![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Hello, I would like some input as to how translations of foreign-titled songs should be handled within an album-aritcle's body. I would assume that some definite reliable, third-party citation would be the minimum, especially in the case of Japanese titles. Is there any pre-existing policy on title translation (something that can be applied to songs as well)? Thanks for any help! -- Jacob Talk 03:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
{{Nihongo|'':Tokai no Safari Pāku"''|都会のサファリパーク||"City Safari Park"}}
{{Nihongo|Kotoba no nai Yūjō|言葉のない友情||"The friendship which does not have word"}}
This came up while discussing whether to merge List of Madlax albums with the main Madlax article. It was pointed out that discographies do not contain track listings. Yet the discographies seem geared more towards artists and there is no official MOS. I looked at this project and it seems like there should be one album per article. But Discography of Final Fantasy V is rated as a GA and has more than one album in it. So is there an actual rule? It seems that for music from Anime (and probably some other sources such as video games) that we would normally be better served with one article listing all of the albums and singles. That is, follow the album MOS but put all of the albums in one article. Anyway, I'd appreciate some feedback and/or guidance on this. Thanks! Argel1200 ( talk) 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
←According to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Multimedia:The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). (my stress) And criteria #8 says: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I think the album covers are okay in the case of an article such as Discography of Final Fantasy V where the individual albums don't have their own articles as there isn't enough information to go beyond a stub. If there were separate articles then I would agree they would fail fair use, but in this circumstance it looks okay as they increase a reader's understanding by indentifying the albums being discussed at that point. -- JD554 ( talk) 11:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a rule as to which words should be capitalized in a foreign language song? For example, in Mi Sangre by Juanes, all the songs are always capitalized. But in Nuestro Amor by RBD, the songs are capitalized in the "Track listing" section, but not when you open up the articles for the links to the singles themselves (e.g. Tras De Mí/ Tras de mí). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it okay if I add a guideline here stating that the foreign-language capitalization ought to be used? There have been several administrator-approved confirmations of this as the Wikipedia standard recently (specifically, one that I've been keeping track of, the re-moving of Rossz csillag alatt született), and since it is often an issue, I think this ought to have a final word on it placed in the guidelines. Support? = ∫ t c 5th Eye 06:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Should a language field be added to this template for cases where the album notes are not written in English? Kariteh ( talk) 09:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite AV media notes}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help) --
Rodhull
andemu
13:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Many of the sources I use are in Danish or French, so I would also like a language field to be added. I actually put this idea forward over here a while ago, but I guess it went unnoticed. Of course, it can be done as indicated above. It can also be done in a myriad of other ways, I myself did it like this (note 9). My point is that adding a field to the template provides a standard way of doing it so everyone of us doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. The field already exists in Template:Cite book and Template:Cite web and I would propose to do it along those lines. As the field should be ignored for album notes in English, would it be a problem for anyone if we added it? – IbLeo ( talk) 12:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Where do we stand on using MiszaBot to archive threads that have been inactive for, say, 45 days? Or maybe even 30 days? And, if we like the idea, do we think that this is the way to do it: {{User:MiszaBot/config |algo = old(30d) |archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive %(counter)d |counter = 25 |maxarchivesize = 250K }} (I've read User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo; it looks like that should do it to me.) If nobody dislikes the idea, I'd gladly implement it. :) This page gets a tad bit long sometimes. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I remember a few months ago this guideline had said about infinitives: "Do not capitalize...the word to in infinitives shorter than five letters." Here's the link - [1]
Can anyone tell me why the above part about infinitives shorter than five letters was removed? There doesn't seem to be an explanation in the edit history. I'd also like to know if "to" in the song title We're All to Blame should be capitalized or not considering that the infinitive is not shorter than five letters. Thanks in advance for any input. Tim meh ! 01:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Howdy. An article tagged with this project's template was recently changed to a redirect. I noticed this while adding a template to the talk page of it. I also changed the class to Redirect. The redirect category created by the template is a red link ( shown here). I wasn't sure if it was a big deal or not to the project.-- Rockfang ( talk) 16:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Albums participants... WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on those media franchises which are multimedia as not to step on the toes of this one. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help us get back on solid footing. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. Thank you. - LA ( T) 21:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
A minor debate over at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band has led to the fact that Piero Scaruffi's web site is listed here as a suggested/acceptable source. According to the criteria at Wikipedia:SPS, it shouldn't be since:
Discussion? Jgm ( talk) 01:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"MUSIC magazine editors have few more tried-and-true formulas for boosting newsstand sales and Web traffic than best-of lists. Rolling Stone’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time; Spin magazine’s 100 Greatest Albums 1985-2005; Pitchforkmedia.com’s Top 100 album lists for the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s: vast digests of gathered knowledge and opinion, usually the work of teams of editors, journalists and musicians, painstakingly assembled. But their collaborative efforts pale in comparison to the solo work of Piero Scaruffi...
An IP editor recently added "The Music Magazine" to the Professional Reviews section, here. I've removed it until we can figure out if it qualifies. Looking at the magazine's website, here, it seems to be a commercial website that tried briefly existing as an online .pdf magazine. The article on The Music Magazine is PRODded and so may not be available for reference much longer. The website placed #185 out of 200 in the People's Choice section of the BT Digital Music Awards, here. Evidently the magazine is run by Scott Goodacre, who is a journalism student.
Technically, the website seems to meet the criterion: "found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." But the criteria also note that it should meet WP:RS. Is this a "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? I'm thinking it may not be there yet. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi WP:Albums! I was working on the album page for
Taking Tiger Mountain (By Strategy), and my edit of changing the album's tracklisting to the below was reverted.
All tracks are written by Brian Eno, except where noted [1]
No. | Title | Length |
---|---|---|
1. | "Burning Airlines Give You So Much More" | 3:18 |
2. | "Back in Judy's Jungle" | 5:16 |
3. | "The Fat Lady of Limbourg" | 5:03 |
4. | "Mother Whale Eyeless" | 5:45 |
5. | "The Great Pretender" | 5:11 |
6. | "Third Uncle" (Eno, arr. Brian Turrington) | 4:48 |
7. | "Put a Straw Under Baby" | 3:25 |
8. | "The True Wheel" (Eno, Phil Manzanera) | 5:11 |
9. | "China My China" | 4:44 |
10. | "Taking Tiger Mountain" | 5:32 |
Track listing note: On the original LP album release, side one was comprised of tracks 1-5; side two, of tracks 6-10.
I like this style of tracklisting, even though the instructions on the main page suggest against it. Is this an acceptable style? Or should I stick to the old format. Cheers!
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 03:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. I realized this is already being discussed. D'oh!
Andrzejbanas (
talk)
03:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of this discussion. Okay, the points con seem to be (1) it's ugly, and (2) it's more complicated. The points pro seem to be (1) it looks better because of consistency, (2) the articles are improved due to consistency, and (3) it's not more complicated. Did I miss anything? - Freekee ( talk) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no guidance for listing artists in a compilation where the name is different for every song in a tracklisting. How should this be done? Are there examples? -- Melty girl 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
←Now that the previous version is restored, in discussing the matter above, multiple editors (including me) have noted the increased difficulty of implementing a template rather than a simple list. It has been suggested that the template may be appropriate for more complex situation. I would be inclined to agree with that. However, I don't see consensus that it is equally acceptable for all situations. I myself don't think it is. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Albums participants... WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 22:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been removing reviews from infoboxes that come from non-notable review sites. It has come to my attention that policy doesn't really permit this, and I have stopped for the time being. I would like to clarify what is an acceptable review.
Any blog is unacceptable. This is a given, I think. But pretty much anyone can set up a site that's not a blog and get volunteers to contribute reviews. This is my problem with the current policy, which allows "any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff". I could go register professionalmusicreviews.com (really!) and start putting up wildly biased reviews, but as long as it was not a blog it would seem to be an acceptable source for infobox reviews. Is this really the case?
I would like to propose that preference be given to review sites that are both reliable AND notable. Notable in this context means worthy of an article here on Wikipedia. If no reliable and notable reviews of an album can be found, it would then be acceptable to fall back to reviews that are merely reliable. Thoughts? 66.93.12.46 ( talk) 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
←I don't think it does exclude personal blogs due to the use of the word "or". :) It says "may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or' found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)" (emphasis added). Given our difference in interpretation, though, I can see that this may not be clear. WP:V says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Personal blogs should, I think, be fine in that context. It's on the basis of the former, I imagine, that we accept [3], as Robert Christgau is a professional music journalist. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose that Rolling Stone reviews not be included in album articles, as they are not appropriate. While it is certainly a notable source, the quality of their reviews is low enough as to have a negative impact on the reader's understanding of the album article. Many people probably use Wikipedia as a source for finding new music via all the convenient connections it offers, and a Rolling Stone review will generally be extremely detrimental to that goal, misleading the reader. Rolling Stone reviews do not add anything to an album article--they are at best derogatory and at worst detrimental and misleading. -- WheatConspiracy ( talk) 3:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I propose that links to Robert Christgau reviews for Heavy Metal albums be removed. They are complete trash, 2-sentence articles, filled with predujice and disgust for the genre. This is clearly unprofessional. In some cases, a bomb symbol is the 'review'. His review for Black Sabbath's 'Paranoid', widely regarded as a classic, reads: "They do take heavy to undreamt-of extremes, and I suppose I could enjoy them as camp, like a horror movie--the title cut is definitely screamworthy. After all, their audience can't take that Lucifer bit seriously, right? Well, depends on what you mean by serious. Personally, I've always suspected that horror movies catharsized stuff I was too rational to care about in the first place." That is not a review, that is complete rubbish. I quote from his Wikipedia article: "Christgau readily admits to disliking (even "prejudice" against) the musical genres heavy metal, art rock, bluegrass, gospel, Irish folk, and jazz fusion". He is not a reliable or professional review resource for these genres and therefore should be removed. His slander sticks out like a sore thumb. -- Marto85 ( talk) 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that on a lot of articles about albums, there seems to be a large amount of different types of tables used. Is there certain type of table that should be used, or are all tables acceptable? DiverseMentality (Discuss it) 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! There is an issue over at the article for an Eazy-E album involving the use of stylized strike-thru text, superscript on something not necessarily superscripted within the title of the page using the {{ wrong title}} template. It has been a very slow-moving, but controversial discussion, and a user recently used that pages titling as rationale to change another title with a similar strike-thru issue ( Maximum the Hormone's single "Houchou Hasami...") where the title is crossed out to convey artistic statement. Are there any thoughts on this issue? -- Jacob Talk 19:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Be interest to hear what you think about should a discography also include any remix's of that song. A person may like a remix and not the original song or what's to know if there are remix's knocking about BrianBoulnois ( talk) 23:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I've pushed the article for Cyberpunk (album) about as far as I can. Being inexperienced with album articles, I'm not sure how well this stacks up and don't really have the energy or information to add much more. If anyone wants to take control of it and drive it towards GA or an FA nomination, now would be the time. Good luck. -- Cast ( talk) 22:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know a good source for old album reviews? I am having trouble turning up any for the Cyberpunk album online, which is my primary source for these things, as I don't have immediate access to music journals or magazines of the era. As the article stands, it could achieve GA status, but FA status probably won't happen until I can expand the "Critical reception" section. This was the last studio album by Billy Idol in the 90s, and considered by many to be his greatest flop, so omissions in a section on the reviews the album received would be a rather large and noticeable void. -- Cast ( talk) 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I have an important question as I am currently working on a detailed Melissa Etheridge discography. There is a live record released by her - it contains four formerly released songs (lasting about 24 minutes) in live versions. Does this record qualify as a live album or as an EP or is there a category called live EP? Here you can read more about it. Thank you! -- Euro Mok ( talk) 12:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have just posed a question at Talk:Train of Thought (Reflection Eternal album)#Release date and it occured to me that this issue may have arisen before. I couldn't find any mention of it, so I'm raising it here. How can we determine the release dates of albums? I usually look at the reviews and other external links, but sometimes the websites in question sites contradict each other. When several release dates are given, should we assume that they are all accurate and use the earliest or should we consistently favour some sources over others? Tim Ivorson 2008-08-24
Thanks for the suggestions. I hadn't tried label websites before asking here. Tim Ivorson 2008-08-27
i check the track listing of this cd and see that it's different from the tracks i find on the file sharing program i use (Soulseek). i havent found a single user who has the same tracks in the same order as on Wikipedia. Could someone help with some clarity?
207.255.20.65 ( talk) 21:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
In the release history section, the dates are linked, but per MOS:SYL, dates should be not be linked as it is a deprecated practice. Shouldn't this be changed? DiverseMentality (Discuss it) 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi people, I've been working on compilation album King of Pop and plan to take it to GA at some point. I wanted to write a critical analysis section but haven't been able to find any reviews. Firstly it hasn't been released in the U.S. so Rolling Stone and the like probably won't cover it. Secondly, the track list is different in every country it is released in, leading me to believe that reviewers just aren't going to enter into the hassle. If anyone can find me some reviews please HELP. Cheers. — Realist 2 18:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is Metacritic listed as both a reliable source for a professional review, and an unreliable source for a professional review? -- The Guy complain edits 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Should be a review site. It satisfies the criteria of "written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." I'm posting here to attain consensus for the addition. Have a look: [4] -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 21:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started on the WikiProject Media franchises talk page regarding this topic. Please come over and give your input. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 07:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion started well, however, it has faltered. If this project approves this, please indicate it in the above linked discussion. It would be a great help if there could be some from this project who would be willing to show which soundtracks need to be merged and which should stay seperate. So, please come over and indicate this project's approval or not. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 20:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been punching out as much info as I can for a discography for this great soul singer (and originator of Stand By Me). I am nowhere near done as I've recently found a couple of missing albums (and maybe more), but I might like some help in getting info for some of the articles and filling in any missing information (track times - esp. on the first compilation album - missing album artwork that I haven't found, etc.). If anyone can help with this, either reply here or msg. me on my own talk page and we can discuss. I'm also thankful for any opinions of what I have done so far (and I know, citations may be needed in some cases). Thanks! =)
Note I've mainly worked on the discography so far; King's biography was done by other users. I may contact them as well. CycloneGU ( talk) 12:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, the Slipknot live album, 9.0: Live, is currently at FAC. Please post comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/9.0: Live if you can, as it has stalled and has not received comments in the past few days. Thanks in advance! Gary King ( talk) 18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the current inclusion of Piero Scaruffi and his History of Rock site as acceptable reviews. I'm curious as to how it was determined that it was a valid review site.
The link was added at this point on 5 July 2006, by User:Gika. I had a look at the Archives to see if it was discussed (i.e. a determination was made that it warranted inclusion on the list - the onus of proof being on the claimant and all that). One would expect any discussion to have occurred shortly after its addition, that is, it should be in Archive 7 if any. I checked further archives, but it doesn't look like it was discussed as valid or invalid.
In the case of, for example, Beach Boys album "reviews", for the set of "reviews" for albums from Surfin' USA to Pet Sounds, a link is provided to The Beach Boys section of his History of Rock Music. This page provides only numerical ratings for these albums and an overview of the group. This page is largely in Italian (I think) and would therefore violate Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Non-English_reviews, which states that non-English reviews should not generally be included. The author in fact requests English translation assistance from his readership. As the copyright notice for the page is from almost a decade ago (1999) and the material has not yet been updated, can it really be taken as a relevent (well known) site? From the album Smile onwards, there are some English writings. These write-ups in English are merely general descriptions of the albums and the time period over which they were written, and does not provide a critical analysis or review of the materials. How does any of this constitute a "review" of any kind?
In short, how was it determined that using his website as a link for reviews was valid, and, if it was simply not challenged, does that in itself constitute its approval, or was it just missed. That is - can we delete the links, or will it cause a stink? -- Roygbiv666 ( talk) 23:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The actual title of two Sweet albums are being discussed: Talk:The Sweet Featuring Little Willy & Block Buster#Album title and Talk:Give Us a Wink#Give Us an Exclamation mark!. Anyone with an opinion in one direction or the other is kindly invited to comment. – IbLeo ( talk) 12:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Greetings All, Can someone please help me find info. regarding previous discussions, here or elsewhere, on the "correct"/consensual use of footers. I think they have their function and are really useful in one or two limited cases, but these templates are now sprouting up like mushrooms and are slowly but surely being added to every individual musician, regardless of relevance. In some cases, the footer is longer than the actual article itself. Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 16:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- This template does a disservice to all of the great Jazz articles by grouping them together as a footer. By attempting to be as expansive as Template:Jazzbox it blurs too many topics together and takes away the individual poignancy of having separate boxes for each of the main topics, ala Genres, Topics, Lists and Lists of Musicians [...] • Freechild'sup? 04:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
How do I request an image be deleted? I took off its fair use rationale as I am keeping the one that appears as just the free cover, not the table that it was taken on. *LOL* CycloneGU ( talk) 20:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
There has been a graphic in this article demonstrating the dynamics of the piece over its 22-minute length. An editor keeps removing it claiming, inter alia, that this is not fair use. The status of the image itself has not been impugned by any editor. Two editors have replaced the image, claiming fair use and that it enhances the article. Some further input on the talk page would be welcome. Thanks. -- Rodhull andemu 13:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album) and Over the Rainbow (2007 album). Since the former was also released in 2007, the latter should be moved: but where to? It apparently existed at Over the Rainbow (Showtunes album) at one point; if that's where it should be, I'd have to merge the histories, which is a bit of a pain. What's the standard disambiguation for a case like this? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Members of this WikiProject might be interested in the discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums. ProhibitOnions (T) 07:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I have heavily contributed to an article about one of Phil Collins' albums, No Jacket Required. I am very happy to say that I totally re-wrote the article (And had help from a few users along the way), and then nominated for the Good Article criteria, where it passed! I am not 100% on how the criteria for a Featured Article works, however, but I am pretty sure that the article is not at all FA material yet! So, I have decided to request for a Peer Review at this link, [5]. I cordially invite anyone from this project to comment on the article as it stands right now, and would love to see feedback from anyone! No Jacket Required is one of my favorite albums, and I would love to see it get to FA status, but I can't do it without the help of other Wiki users! Thank you for reading, and I hope to see some comments at the PR! Have a nice day! :) CarpetCrawler ( talk) 22:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been asked before, but is there a decent, free, online source for checking whether an album has charted in the British charts, that is considered reliable? Two possibilities are EveryHit.com and ChartStats.com. Anyone have any thoughts? J Milburn ( talk) 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#acharts.us for a discussion of the reliability of acharts.us that is relevant to this project. PiracyFundsTerrorism ( talk) 14:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This current discussion is open for anyone who wishes to comment. The final goal is to end disruptive edit wars. The Real Libs- speak politely 16:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? If you wish to comment, please do so there. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 01:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody help copyedit the Into the Fire article which is a current GA nominee. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 12:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
This category is underpopulated. If you come across and album that was number one in the UK, please add it to Category:Number-one albums in the United Kingdom.
Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Why have the genres disappeared from some of the album infoboxes? Charmed36 ( talk) 00:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? If you wish to comment, please do so there. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 01:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please do an assessment on this page and Transformers: The Album? Sarujo ( talk) 02:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
New to editing album articles. What makes an album article a stub? More specifically, what kinds of additional information would be necessary to make http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boi-ngo no longer considered stubby? That article has the basic info, track list, and so on. I was under the impression that stubs had to be even less detailed. Katyism ( talk) 15:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been overhauling some of my pages lately, but noticed that others I made a while ago do not have every musician linked due to their not having a page. I'm now a bit unsure if I should be linking absolutely every single person mentioned within an album page, or just those deemed important enough to warrant a future page. For example, the acclaimed drummer Atma Anur (who has played on countless '80s shred albums) still does not have a page; hence to me it would make sense to link his name because it's pretty well-known within that genre of music. But then, what about a backing vocalist nobody's ever heard of, or a random session percussionist? It's likely such musicians will never have a page, so that's why I'm becoming a bit wary of linking everyone. Mac dreamstate ( talk) 19:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I brought up on the issue up at the WikiProject Music talk page about why I think the rankings of an album on the website Rate Your Music should be allowed to be added to an album page (alongside similar magazine reader polls and various other consensus of opinion). Since it deals mostly with album placements, I'm providing a link to that discussion here, too (easier to combine all the discussion in one place). Here is the discussion for anyone interested. bob rulz ( talk) 12:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I've recently been having a dispute with an IP editor over various AC/DC articles, notably Let There Be Rock (international album), Let There Be Rock (Australian album), Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap (Australian album) and High Voltage (1976 album). The editor is persistently adding credits to various band members, to which they are not entitled - for example, he claims that Malcolm Young played bass on Let There Be Rock, and that Phil Rudd sang backing vocals on various songs. I have never seen this corroborated anywhere, and it is certainly not stated on any official AC/DC release, including those mentioned above. I asked the editor on his talk pages to provide references or sources, and he has made no response whatsoever. He just continues to revert. I am not particularly familiar with the normal procedures here, so I'm asking for advice. Thanks. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: revert, this should not have been done without discussion, is it a problem?.
I don't believe that prior discussion is mandatory; and yes, there is a problem, or rather problems, both with the length of this project page and do with the level of headers and their nesting. See Template talk:Documentation#Heading_fix. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:11, 15 September 2008 (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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Hello, I would like some input as to how translations of foreign-titled songs should be handled within an album-aritcle's body. I would assume that some definite reliable, third-party citation would be the minimum, especially in the case of Japanese titles. Is there any pre-existing policy on title translation (something that can be applied to songs as well)? Thanks for any help! -- Jacob Talk 03:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
{{Nihongo|'':Tokai no Safari Pāku"''|都会のサファリパーク||"City Safari Park"}}
{{Nihongo|Kotoba no nai Yūjō|言葉のない友情||"The friendship which does not have word"}}
This came up while discussing whether to merge List of Madlax albums with the main Madlax article. It was pointed out that discographies do not contain track listings. Yet the discographies seem geared more towards artists and there is no official MOS. I looked at this project and it seems like there should be one album per article. But Discography of Final Fantasy V is rated as a GA and has more than one album in it. So is there an actual rule? It seems that for music from Anime (and probably some other sources such as video games) that we would normally be better served with one article listing all of the albums and singles. That is, follow the album MOS but put all of the albums in one article. Anyway, I'd appreciate some feedback and/or guidance on this. Thanks! Argel1200 ( talk) 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
←According to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Multimedia:The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8). (my stress) And criteria #8 says: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I think the album covers are okay in the case of an article such as Discography of Final Fantasy V where the individual albums don't have their own articles as there isn't enough information to go beyond a stub. If there were separate articles then I would agree they would fail fair use, but in this circumstance it looks okay as they increase a reader's understanding by indentifying the albums being discussed at that point. -- JD554 ( talk) 11:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a rule as to which words should be capitalized in a foreign language song? For example, in Mi Sangre by Juanes, all the songs are always capitalized. But in Nuestro Amor by RBD, the songs are capitalized in the "Track listing" section, but not when you open up the articles for the links to the singles themselves (e.g. Tras De Mí/ Tras de mí). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it okay if I add a guideline here stating that the foreign-language capitalization ought to be used? There have been several administrator-approved confirmations of this as the Wikipedia standard recently (specifically, one that I've been keeping track of, the re-moving of Rossz csillag alatt született), and since it is often an issue, I think this ought to have a final word on it placed in the guidelines. Support? = ∫ t c 5th Eye 06:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Should a language field be added to this template for cases where the album notes are not written in English? Kariteh ( talk) 09:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite AV media notes}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(
help) --
Rodhull
andemu
13:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Many of the sources I use are in Danish or French, so I would also like a language field to be added. I actually put this idea forward over here a while ago, but I guess it went unnoticed. Of course, it can be done as indicated above. It can also be done in a myriad of other ways, I myself did it like this (note 9). My point is that adding a field to the template provides a standard way of doing it so everyone of us doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. The field already exists in Template:Cite book and Template:Cite web and I would propose to do it along those lines. As the field should be ignored for album notes in English, would it be a problem for anyone if we added it? – IbLeo ( talk) 12:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Where do we stand on using MiszaBot to archive threads that have been inactive for, say, 45 days? Or maybe even 30 days? And, if we like the idea, do we think that this is the way to do it: {{User:MiszaBot/config |algo = old(30d) |archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive %(counter)d |counter = 25 |maxarchivesize = 250K }} (I've read User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo; it looks like that should do it to me.) If nobody dislikes the idea, I'd gladly implement it. :) This page gets a tad bit long sometimes. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I remember a few months ago this guideline had said about infinitives: "Do not capitalize...the word to in infinitives shorter than five letters." Here's the link - [1]
Can anyone tell me why the above part about infinitives shorter than five letters was removed? There doesn't seem to be an explanation in the edit history. I'd also like to know if "to" in the song title We're All to Blame should be capitalized or not considering that the infinitive is not shorter than five letters. Thanks in advance for any input. Tim meh ! 01:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Howdy. An article tagged with this project's template was recently changed to a redirect. I noticed this while adding a template to the talk page of it. I also changed the class to Redirect. The redirect category created by the template is a red link ( shown here). I wasn't sure if it was a big deal or not to the project.-- Rockfang ( talk) 16:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Albums participants... WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on those media franchises which are multimedia as not to step on the toes of this one. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help us get back on solid footing. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. Thank you. - LA ( T) 21:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
A minor debate over at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band has led to the fact that Piero Scaruffi's web site is listed here as a suggested/acceptable source. According to the criteria at Wikipedia:SPS, it shouldn't be since:
Discussion? Jgm ( talk) 01:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"MUSIC magazine editors have few more tried-and-true formulas for boosting newsstand sales and Web traffic than best-of lists. Rolling Stone’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time; Spin magazine’s 100 Greatest Albums 1985-2005; Pitchforkmedia.com’s Top 100 album lists for the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s: vast digests of gathered knowledge and opinion, usually the work of teams of editors, journalists and musicians, painstakingly assembled. But their collaborative efforts pale in comparison to the solo work of Piero Scaruffi...
An IP editor recently added "The Music Magazine" to the Professional Reviews section, here. I've removed it until we can figure out if it qualifies. Looking at the magazine's website, here, it seems to be a commercial website that tried briefly existing as an online .pdf magazine. The article on The Music Magazine is PRODded and so may not be available for reference much longer. The website placed #185 out of 200 in the People's Choice section of the BT Digital Music Awards, here. Evidently the magazine is run by Scott Goodacre, who is a journalism student.
Technically, the website seems to meet the criterion: "found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." But the criteria also note that it should meet WP:RS. Is this a "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? I'm thinking it may not be there yet. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi WP:Albums! I was working on the album page for
Taking Tiger Mountain (By Strategy), and my edit of changing the album's tracklisting to the below was reverted.
All tracks are written by Brian Eno, except where noted [1]
No. | Title | Length |
---|---|---|
1. | "Burning Airlines Give You So Much More" | 3:18 |
2. | "Back in Judy's Jungle" | 5:16 |
3. | "The Fat Lady of Limbourg" | 5:03 |
4. | "Mother Whale Eyeless" | 5:45 |
5. | "The Great Pretender" | 5:11 |
6. | "Third Uncle" (Eno, arr. Brian Turrington) | 4:48 |
7. | "Put a Straw Under Baby" | 3:25 |
8. | "The True Wheel" (Eno, Phil Manzanera) | 5:11 |
9. | "China My China" | 4:44 |
10. | "Taking Tiger Mountain" | 5:32 |
Track listing note: On the original LP album release, side one was comprised of tracks 1-5; side two, of tracks 6-10.
I like this style of tracklisting, even though the instructions on the main page suggest against it. Is this an acceptable style? Or should I stick to the old format. Cheers!
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 03:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. I realized this is already being discussed. D'oh!
Andrzejbanas (
talk)
03:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of this discussion. Okay, the points con seem to be (1) it's ugly, and (2) it's more complicated. The points pro seem to be (1) it looks better because of consistency, (2) the articles are improved due to consistency, and (3) it's not more complicated. Did I miss anything? - Freekee ( talk) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no guidance for listing artists in a compilation where the name is different for every song in a tracklisting. How should this be done? Are there examples? -- Melty girl 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
←Now that the previous version is restored, in discussing the matter above, multiple editors (including me) have noted the increased difficulty of implementing a template rather than a simple list. It has been suggested that the template may be appropriate for more complex situation. I would be inclined to agree with that. However, I don't see consensus that it is equally acceptable for all situations. I myself don't think it is. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Albums participants... WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 22:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been removing reviews from infoboxes that come from non-notable review sites. It has come to my attention that policy doesn't really permit this, and I have stopped for the time being. I would like to clarify what is an acceptable review.
Any blog is unacceptable. This is a given, I think. But pretty much anyone can set up a site that's not a blog and get volunteers to contribute reviews. This is my problem with the current policy, which allows "any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff". I could go register professionalmusicreviews.com (really!) and start putting up wildly biased reviews, but as long as it was not a blog it would seem to be an acceptable source for infobox reviews. Is this really the case?
I would like to propose that preference be given to review sites that are both reliable AND notable. Notable in this context means worthy of an article here on Wikipedia. If no reliable and notable reviews of an album can be found, it would then be acceptable to fall back to reviews that are merely reliable. Thoughts? 66.93.12.46 ( talk) 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
←I don't think it does exclude personal blogs due to the use of the word "or". :) It says "may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or' found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)" (emphasis added). Given our difference in interpretation, though, I can see that this may not be clear. WP:V says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Personal blogs should, I think, be fine in that context. It's on the basis of the former, I imagine, that we accept [3], as Robert Christgau is a professional music journalist. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose that Rolling Stone reviews not be included in album articles, as they are not appropriate. While it is certainly a notable source, the quality of their reviews is low enough as to have a negative impact on the reader's understanding of the album article. Many people probably use Wikipedia as a source for finding new music via all the convenient connections it offers, and a Rolling Stone review will generally be extremely detrimental to that goal, misleading the reader. Rolling Stone reviews do not add anything to an album article--they are at best derogatory and at worst detrimental and misleading. -- WheatConspiracy ( talk) 3:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I propose that links to Robert Christgau reviews for Heavy Metal albums be removed. They are complete trash, 2-sentence articles, filled with predujice and disgust for the genre. This is clearly unprofessional. In some cases, a bomb symbol is the 'review'. His review for Black Sabbath's 'Paranoid', widely regarded as a classic, reads: "They do take heavy to undreamt-of extremes, and I suppose I could enjoy them as camp, like a horror movie--the title cut is definitely screamworthy. After all, their audience can't take that Lucifer bit seriously, right? Well, depends on what you mean by serious. Personally, I've always suspected that horror movies catharsized stuff I was too rational to care about in the first place." That is not a review, that is complete rubbish. I quote from his Wikipedia article: "Christgau readily admits to disliking (even "prejudice" against) the musical genres heavy metal, art rock, bluegrass, gospel, Irish folk, and jazz fusion". He is not a reliable or professional review resource for these genres and therefore should be removed. His slander sticks out like a sore thumb. -- Marto85 ( talk) 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that on a lot of articles about albums, there seems to be a large amount of different types of tables used. Is there certain type of table that should be used, or are all tables acceptable? DiverseMentality (Discuss it) 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! There is an issue over at the article for an Eazy-E album involving the use of stylized strike-thru text, superscript on something not necessarily superscripted within the title of the page using the {{ wrong title}} template. It has been a very slow-moving, but controversial discussion, and a user recently used that pages titling as rationale to change another title with a similar strike-thru issue ( Maximum the Hormone's single "Houchou Hasami...") where the title is crossed out to convey artistic statement. Are there any thoughts on this issue? -- Jacob Talk 19:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Be interest to hear what you think about should a discography also include any remix's of that song. A person may like a remix and not the original song or what's to know if there are remix's knocking about BrianBoulnois ( talk) 23:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I've pushed the article for Cyberpunk (album) about as far as I can. Being inexperienced with album articles, I'm not sure how well this stacks up and don't really have the energy or information to add much more. If anyone wants to take control of it and drive it towards GA or an FA nomination, now would be the time. Good luck. -- Cast ( talk) 22:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know a good source for old album reviews? I am having trouble turning up any for the Cyberpunk album online, which is my primary source for these things, as I don't have immediate access to music journals or magazines of the era. As the article stands, it could achieve GA status, but FA status probably won't happen until I can expand the "Critical reception" section. This was the last studio album by Billy Idol in the 90s, and considered by many to be his greatest flop, so omissions in a section on the reviews the album received would be a rather large and noticeable void. -- Cast ( talk) 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I have an important question as I am currently working on a detailed Melissa Etheridge discography. There is a live record released by her - it contains four formerly released songs (lasting about 24 minutes) in live versions. Does this record qualify as a live album or as an EP or is there a category called live EP? Here you can read more about it. Thank you! -- Euro Mok ( talk) 12:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have just posed a question at Talk:Train of Thought (Reflection Eternal album)#Release date and it occured to me that this issue may have arisen before. I couldn't find any mention of it, so I'm raising it here. How can we determine the release dates of albums? I usually look at the reviews and other external links, but sometimes the websites in question sites contradict each other. When several release dates are given, should we assume that they are all accurate and use the earliest or should we consistently favour some sources over others? Tim Ivorson 2008-08-24
Thanks for the suggestions. I hadn't tried label websites before asking here. Tim Ivorson 2008-08-27
i check the track listing of this cd and see that it's different from the tracks i find on the file sharing program i use (Soulseek). i havent found a single user who has the same tracks in the same order as on Wikipedia. Could someone help with some clarity?
207.255.20.65 ( talk) 21:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
In the release history section, the dates are linked, but per MOS:SYL, dates should be not be linked as it is a deprecated practice. Shouldn't this be changed? DiverseMentality (Discuss it) 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi people, I've been working on compilation album King of Pop and plan to take it to GA at some point. I wanted to write a critical analysis section but haven't been able to find any reviews. Firstly it hasn't been released in the U.S. so Rolling Stone and the like probably won't cover it. Secondly, the track list is different in every country it is released in, leading me to believe that reviewers just aren't going to enter into the hassle. If anyone can find me some reviews please HELP. Cheers. — Realist 2 18:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is Metacritic listed as both a reliable source for a professional review, and an unreliable source for a professional review? -- The Guy complain edits 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Should be a review site. It satisfies the criteria of "written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." I'm posting here to attain consensus for the addition. Have a look: [4] -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 21:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been started on the WikiProject Media franchises talk page regarding this topic. Please come over and give your input. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 07:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion started well, however, it has faltered. If this project approves this, please indicate it in the above linked discussion. It would be a great help if there could be some from this project who would be willing to show which soundtracks need to be merged and which should stay seperate. So, please come over and indicate this project's approval or not. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 20:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been punching out as much info as I can for a discography for this great soul singer (and originator of Stand By Me). I am nowhere near done as I've recently found a couple of missing albums (and maybe more), but I might like some help in getting info for some of the articles and filling in any missing information (track times - esp. on the first compilation album - missing album artwork that I haven't found, etc.). If anyone can help with this, either reply here or msg. me on my own talk page and we can discuss. I'm also thankful for any opinions of what I have done so far (and I know, citations may be needed in some cases). Thanks! =)
Note I've mainly worked on the discography so far; King's biography was done by other users. I may contact them as well. CycloneGU ( talk) 12:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, the Slipknot live album, 9.0: Live, is currently at FAC. Please post comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/9.0: Live if you can, as it has stalled and has not received comments in the past few days. Thanks in advance! Gary King ( talk) 18:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the current inclusion of Piero Scaruffi and his History of Rock site as acceptable reviews. I'm curious as to how it was determined that it was a valid review site.
The link was added at this point on 5 July 2006, by User:Gika. I had a look at the Archives to see if it was discussed (i.e. a determination was made that it warranted inclusion on the list - the onus of proof being on the claimant and all that). One would expect any discussion to have occurred shortly after its addition, that is, it should be in Archive 7 if any. I checked further archives, but it doesn't look like it was discussed as valid or invalid.
In the case of, for example, Beach Boys album "reviews", for the set of "reviews" for albums from Surfin' USA to Pet Sounds, a link is provided to The Beach Boys section of his History of Rock Music. This page provides only numerical ratings for these albums and an overview of the group. This page is largely in Italian (I think) and would therefore violate Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Non-English_reviews, which states that non-English reviews should not generally be included. The author in fact requests English translation assistance from his readership. As the copyright notice for the page is from almost a decade ago (1999) and the material has not yet been updated, can it really be taken as a relevent (well known) site? From the album Smile onwards, there are some English writings. These write-ups in English are merely general descriptions of the albums and the time period over which they were written, and does not provide a critical analysis or review of the materials. How does any of this constitute a "review" of any kind?
In short, how was it determined that using his website as a link for reviews was valid, and, if it was simply not challenged, does that in itself constitute its approval, or was it just missed. That is - can we delete the links, or will it cause a stink? -- Roygbiv666 ( talk) 23:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The actual title of two Sweet albums are being discussed: Talk:The Sweet Featuring Little Willy & Block Buster#Album title and Talk:Give Us a Wink#Give Us an Exclamation mark!. Anyone with an opinion in one direction or the other is kindly invited to comment. – IbLeo ( talk) 12:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Greetings All, Can someone please help me find info. regarding previous discussions, here or elsewhere, on the "correct"/consensual use of footers. I think they have their function and are really useful in one or two limited cases, but these templates are now sprouting up like mushrooms and are slowly but surely being added to every individual musician, regardless of relevance. In some cases, the footer is longer than the actual article itself. Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 16:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- This template does a disservice to all of the great Jazz articles by grouping them together as a footer. By attempting to be as expansive as Template:Jazzbox it blurs too many topics together and takes away the individual poignancy of having separate boxes for each of the main topics, ala Genres, Topics, Lists and Lists of Musicians [...] • Freechild'sup? 04:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
How do I request an image be deleted? I took off its fair use rationale as I am keeping the one that appears as just the free cover, not the table that it was taken on. *LOL* CycloneGU ( talk) 20:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
There has been a graphic in this article demonstrating the dynamics of the piece over its 22-minute length. An editor keeps removing it claiming, inter alia, that this is not fair use. The status of the image itself has not been impugned by any editor. Two editors have replaced the image, claiming fair use and that it enhances the article. Some further input on the talk page would be welcome. Thanks. -- Rodhull andemu 13:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album) and Over the Rainbow (2007 album). Since the former was also released in 2007, the latter should be moved: but where to? It apparently existed at Over the Rainbow (Showtunes album) at one point; if that's where it should be, I'd have to merge the histories, which is a bit of a pain. What's the standard disambiguation for a case like this? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Members of this WikiProject might be interested in the discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums. ProhibitOnions (T) 07:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I have heavily contributed to an article about one of Phil Collins' albums, No Jacket Required. I am very happy to say that I totally re-wrote the article (And had help from a few users along the way), and then nominated for the Good Article criteria, where it passed! I am not 100% on how the criteria for a Featured Article works, however, but I am pretty sure that the article is not at all FA material yet! So, I have decided to request for a Peer Review at this link, [5]. I cordially invite anyone from this project to comment on the article as it stands right now, and would love to see feedback from anyone! No Jacket Required is one of my favorite albums, and I would love to see it get to FA status, but I can't do it without the help of other Wiki users! Thank you for reading, and I hope to see some comments at the PR! Have a nice day! :) CarpetCrawler ( talk) 22:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been asked before, but is there a decent, free, online source for checking whether an album has charted in the British charts, that is considered reliable? Two possibilities are EveryHit.com and ChartStats.com. Anyone have any thoughts? J Milburn ( talk) 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#acharts.us for a discussion of the reliability of acharts.us that is relevant to this project. PiracyFundsTerrorism ( talk) 14:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This current discussion is open for anyone who wishes to comment. The final goal is to end disruptive edit wars. The Real Libs- speak politely 16:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? If you wish to comment, please do so there. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 01:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody help copyedit the Into the Fire article which is a current GA nominee. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 12:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
This category is underpopulated. If you come across and album that was number one in the UK, please add it to Category:Number-one albums in the United Kingdom.
Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Why have the genres disappeared from some of the album infoboxes? Charmed36 ( talk) 00:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? If you wish to comment, please do so there. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 01:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please do an assessment on this page and Transformers: The Album? Sarujo ( talk) 02:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
New to editing album articles. What makes an album article a stub? More specifically, what kinds of additional information would be necessary to make http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boi-ngo no longer considered stubby? That article has the basic info, track list, and so on. I was under the impression that stubs had to be even less detailed. Katyism ( talk) 15:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been overhauling some of my pages lately, but noticed that others I made a while ago do not have every musician linked due to their not having a page. I'm now a bit unsure if I should be linking absolutely every single person mentioned within an album page, or just those deemed important enough to warrant a future page. For example, the acclaimed drummer Atma Anur (who has played on countless '80s shred albums) still does not have a page; hence to me it would make sense to link his name because it's pretty well-known within that genre of music. But then, what about a backing vocalist nobody's ever heard of, or a random session percussionist? It's likely such musicians will never have a page, so that's why I'm becoming a bit wary of linking everyone. Mac dreamstate ( talk) 19:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I brought up on the issue up at the WikiProject Music talk page about why I think the rankings of an album on the website Rate Your Music should be allowed to be added to an album page (alongside similar magazine reader polls and various other consensus of opinion). Since it deals mostly with album placements, I'm providing a link to that discussion here, too (easier to combine all the discussion in one place). Here is the discussion for anyone interested. bob rulz ( talk) 12:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I've recently been having a dispute with an IP editor over various AC/DC articles, notably Let There Be Rock (international album), Let There Be Rock (Australian album), Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap (Australian album) and High Voltage (1976 album). The editor is persistently adding credits to various band members, to which they are not entitled - for example, he claims that Malcolm Young played bass on Let There Be Rock, and that Phil Rudd sang backing vocals on various songs. I have never seen this corroborated anywhere, and it is certainly not stated on any official AC/DC release, including those mentioned above. I asked the editor on his talk pages to provide references or sources, and he has made no response whatsoever. He just continues to revert. I am not particularly familiar with the normal procedures here, so I'm asking for advice. Thanks. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: revert, this should not have been done without discussion, is it a problem?.
I don't believe that prior discussion is mandatory; and yes, there is a problem, or rather problems, both with the length of this project page and do with the level of headers and their nesting. See Template talk:Documentation#Heading_fix. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)