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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Category:Compilation albums has been getting very bloated, so I've created some new subcategories as a start to cleaning it up: Category:Compilation album series branded by bars and cafés, Category:Radio station compilation album series, and Category:Record label compilation albums. So, this is just a note to populate as necessary.
In addition, far too many greatest hits albums have been placed here instead of Category:Greatest hits albums.
I'm also considering other archetypes to categorize by, and what to call the categories. "Top of the charts" compilations? Regional music compilations? Compilations by country of release? (There are a disproportionate number of albums from New Zealand...) Genre compilations? Compilations of particular recording sessions? – Unint 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I had put in a request on the infobox template talk page to have the catalog number included. The response I got was rather puzzling: "...the general feeling was that it wouldn't be a good idea to put them in the infobox because, really, it should only have the original release details in there, with further releases discussed/listed in the article body." It seems that the catalog number is part of "the original release details" and so I can't figure out what Bubba hotep had in mind there. Anyway, he referred me to this page to discuss it.
The current infobox has a space for "label" but not for "catalog number." To me they are really both of the same order of interest. If one is interested in the fact that You're My Thrill was released by Columbia, I think that it was released under catalog number CL-6071 is of equal interest. I can't see why one is significant and the other not. -- BRG 18:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Lately, I've been seeing this more: putting album cover images in the chronology (the previous/next album) of the infobox. I've been removing them, because as I understand it, that is going a bit far on the fair use of those images. I just wanted to come here and verify that I am doing the right thing. - Joltman 12:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
(Last|This|Next) album(\s*)=(\s*)\[\[Image.*?\]\](\s?<br ?/?>)? ?replace with
$1 album$2=$3Feel free to use it as it's much faster than removing them manually but note that sometimes there are valid images in the chronology (for example in Led Zeppelin IV) so proceed with caution :-) Jogers ( talk) 08:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to propose the following changes be made to the current language about track listing credits. I'd like to change:
to:
I believe this better reflects current practice (and looks better). Any objections? -- PEJL 16:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been doing the same. Two grammar questions. Is the comma after the persons name needed or can it just be a straight sentence? "All songs written by Gordon Gano except where noted." Also I have had people edit this sentence by putting a ":" at the end on the sentence. "All songs written by Gordon Gano except where noted:" Is that correct grammar also. I know this is a minor point but I am wondering which is right or looks better. I can go either way...lol. Solonyc ( talk} 19:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
That appears consistent with the procedures I use for Album articles, e.g.
Anything Is Possible, where certain tracks had two composers. That article has the following in small text after the track listing:
All songs written by Deborah Gibson - Possibilities Music/Sony BMG Songs, ASCAP except:
2, 3, 4, 7. (Deborah Gibson/Lamont Dozier) Possibilities Music/Sony BMG Songs, ASCAP/Beau-Di-O-Do Music/Warner-Tamerlane Pub. Corp., BMI.
Be advised that original admistrators of copyright (in this case Deborah Ann's Music (ASCAP), a division of Gibson Management, Inc.) are often replaced years down the road. I see it proper to maintain credits procedures consistent with the record labels. -
B.C.Schmerker 05:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I am curious as to how do changes to the project page happen? Is it just up to administrators or editors? Do we vote on it? Stage a coup? :)
I have some issues with some things on there that I would like to change (like track listing format) and I am wondering how to go about it. I know we say it is just a guideline but I find that too many newer members give it sacred status, though honestly I can see a need for certain sections being the same in format from page to page.
If there is a set policy for how changes are made perhaps it should be stated on the project page to avoid this question in the future. Thanks Solonyc ( talk} 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
On the project page track listings are shown as this:
But that leads in practical reality with links to things like this:
Which if you are reading it at 3AM on a small screen or a laptop just looks like one big line of blue until you come to the time.
Additionally if you have a majority of the songs written by one person but a couple tracks written by different people you can end up with this situation (part of the track list from the album Double Eclipse):
This looks really messy to me, makes the eye wander and has little symmetry to it.
I would propose a change of the format to the following:
Letting the time break up the links makes it a little easier to read, helps prevent the mouse from floating to the wrong link and in a full album listing actually lets things look a little more symmetrical especially when writing credits are involved. It's not perfect but it would be better.
I also prefer using the slashes as opposed to commas in the writers area as I have noticed that slashes are used in many reviews and in most album credits on the album. Perhaps that can be changed also?
I am interested to know what others think. Thanks Solonyc ( talk} 21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
In order to maintain consistency with the procedures used by the record labels, I list composer and publisher data in small print after a break from the line with the artist (in the case of Soundtracks by various artists), song title and duration, e.g. in the track listings for
Fatal Beauty (soundtrack album), where every track had a different artist and a different composer. Here's the format I used for Track 1:
#'''Donna Allen - Make It My Night''' (4:12)<br /><sub>(Danny Sembello/Tony Haynes) No Pain, No Gain/Unicity Music/Ertloejay Musique/WB Music Corp., ASCAP</sub><br />Produced by Jeff Smith and Peter Lord
Resulting in the formatted version:
This procedure will reduce problems with needful data on a track listing. -
B.C.Schmerker 05:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to remove the text starting at the second comma from:
I don't feel this represents current practice. (Current practice seems to be blank, "TBA", "N/A" or "Untitled".) I don't think it is necessary to distinguish latest albums from final albums, and doing so may be impossible. How do you know a band won't reunite and release another album for example? Any objections? (The entire section should perhaps be rewritten if this change is made, but this question is about the policy change.) -- PEJL 11:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
As long as we're making all these revisions to chronology usage, what about that "studio albums only" line? Is it necessary to restrict the album chronology to studio albums? (This doesn not seem to be common practice.) – Unint 17:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to apply some simple fixes to articles about albums throughout entire encyclopedia with my bot. I listed them at User:Jogersbot#Things I would like to do. There are plenty of other things the bot could possibly do. Some replacements may be supplementary meaning that I would not look specifically for them in the database dump. Please share your thoughts. Jogers ( talk) 18:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added two supplementary fixes:
Here are some other ideas for the reviews section:
-- PEJL 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Are there any reliable resources for gauging an albums commercial success, like Box Office Mojo does for films? Skomorokh 15:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add the following to the second section about the track listing, in a new paragraph before "Note the standard method of attributing songwriters...":
The first sentence is just a repetition from the first section about the track listing. The second sentence is meant to codify and make consistent the way medleys are shown: "Song 1/Song 2" ( example), "Song 1"/"Song 2" ( example), "Song 1" / "Song 2" ( example), where the first format seems to be the most common. The third sentence is meant to codify and making consistent how untitled tracks are listed: "Untitled" ( example), Untitled ( example), "(Untitled)" ( example), Untitled #1 ( example), etc. Any objections? -- PEJL 21:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just made a list of articles in subcategories of Category:Albums by artist with the intention to tag them with the {{ Album}} template as per Fisherjs's suggestion. I noticed that many of these pages are discography articles. Is this right? And if it is, is it OK to place {{ Album}} tags on their talk pages? Jogers ( talk) 08:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, Cydebot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is changing {{ albumcover}} to {{ non-free album cover}}. Can anyone shed any light on what the end goal is? My concern is that images tagged with "non free" templates, which will be about 99.999% of album covers, will soon be targetted for mass deletion. -- kingboyk 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_18#Machine_readability. -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 15:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This WikiProject has 9 FAs from 52,000 articles, one of which is borrowed from WP:KLF. That's frankly appalling! Some editors have 9 FAs themselves, and there must be hundreds of people contributing to articles on albums... -- kingboyk 12:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
“ | Rather than getting another million articles, I believe that we need 100,000 more Feature-quality articles. | ” |
From that list, Chill Out (KLF album) ought to be on FAC soon, but any help would be really appreciated ( WP:KLF has lost it's way a bit lately). As for Beatles albums, please don't assume WP:BEATLES is any better than this project ;) If we wait for them to get articles to FA we may be waiting a very long time. -- kingboyk 22:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a user should always be able to navigate through an entire chronology by only navigating right or left from the first or last album respectively. I note that some album pages list more than three albums in a chronology, mostly because two albums released simultaneously are put in the same slot ( example), and sometimes as a substitute for using multiple chronologies ( example). I suggest we decide and clarify that no more than three albums should be listed in a chronology, and that multiple chronologies should instead be used if needed. Albums released on the same day could be ordered using the standard ordering of those albums, or alphabetically if no such standard exists. See Aw Cmon and No You Cmon for an example where I've done this. Any objections? -- PEJL 16:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
{{Extra chronology 2 | Artist = Whoever | Type = studio | Last album = — | This album = ''I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning'' | Next album = — }} {{Extra album cover 2 | Upper caption = Co-releases | Cover = nocover.jpg | Type = studio | Lower caption = </small>''Digital Ash in a Digital Urn'' }}
I propose to change the current stub text in WP:ALBUM#External links to the following:
Any objections? -- PEJL 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You guys don't seem to mention this at all in your main description page, but it seems implicit that this concept should be for official releases and not "bootlegs." I ask this because under the Coldplay albums listed someone put up a "fan made" compilation that takes tracks from official releases and puts them on CD, and if sold this would obviously be illegal.
My view is that these kinds of things should not be here, but nothing speficially says that it shouldn't so I thought I would ask. Any thoughts? MDuchek 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, whould this be notable enough to warrent a back cover? The Pink Spiders album Hot Pink is labeled out like it is a vinyl record, even though it is a cd. IT mentions needle times on the back and breaks the tracks into sides. It is notabel to show the back cover to show this? Violask81976 01:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I propose we create a new template {{Rating-Christgau}} to standardize the formatting of Robert Christgau's ratings in the professional reviews section. Personally I don't know how to create a template, so I haven't tried to do this myself. I propose we create the template with one argument which is a code like one of the following: "hm1", "hm2", "hm3", "dud". These should map to an appropriate output for each rating. The honorable mention ratings currently used, or used in the past, have varied formatting:
{{
Rating-3|2}}
as well as capitalized versions of the same and versions of the same using <small>...</small>. The dud ratings also use or have used varied formatting:
where X is one of at least two different bomb symbols, as well as capitalized versions of the same. We should collectively decide which formatting we want, and have the template output that format. I personally prefer (** hon mention) or (** hon ment) and (dud). Do other people think this would be a good idea? Does anyone who knows how to create templates want to give this a shot? -- PEJL 13:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
A discussion has recently started concerning the above page and I wanted to call it to the attention of this project so it could receive more traffic, specifically from those experienced in dealing with these issues. Please visit the above talk page to get up to date. Leave any new messages on which ever page you feel. I believe that we can get this cleaned up very quickly. Sampm 03:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If this has already been noticed, just delete and forget. I noticed on the page for Big Pun's album Yeeah Baby [2] the links to external reviews of the album for Rolling Stone, NME, Q and others all lead to this page [3] which is a page where the album can be bought from the company www.buy.com. Sorry, I don't have time to change them, I just want to notify people who are more dedicated that this abuse has taken place, and may also be taking place on other pages. It's a clever but parasitic and abusive strategy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.173.249 ( talk • contribs)
Is there a list of standards or policies for creating articles for known upcoming untitled studio albums? If not, I think there should be. Articles like U2's 16th album and Robbie's forthcoming studio album don't seem to adhere to any type of standards, and I think that some standards should be set, at least naming conventions for starters. – Crashintome4196 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: For naming conventions I think we should adhere to something similar to the following:
– Crashintome4196 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If an album doesn't even have a name, then why on Earth should we have an article on it? -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 22:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
We've talked about it before, but we haven't actually done it. Let's do it. Someone above put forth a list of A-class articles that need to be improved to Feature-class articles. Here's the first one from the list. Let's see how this goes.
Yankee Hotel Foxtrot Let's see if we can get it to Feature Article status. Peer review, January
Go team, go! - Freekee 05:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a few articles about albums in this series, many of which consist almost entirely of track listings. Since they don't assert notability, they are in danger of speedy deletion. Any thoughts? Talk:Now That's What I Call Music!#Notability (John User:Jwy talk) 03:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems that the uploading instructions at Template:Infobox Album#Album cover are not good enough anymore. Album cover images without fair use rationale are targeted for speedy deletion by User:ESkog. I asked him to discuss the issue here. Jogers ( talk) 20:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think User:ESkogs main problem with album images is that too many people upload them without a fair use rationale and I agree with him. I myself come down hard on all these people who upload images without a license template, a statement of source, or a fair use rationale. If you include all those required things in the image description page your image cannot be speedy deleted for any of those reasons. I believe the entire situation can be solved by editors using the format I have developed, it features all the required items and even if the article in which the image is displayed does not talk about the image, the image description page provides a paragraph discussing the image. No images under my format can be deleted through the speedy deletion system because they will not meet any of the deletion requirements. Again take a look at Image:Character digipak cover.jpg and Image:Orbit Dance album cover.jpg for examples of the format. -- Leon Sword 23:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Category:Electronic albums by artist up for deletion. Do we want these genre subdivisions? – Unint 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Category:Compilation albums has been getting very bloated, so I've created some new subcategories as a start to cleaning it up: Category:Compilation album series branded by bars and cafés, Category:Radio station compilation album series, and Category:Record label compilation albums. So, this is just a note to populate as necessary.
In addition, far too many greatest hits albums have been placed here instead of Category:Greatest hits albums.
I'm also considering other archetypes to categorize by, and what to call the categories. "Top of the charts" compilations? Regional music compilations? Compilations by country of release? (There are a disproportionate number of albums from New Zealand...) Genre compilations? Compilations of particular recording sessions? – Unint 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I had put in a request on the infobox template talk page to have the catalog number included. The response I got was rather puzzling: "...the general feeling was that it wouldn't be a good idea to put them in the infobox because, really, it should only have the original release details in there, with further releases discussed/listed in the article body." It seems that the catalog number is part of "the original release details" and so I can't figure out what Bubba hotep had in mind there. Anyway, he referred me to this page to discuss it.
The current infobox has a space for "label" but not for "catalog number." To me they are really both of the same order of interest. If one is interested in the fact that You're My Thrill was released by Columbia, I think that it was released under catalog number CL-6071 is of equal interest. I can't see why one is significant and the other not. -- BRG 18:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Lately, I've been seeing this more: putting album cover images in the chronology (the previous/next album) of the infobox. I've been removing them, because as I understand it, that is going a bit far on the fair use of those images. I just wanted to come here and verify that I am doing the right thing. - Joltman 12:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
(Last|This|Next) album(\s*)=(\s*)\[\[Image.*?\]\](\s?<br ?/?>)? ?replace with
$1 album$2=$3Feel free to use it as it's much faster than removing them manually but note that sometimes there are valid images in the chronology (for example in Led Zeppelin IV) so proceed with caution :-) Jogers ( talk) 08:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to propose the following changes be made to the current language about track listing credits. I'd like to change:
to:
I believe this better reflects current practice (and looks better). Any objections? -- PEJL 16:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been doing the same. Two grammar questions. Is the comma after the persons name needed or can it just be a straight sentence? "All songs written by Gordon Gano except where noted." Also I have had people edit this sentence by putting a ":" at the end on the sentence. "All songs written by Gordon Gano except where noted:" Is that correct grammar also. I know this is a minor point but I am wondering which is right or looks better. I can go either way...lol. Solonyc ( talk} 19:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
That appears consistent with the procedures I use for Album articles, e.g.
Anything Is Possible, where certain tracks had two composers. That article has the following in small text after the track listing:
All songs written by Deborah Gibson - Possibilities Music/Sony BMG Songs, ASCAP except:
2, 3, 4, 7. (Deborah Gibson/Lamont Dozier) Possibilities Music/Sony BMG Songs, ASCAP/Beau-Di-O-Do Music/Warner-Tamerlane Pub. Corp., BMI.
Be advised that original admistrators of copyright (in this case Deborah Ann's Music (ASCAP), a division of Gibson Management, Inc.) are often replaced years down the road. I see it proper to maintain credits procedures consistent with the record labels. -
B.C.Schmerker 05:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I am curious as to how do changes to the project page happen? Is it just up to administrators or editors? Do we vote on it? Stage a coup? :)
I have some issues with some things on there that I would like to change (like track listing format) and I am wondering how to go about it. I know we say it is just a guideline but I find that too many newer members give it sacred status, though honestly I can see a need for certain sections being the same in format from page to page.
If there is a set policy for how changes are made perhaps it should be stated on the project page to avoid this question in the future. Thanks Solonyc ( talk} 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
On the project page track listings are shown as this:
But that leads in practical reality with links to things like this:
Which if you are reading it at 3AM on a small screen or a laptop just looks like one big line of blue until you come to the time.
Additionally if you have a majority of the songs written by one person but a couple tracks written by different people you can end up with this situation (part of the track list from the album Double Eclipse):
This looks really messy to me, makes the eye wander and has little symmetry to it.
I would propose a change of the format to the following:
Letting the time break up the links makes it a little easier to read, helps prevent the mouse from floating to the wrong link and in a full album listing actually lets things look a little more symmetrical especially when writing credits are involved. It's not perfect but it would be better.
I also prefer using the slashes as opposed to commas in the writers area as I have noticed that slashes are used in many reviews and in most album credits on the album. Perhaps that can be changed also?
I am interested to know what others think. Thanks Solonyc ( talk} 21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
In order to maintain consistency with the procedures used by the record labels, I list composer and publisher data in small print after a break from the line with the artist (in the case of Soundtracks by various artists), song title and duration, e.g. in the track listings for
Fatal Beauty (soundtrack album), where every track had a different artist and a different composer. Here's the format I used for Track 1:
#'''Donna Allen - Make It My Night''' (4:12)<br /><sub>(Danny Sembello/Tony Haynes) No Pain, No Gain/Unicity Music/Ertloejay Musique/WB Music Corp., ASCAP</sub><br />Produced by Jeff Smith and Peter Lord
Resulting in the formatted version:
This procedure will reduce problems with needful data on a track listing. -
B.C.Schmerker 05:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to remove the text starting at the second comma from:
I don't feel this represents current practice. (Current practice seems to be blank, "TBA", "N/A" or "Untitled".) I don't think it is necessary to distinguish latest albums from final albums, and doing so may be impossible. How do you know a band won't reunite and release another album for example? Any objections? (The entire section should perhaps be rewritten if this change is made, but this question is about the policy change.) -- PEJL 11:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
As long as we're making all these revisions to chronology usage, what about that "studio albums only" line? Is it necessary to restrict the album chronology to studio albums? (This doesn not seem to be common practice.) – Unint 17:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to apply some simple fixes to articles about albums throughout entire encyclopedia with my bot. I listed them at User:Jogersbot#Things I would like to do. There are plenty of other things the bot could possibly do. Some replacements may be supplementary meaning that I would not look specifically for them in the database dump. Please share your thoughts. Jogers ( talk) 18:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added two supplementary fixes:
Here are some other ideas for the reviews section:
-- PEJL 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Are there any reliable resources for gauging an albums commercial success, like Box Office Mojo does for films? Skomorokh 15:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add the following to the second section about the track listing, in a new paragraph before "Note the standard method of attributing songwriters...":
The first sentence is just a repetition from the first section about the track listing. The second sentence is meant to codify and make consistent the way medleys are shown: "Song 1/Song 2" ( example), "Song 1"/"Song 2" ( example), "Song 1" / "Song 2" ( example), where the first format seems to be the most common. The third sentence is meant to codify and making consistent how untitled tracks are listed: "Untitled" ( example), Untitled ( example), "(Untitled)" ( example), Untitled #1 ( example), etc. Any objections? -- PEJL 21:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just made a list of articles in subcategories of Category:Albums by artist with the intention to tag them with the {{ Album}} template as per Fisherjs's suggestion. I noticed that many of these pages are discography articles. Is this right? And if it is, is it OK to place {{ Album}} tags on their talk pages? Jogers ( talk) 08:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, Cydebot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is changing {{ albumcover}} to {{ non-free album cover}}. Can anyone shed any light on what the end goal is? My concern is that images tagged with "non free" templates, which will be about 99.999% of album covers, will soon be targetted for mass deletion. -- kingboyk 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_18#Machine_readability. -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 15:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This WikiProject has 9 FAs from 52,000 articles, one of which is borrowed from WP:KLF. That's frankly appalling! Some editors have 9 FAs themselves, and there must be hundreds of people contributing to articles on albums... -- kingboyk 12:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
“ | Rather than getting another million articles, I believe that we need 100,000 more Feature-quality articles. | ” |
From that list, Chill Out (KLF album) ought to be on FAC soon, but any help would be really appreciated ( WP:KLF has lost it's way a bit lately). As for Beatles albums, please don't assume WP:BEATLES is any better than this project ;) If we wait for them to get articles to FA we may be waiting a very long time. -- kingboyk 22:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a user should always be able to navigate through an entire chronology by only navigating right or left from the first or last album respectively. I note that some album pages list more than three albums in a chronology, mostly because two albums released simultaneously are put in the same slot ( example), and sometimes as a substitute for using multiple chronologies ( example). I suggest we decide and clarify that no more than three albums should be listed in a chronology, and that multiple chronologies should instead be used if needed. Albums released on the same day could be ordered using the standard ordering of those albums, or alphabetically if no such standard exists. See Aw Cmon and No You Cmon for an example where I've done this. Any objections? -- PEJL 16:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
{{Extra chronology 2 | Artist = Whoever | Type = studio | Last album = — | This album = ''I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning'' | Next album = — }} {{Extra album cover 2 | Upper caption = Co-releases | Cover = nocover.jpg | Type = studio | Lower caption = </small>''Digital Ash in a Digital Urn'' }}
I propose to change the current stub text in WP:ALBUM#External links to the following:
Any objections? -- PEJL 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You guys don't seem to mention this at all in your main description page, but it seems implicit that this concept should be for official releases and not "bootlegs." I ask this because under the Coldplay albums listed someone put up a "fan made" compilation that takes tracks from official releases and puts them on CD, and if sold this would obviously be illegal.
My view is that these kinds of things should not be here, but nothing speficially says that it shouldn't so I thought I would ask. Any thoughts? MDuchek 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, whould this be notable enough to warrent a back cover? The Pink Spiders album Hot Pink is labeled out like it is a vinyl record, even though it is a cd. IT mentions needle times on the back and breaks the tracks into sides. It is notabel to show the back cover to show this? Violask81976 01:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I propose we create a new template {{Rating-Christgau}} to standardize the formatting of Robert Christgau's ratings in the professional reviews section. Personally I don't know how to create a template, so I haven't tried to do this myself. I propose we create the template with one argument which is a code like one of the following: "hm1", "hm2", "hm3", "dud". These should map to an appropriate output for each rating. The honorable mention ratings currently used, or used in the past, have varied formatting:
{{
Rating-3|2}}
as well as capitalized versions of the same and versions of the same using <small>...</small>. The dud ratings also use or have used varied formatting:
where X is one of at least two different bomb symbols, as well as capitalized versions of the same. We should collectively decide which formatting we want, and have the template output that format. I personally prefer (** hon mention) or (** hon ment) and (dud). Do other people think this would be a good idea? Does anyone who knows how to create templates want to give this a shot? -- PEJL 13:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
A discussion has recently started concerning the above page and I wanted to call it to the attention of this project so it could receive more traffic, specifically from those experienced in dealing with these issues. Please visit the above talk page to get up to date. Leave any new messages on which ever page you feel. I believe that we can get this cleaned up very quickly. Sampm 03:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If this has already been noticed, just delete and forget. I noticed on the page for Big Pun's album Yeeah Baby [2] the links to external reviews of the album for Rolling Stone, NME, Q and others all lead to this page [3] which is a page where the album can be bought from the company www.buy.com. Sorry, I don't have time to change them, I just want to notify people who are more dedicated that this abuse has taken place, and may also be taking place on other pages. It's a clever but parasitic and abusive strategy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.173.249 ( talk • contribs)
Is there a list of standards or policies for creating articles for known upcoming untitled studio albums? If not, I think there should be. Articles like U2's 16th album and Robbie's forthcoming studio album don't seem to adhere to any type of standards, and I think that some standards should be set, at least naming conventions for starters. – Crashintome4196 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: For naming conventions I think we should adhere to something similar to the following:
– Crashintome4196 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If an album doesn't even have a name, then why on Earth should we have an article on it? -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 22:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
We've talked about it before, but we haven't actually done it. Let's do it. Someone above put forth a list of A-class articles that need to be improved to Feature-class articles. Here's the first one from the list. Let's see how this goes.
Yankee Hotel Foxtrot Let's see if we can get it to Feature Article status. Peer review, January
Go team, go! - Freekee 05:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a few articles about albums in this series, many of which consist almost entirely of track listings. Since they don't assert notability, they are in danger of speedy deletion. Any thoughts? Talk:Now That's What I Call Music!#Notability (John User:Jwy talk) 03:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems that the uploading instructions at Template:Infobox Album#Album cover are not good enough anymore. Album cover images without fair use rationale are targeted for speedy deletion by User:ESkog. I asked him to discuss the issue here. Jogers ( talk) 20:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think User:ESkogs main problem with album images is that too many people upload them without a fair use rationale and I agree with him. I myself come down hard on all these people who upload images without a license template, a statement of source, or a fair use rationale. If you include all those required things in the image description page your image cannot be speedy deleted for any of those reasons. I believe the entire situation can be solved by editors using the format I have developed, it features all the required items and even if the article in which the image is displayed does not talk about the image, the image description page provides a paragraph discussing the image. No images under my format can be deleted through the speedy deletion system because they will not meet any of the deletion requirements. Again take a look at Image:Character digipak cover.jpg and Image:Orbit Dance album cover.jpg for examples of the format. -- Leon Sword 23:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Category:Electronic albums by artist up for deletion. Do we want these genre subdivisions? – Unint 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)