example all Rolling Stone albums could be blue, with orange as the default) but this is probably even less useful. Maybe by decade of release... -- Tuf-Kat 03:49, 5 February 2004 (UTC)
In the list of sources for professional reviews, can somebody find a homepage to link to for this site? http://www.acclaimedmusic.com doesn't work, and neither does http://hem.bredband.net. I can't seem to find any kind of main page or search function, and I need to go to bed. -- Tuf-Kat 08:54, 6 February 2004 (UTC)
After doing a couple more albumboxes (needs a better name...), I'm not sure including e.g. Rolling Stone List of 500 Greatest Albums of All Time is a good idea, even if it is an encyclopedic source. There's an awful lot of them, most are reproduced on non-official pages and could very well be mistaken or even totally fictional and... I hate them. -- Tuf-Kat 19:51, 6 February 2004 (UTC)
What would you think of adding a [[< Previous]] album and [[Next >]] album link at the bottom of the 'taxobox', for those artists who have writeups for more than one album? Appropriately piped, of course, and removed if not applicable. Might be a nice way to browse through an artists work.
Could be done as text links at the top or bottom of the article text as well. Yust a thought.... -- Catherine 22:02, 6 February 2004 (UTC)
I have started using the format and have the following questions/issues:
- for the release date, what if the album is released on separate dates in different countries/regions, probably most notably the
United States and
United Kingdom? A number of
Pink Floyd albums are like this, typically released in the UK first then the US. Should it only list the first date (which tends to be for the UK)?
- for the length, what about double albums? Should there be two lines with each line ending with the disc/record # in parenthesis? See
The Wall for an example. --
RedWolf
08:42, 14 February 2004 (UTC)
Two issues:
Barring disagreement here, I am going to change the project to specifically disallow "100 Greatest Albums of All Time"-type lists, even if they are by a reputable source.
There has been little or no discussion anywhere on the wiki regarding the suitability of Greatest Hits or other compilations having their own albums. I am of the opinion that most should not, though Bob Marley's Legends, some box sets, that Pink Floyd greatest hits and probably some more could easily have an article. Discuss. -- Tuf-Kat 23:43, 13 February 2004 (UTC)
Well, I don't think any album articles are quite ready yet, but I'm going to try and get something, maybe Aquemini, there soon. Any other thoughts? -- Tuf-Kat 23:52, 18 February 2004 (UTC)
Just a q. What should be done for the Pink Floyd double album Ummagumma? It has 1 disk of live, and 1 disk of studio material. What should be done for the colours? -- Fizscy46 01:46, 20 February 2004 (UTC)
I noticed in the header of the sample albumbox the listing " LP by Alice in Chains" -- noting that LP is linked to Vinyl record. Is this the standard format we want to use, given that records are rarely released on vinyl anymore? Should it just be "album"? If we're trying to maintain the distinction between LP and EP, we can still say "album by" or " EP by".... ? I'm not versed in the subtleties of music terminology, so please let me know if I'm off base here.... -- Catherine 18:49, 27 February 2004 (UTC)
I think this is a very interesting project and I've devoted some thought to how it might be done myself. I don't think we should try to duplicate what is already done at other sites, and done well.
What I do think would be useful, and if done well could be really fantastic, is an examination of each album from a slightly broader perspective. In the examination of each album, how about a consideration of its specific influences, specific followers, where it fits in its genre and what leanings it may have toward others, etc? With regard to the Funkadelic albums, I'd much sooner go to allmusic.com for that information than to these wikipedia pages, but allmusic doesn't have the kind of musical matrix information that I think could be really exciting.
What do you think? -- Arbitration Matter of Hephaestus 16:40, 14 March 2004 (UTC)
I have created Template:Album to place at the top of talk pages for album articles. For those who don't know how to use the MediaWiki namespace, typing {{msg:Album}} will present the text at Template:Album. Feel free to revise the note, as I have no strong attachment to the wording. -- Tuf-Kat 06:34, 22 March 2004 (UTC)
And I have added it to the talk page for every album on List of albums in the first and second sections (Numbers and "A"). Just in case anyone else would like to do the "B"s. -- Tuf-Kat 06:47, 22 March 2004 (UTC)
As there has been a suggestion that we list articles without infoboxes somewhere. -- Secretlondon 20:31, 2 April 2004 (UTC)
Why has the color orange been chosen for studio albums? About 90% of the album articles on Wikipedia are about studio albums, so it would be better to use a more standard color (like black). -- Acegikmo1 23:03, 25 March 2004 (UTC)
In contrast to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums/Needs infobox, I had an idea for how to track pages with albumboxes which would be pretty much self-sustaining. Create a new mediawiki page, say MediaWiki:Albumbox, but leave it essentially blank (with just an invisible html comment explaining it's purpose), then place {{msg:Albumbox}} in the first line of every albumbox like this
{| <nowiki>{{msg:Albumbox}}</nowiki> border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="225" align="right"
This won't affect the table provided the page is blank. Since almost everybody just takes an existing box as a template (and nobody touches the first line), new boxes would be linked automatically to MediaWiki:Albumbox.
Anyway, unless anyone objects, or has a better idea, or just thinks it's pointless, I'm going to implement this and start tagging all the albumboxes tomorrow (or maybe tonight if I get bored). -- Lee (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2004 (UTC)
{| <nowiki>{{msg:AlbumboxStart}}</nowiki>
border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="225" align="right"
I noticed ScudLee has been going around fixing some of the existing album pages (thanks, by the way), and has let some people (including me) know that the Chronology section of the table is meant to be a back/forward section for albums rather than a listing of everything that the band has released. This wasn't clear from me from the main WikiProject Albums page and I was wondering if someone could add something in there to clarify this. Thanks! -- Jrdioko 22:42, 12 April 2004 (UTC)
I was reading through the new formatting of this page (which is much clearer by the way, thanks Lee), and I saw that part near the bottom titled "Personnel." Shouldn't this information be on the band's article and not on the album page? Maybe you do need it just in case the band members are different for different albums, but I don't think "Personnel" is the right name. Also, in that case, what do you put on the main band's article (if the members are different for different albums)? Again I hate to create a mess with this standardization business, but I always like to see some sort of "format" that's recommended to use for all articles. Then again, I am mildly annoyed by the fact that every disambiguation page has a different sentence at the top ("Blah can refer to," "Blah has several different meanings," "Blah can mean one of several different things," etc., so maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine. In any case, I think personnel has to go unless that's the correct name for the members of a band. -- Jrdioko 23:26, 19 April 2004 (UTC)
I've just added all of the album covers for michael jackson that were on the missing images list and entered them onto the relevant album pages. I noticed that some of the colours are set as darkgreen for the Albumbox on these pages and just wanted confirmation that the correct policy at the moment is for them to be orange???. didn't want to change them incase orange had now been switched to green as the standard colour. -- Scraggy4 19:56, 20 April 2004 (UTC)
After a message from user:Jrdioko on my talk page I was wondering if the needs cover page could be expanded to include other info. that users haven't been able to find, possibly in easy to use table form something like the following. -- Scraggy4 11:23, 25 April 2004 (UTC)
band name | album name | cover | release formats | release date | recorded | length | label | producer | no. of reviews |
Relaxed Muscle | A Heavy Night With... | ok | ok | ok | still required | still required | ok | still required | 3 |
I have turned the message at Template:Album into a hybrid opentasksbox and comejoinWikiProjectbox. Thoughts? -- Tuf-Kat 20:18, 26 April 2004 (UTC)
With the new skin, the albumbox is pushed to the top of the page instead of forming a bar on the right. What can be done about this? -- Acegikmo1 01:17, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Fairly simple - two "top-level" categories "Category:Albums by artist" and "Category:Albums by year". Each album page is then placed into two categories, "Category:<Artist name> albums" and "Category:<year> albums", which are then placed as sub-categories into the respective top-level category. For consistency, the artist name should be the same as the title of their article (in terms of punctuation, "&"/"and", use of "The", etc.) minus any disambiguating terms of course.
Suggestions, improvements, refinements? -- Lee (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't particularly agree with the proposed category schema. If you use "Category:<artist name> albums", then what do you do with other articles that are not albums like those on songs? What about members of the group if a band or not a solo artist? What is wrong with just using "Category:<artist name>"? That way you can put all three of these types of articles into the category. I really don't see a need in creating separate categories just for the members of the group as I've seen some have done already. So, for example, I created Category:Pink Floyd to contain the members, the song articles and eventually the album articles. No need to go overboard in the first week of categories IMHO. We can always subdivide them later if it serves a useful purpose. At the moment, I don't think it would. -- RedWolf 06:36, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
/------------1970 albums--------------------Albums by year / \ / /--Rock and roll albums-----Albums by genre | / / / \ \ | / / / \-------------\ \ | / / / \ \ \ Let It Be----------/----The Beatles albums---Albums by artist-\--------Albums-\ / \ / | \ John Lennon albums---\----------------/ \ \ \ \ /----Rock and roll--Music genres \ 251 Menlove Avenue-\ \ \ / \ Modern music \ \ \ / Musical groups by genre \---------\ \ \ \ \ / / \ \ \ \ \ \ Rock and roll groups Musical groups-----\ \ \ /---------John Lennon-----\ \ / / \ \ \ / \ \ / Musical groups by nationality \ \ \ / \ \ / / \ \ \ John Lennon------The Beatles members---The Beatles------British musical groups \-Music \ \ \ \ / \ \ \ United Kingdom | \ \ \ / | \ \ British musicians--British people--People by nationality / \ \ \ \ / \ Vocalists-\ Musicians by nationality---Musicians------People / \ \ / \ / Guitarists----Musicians by instrument----/ \--------------------/
The Template namespace initialisation script has gone around to the album articles and changed the album boxes. They are no longer aligned to the right, and they are missing their borders. This needs to be fixed soon. --[[User:LGagnon| LGagnon Talk]] 19:39, 3 June 2004 (UTC)
I would like to promote "
n/a" instead of "???" for those fields without information.
Let me know what you think and if that can be implemented to the standard table. --
KeyStorm
21:49, 26 June 2004 (UTC)
Everyhit.com is a searchable database of chart entries in the UK. This may be useful for people. -- Secretlondon 22:56, 1 July 2004 (UTC)
This is just for interest but:
I think there may be a maximum cutoff so there may well be more... -- Secretlondon 22:31, 28 June 2004 (UTC)
Should compilations be included in discographies and in the last section of the album boxes? -- Auximines 13:02, 1 July 2004 (UTC)
The 'sec' wording on the albumbox was recently changed to 's.' The 'sec' wording already exists on the many album pages that exist, and that form corresponds with the 'min' used for 'minute.' I've changed the 's' back to 'sec' since I believe continuity is important unless there is a good reason to change something like this. If there was a reason that this (and the other albums pages) should be changed to 's', I apologize for reverting the edit and feel free to remake it with a note here explaining why the change was made. Thanks! -- Jrdioko 04:11, 14 April 2004 (UTC)
{{Template:Album |Title - ''Abbey Road'' |Cover - Image:AbbeyRoad.gif |Format - LP |Band - The Beatles
←Strangely enough, I've already been playing with this over at
test. The template is at
Template:Albumbox (there's also
Template:Review for the reviews). The code (from
Aquemini) looks like
{{Albumbox|
Title=Aquemini|
Artist=OutKast|
Type=Album|
Artwork=Aqueminicvr.jpg|
Released-day=[[September 28]]|
Released-year=[[1998]]|
Recorded=|
Genre=[[Southern rap]]|
Length=74:47|
Record label=[[La Face]]|
Producer=[[Organized Noize]], [[Babyface]] and OutKast|
Previous=[[ATLiens]]|
Previous-year=[[1996]]|
Next=[[Stankonia]]|
Next-year=[[2000]]
}}
There's also a hidden Color (and Alt-Color - for dual types like
Ummagumma) parameter, which I cheated with by making it default to orange. Length should probably be split into two though, min and sec, to make format changes easier. Unfortunately, I had to do a bit of a kludge to get the reviews in. I am very open to better suggestions on that score. --
Lee
(talk)
11:20, 20 April 2004 (UTC)
Let's get back to the topic: I want to report that Bobblewik has been changing 'sec' to 's' -at least in many of my watched albums-. So I encourage everybody to change it back, since he took the decision for us all. Why don't we use the 'ed format? 38' 42" (I'll add it to the list) -- KeyStorm 17:43, 3 July 2004 (UTC)
Okay, now I don't mean to offend here, so try to read what I have to say objectively. I have just finished adding albumboxes to all of the Modest Mouse album articles. And, thinking back, I really think they looked better before, with the info in the article, and the album cover just float right, like any other image. The albumboxes seem kind of unnecessary. Plus the text of the article seems to run too close to the albumbox - like there's not enough buffer space around the albumbox or something. I just think the articles looked better before. And why is orange the color? Why not something more standard like white or grey or wikipedia-yellow? Thoughts? -- blankfaze 23:08, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
A similar quesion was recently debated on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. See The Table Format. -- Bobblewik 18:55, 29 July 2004 (UTC)
I've seen some painfully stretched and shrunk columns in some albumboxes. That's usually due to the length of some comment fields that usually make the third column smaller than usual. I would put a width="33%" in all columns (or at least in the first non-"colspan=3" ones). I have tested this in Rammstien and results were satisfactory. Should we add it to the example? -- KeyStorm 22:44, 3 July 2004 (UTC)
There has been discussion about merging the content of the vinyl record article into the gramophone record article and making the first into a redirect to the second. I'd therefore suggest linking "LP" or similar designations where appropriate directly to "gramophone record". Alternatively, if some folks feel that "vinyl record" should remain a seperate article, explain your reasons at Talk:gramophone record. -- Infrogmation 00:08, 5 September 2004 (UTC)
Ive noticed that AllMusic.com is listed as a place to cite reviews for albums. Not sure if anyone had realized this, but AMG's rating system is vastly different from most other sources'.
From AMG's FAQ: Our experts use a 1 to 5 star system (5 is the highest rating). It is important to note that we rate albums only with the scope of an artist’s own work -- we only compare a release to other releases by the same artist.
Thus, every band will have at least one very highly rated album. Maybe this sort of rating shouldn't be used in the tables. Or should be distinguished from the traditional sort of rating.
opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by George.dickeson ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 12 September 2004 (UTC)
I've been working a bit with
HIM lately completing information, adding albums, etc. and I noticed that some days ago, without posting anything to the discussion and even adding some albums (at least
Love Metal) to VFD during surprisingly only 37 minutes
Samuel J. Howard redirected all 4 album articles to the bandpage and appended them chronologically to it, as you can see now.
So my question is: is this the way supported and recommended by WikiProject: Albums? Or should it be splitted back again?
I'm afraid this is not the right way, but I thought I should bring the discussion right here to get the clear opinion of WP: Albums about this. --
KeyStorm
13:08, 12 September 2004 (UTC)
As many albums released in different countries are released on more than one label, which record label should be included in the information box - all of them or just the one in the country the album orginally came from? -- Deus Ex 10:25, 12 September 2004 (UTC)
Discussion at Template talk:Album. -- — Matt 03:50, 15 September 2004 (UTC)
Are there any thoughts on a standard way to list awards and nominations (such as the Grammys) for albums? I added an "Awards" section to Billy Joel's 52nd Street and The Eagles' Hotel California. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. -- DCEdwards1966 04:45, 12 October 2004 (UTC)
If I made a WikiProject Sound samples to encourage the uploading of ogg vorbis music samples, would anyone join me? I think it'd be great if we had samples of as much as possible, but it's rather tedious and time-consuming to do in bulk. If you don't know how, it's easy -- I can walk you through on a Mac and point you in the right direction on a Windows. We could even advertise a week in which we encourage Wikipedians to do just two a day for a week, or maybe just one sample for their five favorite bands/albums/whatever -- with the number of users who probably have copious sound samples, we could really move towards having a comprehensive review of music. Any takers? (I am posting this to several project pages, please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music) -- Tuf-Kat 22:25, 16 October 2004 (UTC)
I have lately come to the conclusion that WikiProjects should set goals. I have begun to do so at Wikipedia:WikiProject World music/Phase 2, but that isn't a very active WikiProject. This is, however, an active project. We could set a goal, such as making a non-stub article on each of the albums at list of rock and roll albums (which is an aggregate of professional "best-of" lists), and promote any five to featured article status, for example. When we all agree that the articles are non-stubbed and all five have been promoted, then we can begin to keep tallies on the number of non-stub and featured articles, and showcase our best work and such. What do y'all think? -- Tuf-Kat 20:09, 15 October 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Featured albums proposal —Preceding unsigned comment added by TUF-KAT ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 17 October 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality made several changes to the example table on the main page, which I've now reverted. The first reason is because I personally disagree with most of them, but even aside from that, some of the changes made directly contradict other information on the page, namely using a piped link to a "year in music", and also not using the date of a review as the link text (when known). It's important that the page at least be consistent in itself, you shouldn't go changing one thing without ensuring that the rest matches up, and you shouldn't make such changes without at least discussing them first. -- Lee (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2004 (UTC)
Recently a couple of sub-categories of Category:Albums by artist have been listed on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Category:Ashlee Simpson albums on the grounds that she only has one album released so far, and Category:Chantal Kreviazuk albums due to lack of notability. Also, List of albums has been listed on Vfd, where quite a few people recommend scrapping the list in favor of categories. Now, when I first suggested the Albums by artist category, I envisaged it to be just that, a categorical equivalent of (or replacement for) List of albums, that is to say, a list of album articles sorted alphabetically by artist.
With that in mind, I had hoped that all album articles would eventually be marked with the appropriate artist album category, alongside the year category. Perhaps I was wrong to suggest it. Anyway, I would encourage more people to pass comment (for or against) at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, to help get a clearer sense of consensus on the use of these categories. -- Lee (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2004 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This archive covers discussions from November 2002 to November 2004. Note that discussions are archived chronologically in the order in which they concluded, not the order in which they began. |
Hey there,
I think this is a very interesting project and I've devoted some thought to how it might be done myself. The template you've outlined here offers pretty much the same information as each www.allmusic.com entry, perhaps even a little less. So I don't really think such an undertaking is all that useful. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum, and so I don't think we should try to duplicate what is already done, and done well.
What I do think would be useful, and if done well could be really fantastic, is an examination of each album from a slightly broader perspective. In the examination of each album, how about a consideration of its specific influences, specific followers, where it fits in its genre and what leanings it may have toward others, etc? With regard to the Funkadelic albums, I'd much sooner go to allmusic.com for that information than to these wikipedia pages, but allmusic doesn't have the kind of musical matrix information that I think could be really exciting.
What do you think? I'm up for more chat on this topic. --
Tubby
01:20, 7 November 2002 (UTC)
Is it time to work out some more standards or goals? Please feel free to comment on the
Paul Simon article I've put together. Eventually I'd like to have a little something something about each song. Good work on those articles that you have written, at least the ones I've read are very well done.
I think some specific thing that I would like to see would be, say, on each album page, two links to other bands or artists that are similar in ways, but a few words on how they are different, and perhaps also a bit of a chronology to it. So, in a perfect world where every album is documented, one could travel back or forward or sideways, reading on one album page the description of related artists, finding stuff that may be more to their liking. However, this could lead to some repetition, with all albums pointing to only two other bands. -
Tubby
21:50, 19 November 2002 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, I'm fascinated by the chronology of music (and indeed of other things). So I've started a bit of a side project. See 1972 in music. On it I've basically just got a handful of the albums released that year, plus a little write up about Harvest. If this grows into other years and people include some specific innovations, it could develop into something pretty groovy. When does the first mention of punk come up, for example. I took the liberty of redirecting the 1972 link on the Ziggy Stardust article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubby ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 December 2002 (UTC)
Allmusic now has a page for each artist listing Grammy awards and Billboard music chart positions. I think this could be very useful, and have added it to David Bowie as an experiment. I'd like suggestions on formatting, though--it was tedious to do what I did, and it still doesn't look good. I'd like a chart, but it would be time-consuming and difficult to do all that (I think). Does anybody have any ideas? Billboard tracks the US and, I think, Canada. Who does it elsewhere, and is there a way we could easily adapt this information for Wikipedia (If so, it should probably all be moved to a separate page like David Bowie's chart positions or something). -- Tokerboy 05:03 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)
I'd suggest aligning the table holding the album cover to the RIGHT, rather than the left. Left alignment is unusual, feels rather unnatural to me, and results in varying results across browsers which are all rather ugly. Mozilla and derivitives render as shown in http://www.runawaynet.com/~nknight/crushold.jpg (problem area highlighted to better show the details, like text on the image). Konqueror shifts all text as far as the end of the track listing on the Crush page to the right, which is equally ugly and disturbs the flow of the page significantly. Aligning to right results in http://www.runawaynet.com/~nknight/crushnew.jpg, which I think is far more attractive and natural, individual browser glitches aside. -- nknight 13:20 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
Is does not appear to be a set image size for the album covers. If there is what is it? - fonzy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonzy ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 March 2003 (UTC)
(was CD Track List)
Some CDs have noticeable cultural and/or historically significance, so it may be of interest to list all the tracks on the CD. But, is the complete track listing of every CDs of every non-garage band to be included on Wikipedia?
For example, all CDs of Blink-182 have Wiki-pages, created mostly by one or two anons. But except to the band's zealous fans, none of them is significant. The only Wiki-pages that link to them are just back the Blink-182 page, the members of the band, and a one-phrase mentioning in an "n-year in music".
Are they really encyclopedic (again, except to the fans)? -- Menchi 18:11 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Other than garage/unsigned bands, what not to include? Nothing? Include all released CDs/albums? -- Menchi 22:46 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Is uploading an album cover "fair use"? My understanding of fair use is that it's not. Can someone enlighten me? -- ESP 00:10 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hi,
can someone clarify the Fair use issue for me? I just uploaded a page about Herbie Hancock's Head Hunters album, and within a few minutes someone (anonymous) had come along and removed both the Album cover art and the Tracklisting and the List of artists on the album. I'd have thought that all of these would be covered under fair use, and I'm tempted to just revert to the previous version of the page, but I don't really want to get into a war with the other guy. If tracklistings and lists of personnel are really off limits, then the whole album project is stuffed, really.
Any thoughts?
PS A couple of images I uploaded for other albums just disappeared - for example Bitches Brew. The page for the image is still there - which proves the image was succesfully uploaded (and I could see it on the page for a day or so) but now that image is nowhere to be found. Has it been deleted (no record of this) or is this just a glitch?
PPS ( ! ) I like the idea of a table for the cover, but I don't think we need to put quite so much inro in it. Maybe just artist, year, label, genre, but leave the reviews and contributors to the body of the text?
Cheers Ben -- Bwmodular 16:11, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
What does everybody think about having a table for this series, perhaps something like (crappily cribbed from the taxobox/planetobox) the below. There seems to be a stray /table somewhere in there, but I dunno where. I had included a track listing, but decided that was too difficult and not very useful. I can't seem to make the top and bottom section ignore the fact that there is a third column in the middle one. -- Tuf-Kat 06:49, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
I can't seem to touch the table without breaking things. All I did was try and delete the "major contributors" section, and now both tables, our comments and the wikilinks at the bottom are all part of one giganto-table. Isn't there a firm way to just end a table? (/table would seem logical, but there's a gaggle of those already). -- Tuf-Kat 17:47, 3 February 2004 (UTC)
A lot of Wikiprojects use different colors in the table to mean different things (for example, plants, animals and fungi all use different colors, but the same table). I'm not sure this really has any useful application to this project, but is worth considering. Dividing by genre might be nice, but would probably lead to arguments (fill in band name here is not punk enuff for the punk color!), and I'm not sure it's worth it. I've also thought about having different colors for notable bands (for example all Rolling Stone albums could be blue, with orange as the default) but this is probably even less useful. Maybe by decade of release... -- Tuf-Kat 03:49, 5 February 2004 (UTC)
In the list of sources for professional reviews, can somebody find a homepage to link to for this site? http://www.acclaimedmusic.com doesn't work, and neither does http://hem.bredband.net. I can't seem to find any kind of main page or search function, and I need to go to bed. -- Tuf-Kat 08:54, 6 February 2004 (UTC)
After doing a couple more albumboxes (needs a better name...), I'm not sure including e.g. Rolling Stone List of 500 Greatest Albums of All Time is a good idea, even if it is an encyclopedic source. There's an awful lot of them, most are reproduced on non-official pages and could very well be mistaken or even totally fictional and... I hate them. -- Tuf-Kat 19:51, 6 February 2004 (UTC)
What would you think of adding a [[< Previous]] album and [[Next >]] album link at the bottom of the 'taxobox', for those artists who have writeups for more than one album? Appropriately piped, of course, and removed if not applicable. Might be a nice way to browse through an artists work.
Could be done as text links at the top or bottom of the article text as well. Yust a thought.... -- Catherine 22:02, 6 February 2004 (UTC)
I have started using the format and have the following questions/issues:
- for the release date, what if the album is released on separate dates in different countries/regions, probably most notably the
United States and
United Kingdom? A number of
Pink Floyd albums are like this, typically released in the UK first then the US. Should it only list the first date (which tends to be for the UK)?
- for the length, what about double albums? Should there be two lines with each line ending with the disc/record # in parenthesis? See
The Wall for an example. --
RedWolf
08:42, 14 February 2004 (UTC)
Two issues:
Barring disagreement here, I am going to change the project to specifically disallow "100 Greatest Albums of All Time"-type lists, even if they are by a reputable source.
There has been little or no discussion anywhere on the wiki regarding the suitability of Greatest Hits or other compilations having their own albums. I am of the opinion that most should not, though Bob Marley's Legends, some box sets, that Pink Floyd greatest hits and probably some more could easily have an article. Discuss. -- Tuf-Kat 23:43, 13 February 2004 (UTC)
Well, I don't think any album articles are quite ready yet, but I'm going to try and get something, maybe Aquemini, there soon. Any other thoughts? -- Tuf-Kat 23:52, 18 February 2004 (UTC)
Just a q. What should be done for the Pink Floyd double album Ummagumma? It has 1 disk of live, and 1 disk of studio material. What should be done for the colours? -- Fizscy46 01:46, 20 February 2004 (UTC)
I noticed in the header of the sample albumbox the listing " LP by Alice in Chains" -- noting that LP is linked to Vinyl record. Is this the standard format we want to use, given that records are rarely released on vinyl anymore? Should it just be "album"? If we're trying to maintain the distinction between LP and EP, we can still say "album by" or " EP by".... ? I'm not versed in the subtleties of music terminology, so please let me know if I'm off base here.... -- Catherine 18:49, 27 February 2004 (UTC)
I think this is a very interesting project and I've devoted some thought to how it might be done myself. I don't think we should try to duplicate what is already done at other sites, and done well.
What I do think would be useful, and if done well could be really fantastic, is an examination of each album from a slightly broader perspective. In the examination of each album, how about a consideration of its specific influences, specific followers, where it fits in its genre and what leanings it may have toward others, etc? With regard to the Funkadelic albums, I'd much sooner go to allmusic.com for that information than to these wikipedia pages, but allmusic doesn't have the kind of musical matrix information that I think could be really exciting.
What do you think? -- Arbitration Matter of Hephaestus 16:40, 14 March 2004 (UTC)
I have created Template:Album to place at the top of talk pages for album articles. For those who don't know how to use the MediaWiki namespace, typing {{msg:Album}} will present the text at Template:Album. Feel free to revise the note, as I have no strong attachment to the wording. -- Tuf-Kat 06:34, 22 March 2004 (UTC)
And I have added it to the talk page for every album on List of albums in the first and second sections (Numbers and "A"). Just in case anyone else would like to do the "B"s. -- Tuf-Kat 06:47, 22 March 2004 (UTC)
As there has been a suggestion that we list articles without infoboxes somewhere. -- Secretlondon 20:31, 2 April 2004 (UTC)
Why has the color orange been chosen for studio albums? About 90% of the album articles on Wikipedia are about studio albums, so it would be better to use a more standard color (like black). -- Acegikmo1 23:03, 25 March 2004 (UTC)
In contrast to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Albums/Needs infobox, I had an idea for how to track pages with albumboxes which would be pretty much self-sustaining. Create a new mediawiki page, say MediaWiki:Albumbox, but leave it essentially blank (with just an invisible html comment explaining it's purpose), then place {{msg:Albumbox}} in the first line of every albumbox like this
{| <nowiki>{{msg:Albumbox}}</nowiki> border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="225" align="right"
This won't affect the table provided the page is blank. Since almost everybody just takes an existing box as a template (and nobody touches the first line), new boxes would be linked automatically to MediaWiki:Albumbox.
Anyway, unless anyone objects, or has a better idea, or just thinks it's pointless, I'm going to implement this and start tagging all the albumboxes tomorrow (or maybe tonight if I get bored). -- Lee (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2004 (UTC)
{| <nowiki>{{msg:AlbumboxStart}}</nowiki>
border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="225" align="right"
I noticed ScudLee has been going around fixing some of the existing album pages (thanks, by the way), and has let some people (including me) know that the Chronology section of the table is meant to be a back/forward section for albums rather than a listing of everything that the band has released. This wasn't clear from me from the main WikiProject Albums page and I was wondering if someone could add something in there to clarify this. Thanks! -- Jrdioko 22:42, 12 April 2004 (UTC)
I was reading through the new formatting of this page (which is much clearer by the way, thanks Lee), and I saw that part near the bottom titled "Personnel." Shouldn't this information be on the band's article and not on the album page? Maybe you do need it just in case the band members are different for different albums, but I don't think "Personnel" is the right name. Also, in that case, what do you put on the main band's article (if the members are different for different albums)? Again I hate to create a mess with this standardization business, but I always like to see some sort of "format" that's recommended to use for all articles. Then again, I am mildly annoyed by the fact that every disambiguation page has a different sentence at the top ("Blah can refer to," "Blah has several different meanings," "Blah can mean one of several different things," etc., so maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine. In any case, I think personnel has to go unless that's the correct name for the members of a band. -- Jrdioko 23:26, 19 April 2004 (UTC)
I've just added all of the album covers for michael jackson that were on the missing images list and entered them onto the relevant album pages. I noticed that some of the colours are set as darkgreen for the Albumbox on these pages and just wanted confirmation that the correct policy at the moment is for them to be orange???. didn't want to change them incase orange had now been switched to green as the standard colour. -- Scraggy4 19:56, 20 April 2004 (UTC)
After a message from user:Jrdioko on my talk page I was wondering if the needs cover page could be expanded to include other info. that users haven't been able to find, possibly in easy to use table form something like the following. -- Scraggy4 11:23, 25 April 2004 (UTC)
band name | album name | cover | release formats | release date | recorded | length | label | producer | no. of reviews |
Relaxed Muscle | A Heavy Night With... | ok | ok | ok | still required | still required | ok | still required | 3 |
I have turned the message at Template:Album into a hybrid opentasksbox and comejoinWikiProjectbox. Thoughts? -- Tuf-Kat 20:18, 26 April 2004 (UTC)
With the new skin, the albumbox is pushed to the top of the page instead of forming a bar on the right. What can be done about this? -- Acegikmo1 01:17, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Fairly simple - two "top-level" categories "Category:Albums by artist" and "Category:Albums by year". Each album page is then placed into two categories, "Category:<Artist name> albums" and "Category:<year> albums", which are then placed as sub-categories into the respective top-level category. For consistency, the artist name should be the same as the title of their article (in terms of punctuation, "&"/"and", use of "The", etc.) minus any disambiguating terms of course.
Suggestions, improvements, refinements? -- Lee (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't particularly agree with the proposed category schema. If you use "Category:<artist name> albums", then what do you do with other articles that are not albums like those on songs? What about members of the group if a band or not a solo artist? What is wrong with just using "Category:<artist name>"? That way you can put all three of these types of articles into the category. I really don't see a need in creating separate categories just for the members of the group as I've seen some have done already. So, for example, I created Category:Pink Floyd to contain the members, the song articles and eventually the album articles. No need to go overboard in the first week of categories IMHO. We can always subdivide them later if it serves a useful purpose. At the moment, I don't think it would. -- RedWolf 06:36, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
/------------1970 albums--------------------Albums by year / \ / /--Rock and roll albums-----Albums by genre | / / / \ \ | / / / \-------------\ \ | / / / \ \ \ Let It Be----------/----The Beatles albums---Albums by artist-\--------Albums-\ / \ / | \ John Lennon albums---\----------------/ \ \ \ \ /----Rock and roll--Music genres \ 251 Menlove Avenue-\ \ \ / \ Modern music \ \ \ / Musical groups by genre \---------\ \ \ \ \ / / \ \ \ \ \ \ Rock and roll groups Musical groups-----\ \ \ /---------John Lennon-----\ \ / / \ \ \ / \ \ / Musical groups by nationality \ \ \ / \ \ / / \ \ \ John Lennon------The Beatles members---The Beatles------British musical groups \-Music \ \ \ \ / \ \ \ United Kingdom | \ \ \ / | \ \ British musicians--British people--People by nationality / \ \ \ \ / \ Vocalists-\ Musicians by nationality---Musicians------People / \ \ / \ / Guitarists----Musicians by instrument----/ \--------------------/
The Template namespace initialisation script has gone around to the album articles and changed the album boxes. They are no longer aligned to the right, and they are missing their borders. This needs to be fixed soon. --[[User:LGagnon| LGagnon Talk]] 19:39, 3 June 2004 (UTC)
I would like to promote "
n/a" instead of "???" for those fields without information.
Let me know what you think and if that can be implemented to the standard table. --
KeyStorm
21:49, 26 June 2004 (UTC)
Everyhit.com is a searchable database of chart entries in the UK. This may be useful for people. -- Secretlondon 22:56, 1 July 2004 (UTC)
This is just for interest but:
I think there may be a maximum cutoff so there may well be more... -- Secretlondon 22:31, 28 June 2004 (UTC)
Should compilations be included in discographies and in the last section of the album boxes? -- Auximines 13:02, 1 July 2004 (UTC)
The 'sec' wording on the albumbox was recently changed to 's.' The 'sec' wording already exists on the many album pages that exist, and that form corresponds with the 'min' used for 'minute.' I've changed the 's' back to 'sec' since I believe continuity is important unless there is a good reason to change something like this. If there was a reason that this (and the other albums pages) should be changed to 's', I apologize for reverting the edit and feel free to remake it with a note here explaining why the change was made. Thanks! -- Jrdioko 04:11, 14 April 2004 (UTC)
{{Template:Album |Title - ''Abbey Road'' |Cover - Image:AbbeyRoad.gif |Format - LP |Band - The Beatles
←Strangely enough, I've already been playing with this over at
test. The template is at
Template:Albumbox (there's also
Template:Review for the reviews). The code (from
Aquemini) looks like
{{Albumbox|
Title=Aquemini|
Artist=OutKast|
Type=Album|
Artwork=Aqueminicvr.jpg|
Released-day=[[September 28]]|
Released-year=[[1998]]|
Recorded=|
Genre=[[Southern rap]]|
Length=74:47|
Record label=[[La Face]]|
Producer=[[Organized Noize]], [[Babyface]] and OutKast|
Previous=[[ATLiens]]|
Previous-year=[[1996]]|
Next=[[Stankonia]]|
Next-year=[[2000]]
}}
There's also a hidden Color (and Alt-Color - for dual types like
Ummagumma) parameter, which I cheated with by making it default to orange. Length should probably be split into two though, min and sec, to make format changes easier. Unfortunately, I had to do a bit of a kludge to get the reviews in. I am very open to better suggestions on that score. --
Lee
(talk)
11:20, 20 April 2004 (UTC)
Let's get back to the topic: I want to report that Bobblewik has been changing 'sec' to 's' -at least in many of my watched albums-. So I encourage everybody to change it back, since he took the decision for us all. Why don't we use the 'ed format? 38' 42" (I'll add it to the list) -- KeyStorm 17:43, 3 July 2004 (UTC)
Okay, now I don't mean to offend here, so try to read what I have to say objectively. I have just finished adding albumboxes to all of the Modest Mouse album articles. And, thinking back, I really think they looked better before, with the info in the article, and the album cover just float right, like any other image. The albumboxes seem kind of unnecessary. Plus the text of the article seems to run too close to the albumbox - like there's not enough buffer space around the albumbox or something. I just think the articles looked better before. And why is orange the color? Why not something more standard like white or grey or wikipedia-yellow? Thoughts? -- blankfaze 23:08, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
A similar quesion was recently debated on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. See The Table Format. -- Bobblewik 18:55, 29 July 2004 (UTC)
I've seen some painfully stretched and shrunk columns in some albumboxes. That's usually due to the length of some comment fields that usually make the third column smaller than usual. I would put a width="33%" in all columns (or at least in the first non-"colspan=3" ones). I have tested this in Rammstien and results were satisfactory. Should we add it to the example? -- KeyStorm 22:44, 3 July 2004 (UTC)
There has been discussion about merging the content of the vinyl record article into the gramophone record article and making the first into a redirect to the second. I'd therefore suggest linking "LP" or similar designations where appropriate directly to "gramophone record". Alternatively, if some folks feel that "vinyl record" should remain a seperate article, explain your reasons at Talk:gramophone record. -- Infrogmation 00:08, 5 September 2004 (UTC)
Ive noticed that AllMusic.com is listed as a place to cite reviews for albums. Not sure if anyone had realized this, but AMG's rating system is vastly different from most other sources'.
From AMG's FAQ: Our experts use a 1 to 5 star system (5 is the highest rating). It is important to note that we rate albums only with the scope of an artist’s own work -- we only compare a release to other releases by the same artist.
Thus, every band will have at least one very highly rated album. Maybe this sort of rating shouldn't be used in the tables. Or should be distinguished from the traditional sort of rating.
opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by George.dickeson ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 12 September 2004 (UTC)
I've been working a bit with
HIM lately completing information, adding albums, etc. and I noticed that some days ago, without posting anything to the discussion and even adding some albums (at least
Love Metal) to VFD during surprisingly only 37 minutes
Samuel J. Howard redirected all 4 album articles to the bandpage and appended them chronologically to it, as you can see now.
So my question is: is this the way supported and recommended by WikiProject: Albums? Or should it be splitted back again?
I'm afraid this is not the right way, but I thought I should bring the discussion right here to get the clear opinion of WP: Albums about this. --
KeyStorm
13:08, 12 September 2004 (UTC)
As many albums released in different countries are released on more than one label, which record label should be included in the information box - all of them or just the one in the country the album orginally came from? -- Deus Ex 10:25, 12 September 2004 (UTC)
Discussion at Template talk:Album. -- — Matt 03:50, 15 September 2004 (UTC)
Are there any thoughts on a standard way to list awards and nominations (such as the Grammys) for albums? I added an "Awards" section to Billy Joel's 52nd Street and The Eagles' Hotel California. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. -- DCEdwards1966 04:45, 12 October 2004 (UTC)
If I made a WikiProject Sound samples to encourage the uploading of ogg vorbis music samples, would anyone join me? I think it'd be great if we had samples of as much as possible, but it's rather tedious and time-consuming to do in bulk. If you don't know how, it's easy -- I can walk you through on a Mac and point you in the right direction on a Windows. We could even advertise a week in which we encourage Wikipedians to do just two a day for a week, or maybe just one sample for their five favorite bands/albums/whatever -- with the number of users who probably have copious sound samples, we could really move towards having a comprehensive review of music. Any takers? (I am posting this to several project pages, please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music) -- Tuf-Kat 22:25, 16 October 2004 (UTC)
I have lately come to the conclusion that WikiProjects should set goals. I have begun to do so at Wikipedia:WikiProject World music/Phase 2, but that isn't a very active WikiProject. This is, however, an active project. We could set a goal, such as making a non-stub article on each of the albums at list of rock and roll albums (which is an aggregate of professional "best-of" lists), and promote any five to featured article status, for example. When we all agree that the articles are non-stubbed and all five have been promoted, then we can begin to keep tallies on the number of non-stub and featured articles, and showcase our best work and such. What do y'all think? -- Tuf-Kat 20:09, 15 October 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Featured albums proposal —Preceding unsigned comment added by TUF-KAT ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 17 October 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality made several changes to the example table on the main page, which I've now reverted. The first reason is because I personally disagree with most of them, but even aside from that, some of the changes made directly contradict other information on the page, namely using a piped link to a "year in music", and also not using the date of a review as the link text (when known). It's important that the page at least be consistent in itself, you shouldn't go changing one thing without ensuring that the rest matches up, and you shouldn't make such changes without at least discussing them first. -- Lee (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2004 (UTC)
Recently a couple of sub-categories of Category:Albums by artist have been listed on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Category:Ashlee Simpson albums on the grounds that she only has one album released so far, and Category:Chantal Kreviazuk albums due to lack of notability. Also, List of albums has been listed on Vfd, where quite a few people recommend scrapping the list in favor of categories. Now, when I first suggested the Albums by artist category, I envisaged it to be just that, a categorical equivalent of (or replacement for) List of albums, that is to say, a list of album articles sorted alphabetically by artist.
With that in mind, I had hoped that all album articles would eventually be marked with the appropriate artist album category, alongside the year category. Perhaps I was wrong to suggest it. Anyway, I would encourage more people to pass comment (for or against) at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, to help get a clearer sense of consensus on the use of these categories. -- Lee (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2004 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |