![]() | 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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
So, how do we go about this? Taylor Karras ( talk) 23:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Please have a look at the "file history" thumbnails in the page linked above. I am trying to replace the original picture, taken from a CD reissue, with a photo of the original LP. One problem is the LP was printed with a background of metallic silver ink, and I predicted it may not photograph well. The CD reissue is printed with dark grey instead, which gives better contrast and colour. But I wanted to replace it with the LP cover because the layout is a little different (picture centered, and band name at very top), which is a more "honest" depiction of the cover.
Problem: I have two computers, and on one it looks fine, but on the other, it looks awful! As soon as I uploaded, I saw how it looked, and reverted to the CD cover, which is why there are four pictures in the history thumbnails. Then I tried fixing the picture and uploading again. On my first computer, the latest picture looks fine, and its colours and contrast match the cover when I look at it beside the monitor. On my other computer, the first attempt looks muddy, and the second has a strong green tint. I also see a halo in the top half, of bad colour resolution, which I don't see on computer #1.
How does it look to you? If the current picture looks bad to others, I'll give up and revert to the CD cover. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 23:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that our Certifications subpage is completely redundant with List of music recording sales certifications. What about tagging the subpage as historical, or even redirecting it to the latter? – Ib Leo (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Would like to hear the community's opinion on Blabbermouth as a site for acceptable album reviews. Thanks J04n( talk page) 21:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
How can I use the citation archive from webcite.org, like it was used on the 1st Born Second article (ciation [6]), to archive this url which is a monthly feature that is not archived by the website? Dan56 ( talk) 05:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The extra chronologies seem a little too big, with the text size, like at the Blackout! 2 article. Is there a reason for this or had it not been addressed yet? Dan56 ( talk) 01:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Album articles should have covers.
If you need help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 01:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Category:Fan club releases, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 08:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me reiterate something for certain editors here who go on their crusades making pointless changes to album articles - this is a WikiProject, and whatever ideas it dreams up from week to week, are just that - ideas, guidelines. They aren't policies, and aren't mandatory. I thought I should point that out to some here who seem oblivious to this. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 11:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I found three more project subpages that looks more or less redundant to me. I suggest marking them as historical, unless someone thinks otherwise of it. – Ib Leo (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Articles – last update: 13 December 2006 – Ib Leo (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/audio samples – last update: 29 December 2008 – Ib Leo (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Featured Albums Project – last update: 10 June 2007 – Ib Leo (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone recently added the article Music recording sales certification to the Albums Project, which I noticed because it is currently on the "Unassessed" list. I'm not sure if adding that article to the project is appropriate given its topic. And how would it be assessed, especially regarding Importance for the project? I would consider removing it from the project altogether, but see no need to be so bold because the article might have some use as background info for project work. Comments? DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 21:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Category:The Essential, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am proposing/requesting that Xenobot Mk V would tag and auto-assess the articles in Category:Jazz albums and its subcategories. I have prepared a list ( User:Gyrofrog/jazzcat albums) of these subcategories for the 'bot to use (rather than having it automatically go through all of them itself). I would like for it to add the {{ Album}} template, in addition to {{ Jazz-music-project}} (I have already brought up the latter at WP:JAZZ regarding the Category:Jazz articles in general). Thank you, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
A user that edited the The Element of Freedom article put a line break between "Empire State of Mind" and "(Part II) Broken Down" in the infobox singles section, so it would look better. Should it be like this or without the break? Dan56 ( talk) 23:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Unsure about what to do with these that I've found: Paul Linford, Džej Ramadanovski. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 13:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently launched a proposal to move the album article The Story of Town Where Cherry Blossoms Bloom to Sakura Saku Machi Monogatari, its original location, and I was advised that I should seek input from this page due to the somewhat unique situation. The move proposal is found here for anyone interested. Thanks. Sorafune +1 06:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Problems Recently, Illinois (album) was promoted to GA status. While I agree that the article was altogether fine and in particular, User:Jujutacular put in a lot of effort to improve its quality, the version that was promoted didn't even pass all of the C-list criteria (e.g. it lacked a personnel section, which I have just added.) I don't know that there is a systematic brokenness with the review system, but it's simply sloppy to let an article pass through C-, B-, and GA-status without actually passing the proper criteria, so if this is common practice, I would like to admonish WP:ALBUM members that at least one article slipped through the cracks and it may be the case that other such articles are passing assessment without meeting the appropriate criteria. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It looks like they've revamped their website. Artist bios, which used to be at http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/foo, now appear to be at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/foo/ and then some code. It also looks like a lot of album reviews have disappeared. -- JD554 ( talk) 08:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently put the album article Xtort up for peer review. I figured that editors in this project could offer more precise criticisms, on average, than any random passersby, so I'm just putting a note about it here. Thanks in advance for anyone that helps out, and apologies if this is not an appropriate forum to request attention. Torchiest ( talk | contribs) 11:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Old vynil albums and some CDs include notes and additional texts that may be included in the relevant wikipedia article, I'm not sure if it is allowed. -- 82.85.226.37 ( talk) 16:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I've put a comment here > [1] about Black Sabbath's album Vol 4 which I (and others it seems) think this album should be titled just "Vol 4" not "Black Sabbath Vol 4". I found this Stone Temple Pilots album [2] which is named "No. 4 (album)" not "Stone Temple Pilots No. 4" or even "No. 4 (Stone Temple Pilots album)" so I was just seeking a bit of guidance on the whole area of numbered rather than named albums. I had a look round wiki for a bit of guidance but couldn't find any. Cheers. JSL595 ( talk) 19:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at the CD I have and on the CD itself it says "Vol 4" (Castle Communications 1996 GAS 0000304ESM) but as this CD is such a poorly printed affair with incorrect lyrics in the wee booklet etc I wouldn't trust it 100%. The website www.black-sabbath.com refers to it as "Volume 4" [ [4]] and as far as I know this website is the official one. SunCreator above mentions other similarly named albums which follow the "convention" I would expect to see... namely "Vol 4 (Black Sabbath album)". But wikipedia doesn't have a convention in this area it would seem. Sadly I gave my original vinyl copy to my brother years ago... who promptly lost all his vinyl (yes he is that useless) so I can't refer to it. Freekee says that the band themselves wouldn't be a reliable source which I find strange to say the least. JSL595 ( talk) 18:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we can go by the CD, especially when you think some CD releases out there get the lyrics in the wee booklet so wrong it's untrue, they've probably got the title wrong as well. I've attempted to contact someone connected with Sabbath to try and clarify the name but I've no reply yet... probably won't get one either. "Who's this fool asking such stupid questions" Ha ha ha... JSL595 ( talk) 16:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
For albums that have a notable lead single with the same title, should both of the articles be disambiguated? I don't see this specific example mentioned in the project. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 20:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
← Both ways of doing it co-exist peacefully:
A recent discussion here arrived at the conclusion that if one of the two is a primary topic then it should be the main entry. So for the examples in (1), the album is considered the primary topic, while for the examples in (2) the album and the song are considered equally important. In other words, it's decided on a case-by-case basis, as stated by WP:PT: "There are no absolute rules for determining primary topics; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move. If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic." – Ib Leo (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone else seen this article? I've tagged it as it reads like a review. However, going by the talk page, there is some confusion to its tagging. Maybe it needs fresh eyes. Any thoughts?-- Tuzapicabit ( talk) 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not that it has become unreliable in its content, it's that the site is basically almost impossible to navigate now. Album reviews which were once incredibly easy to find are now gone. I know part of the new features on the site is that you can pay a monthly/yearly fee to have access to all of the complete issues they have ever published, maybe album reviews are part of it? If so, is there really any point to having Rolling Stone reviews on album articles anymore, if the average reader will not be able to see that actual review for themselves? 24.189.90.68 ( talk) 07:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Studio album is still in need of lots of TLC even though it survived a deletion attempt. It is still in the same very very poor condition that led it to get nominated two years ago! Active Banana ( talk) 19:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be an ambiguos point of view here: "Do not include singles that were added as bonus tracks on a re-release of an album." This doesn't make sense. When an album is re-released the information is added to the original album's page therefore the singles should be added too? or are we trying to say that such album's should have a second single chronology with singles from the re-release? This makes the infobox messy. I request that this is removed from the project page because it appears to be contradictory and it is blatantly obvious that this practise is outdated considering that virtually every artist is reissuing album's left right and center at the moment and this rule is not being obeyed on wikipedia anyway (not in my 200 or so encounters with musical articles anyway). Just think... the pussycat doll's re-released Doll Domination about 4 or 5 times so if we fully followed WP:albums then two singles would be removed which specifically changes the context of the album in terms of success and reception etc. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 00:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Your input and comments are needed here. Thank you. Amsaim ( talk) 11:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello all, I would just like to inform you that No Line on the Horizon is currently undergoing an FAC. I was told the last time that an article I nominated failed to be promoted that in future I should " aggressively recruit music editors to review [the] FAC". I'm not looking for votes, only for feedback, and I thought that posting this notification here would be the best way to go about that; I apologize if I have done so incorrectly. A similar notification has also been left at WT:ROCK and Talk:U2. Cheers, MelicansMatkin ( talk, contributions) 05:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal to change the way the width of {{ Track listing}} over at Template talk:Track listing#Proposal to auto-narrow width. I invite people here to join the discussion. – Ib Leo (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
"A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs." Why do authors have to be included in the track listing? For example, I've just finished adding information to the article 12 Gauge (album) and I'll be adding more soon with several interviews I've just found. After all this work, the article is still going to be rated "Start" because I don't have access to the actual CD booklet information? If I finish all my work, including fixing the references (most are primary sources), and then add the C-class-required authors of each song... the article jumps from Start to B-class. C-class seems kind of... unnecessary. I've had this problem with several band articles I've worked on as well. Not enough of a gap between C and B. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 06:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm Germano from Italy, i correct the term that compares in the Miskolk experience spotigle in the correct italian spoglie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.142.138 ( talk) 08:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, according to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, "reviews in languages other than English should generally not be included unless the language is especially relevant to the album in question." However, the album article I'm working on, 12 Gauge (album), isn't a very well-reviewed album in the States. In fact, I have found many reviews, but the English ones are unreliable (they are blogged or user-submitted) and the majority of the reliable (I assume) reviews are in German. There are two or three reviews in Finnish, which is the language specific to the album. So... in short, I have no English reviews that I can use. What should I do? I have no problem working with the German and Finnish reviews, but in this case, they won't be diluted with English reviews. I can provide a list of the reviews as requested. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 05:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
A proposal has been made at the Still Standing article talk page, about a type of table that tracks sales of an album; is this suitable for this article and other album articles? Dan56 ( talk) 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, one editor put The Roxx Regime Demos up for deletion. It was determined that it was notable and so was dropped. The majority of the work was done by another editor. I started watching the album as I started to expand my interest in watching albums. When I joined it the two editors, User:Amsaim and User:Koavf were at it again. This time it was over how the Type = should be listed in the infobox. Amsaim insisted it as a compilation while Koavf, having lost the first battle, insisted that it was a demo. I thought studio would be a good thing. Amsaim had Koavf blocked for 48 hours for "for repeated abuse of editing privileges" (see [ [8]]). In his absence Amsaim requested that consensus be reached. Discussion was ongoing and consensus was forming. As soon as the block was lifted Koavf came back and changed several things including the Type = value. I laid into him and probably broke a few rules myself in the process, but the edits stopped. Consensus was then reached. Based on the evidence we felt that the infobox should list it under the category of compilation and that the categories of compilation album and demos were both suitable for the footer. Now Amsaim is not satisfied and is telling us that the latter category is not appropriate. He is also insisting that without verifiable sources (which we have provided) that he would either remove the category or slap it with an unsourced tag. His argument is that a demo is a single work that is unreleased and this doesn't qualify. He has changed his reason for not catting it as a demo but it always comes back to his opinion that the title itself is not a valid source, which I proved was wrong, and that no verifiable source could be found to indicate that it is a demo. He is not relenting and his arguments are, in my opinion, either an attempt at ownership of the article or a way to demonstrate dominance over Koavf. So if some of the WikiProject types wouldn't mind dropping over there, reading the volumes of discussion, and weighing in it would be appreciated. I am taking a break from the page since Amsaim refuses to discuss the issue, he only wants to make his point. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Albums. I have suggested a centeralised discussion on all of the issues drawing from several different albums as examples: User talk:Jubileeclipman/Demo album. Cheers -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 11:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm opening a discussion about the refinement and clarification of notability criteria. your opinion here would be appreciated. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 00:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I am hoping to get a bit more input from other editors regarding a discussion on the Wintersun Time talk page about using an update posted on the band's official messageboard by the band's creator/songwriter. Perhaps supporting my desire to do so, according to Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." Does this allow an exception in my case?
This is just an observation, but some of the bands I follow, and whose articles I contribute to, will post updates on their actual website, either the main index page or on some "News" page, and then these updates will be reprinted almost verbatim by, for example, Blabbermouth.net. Because Wintersun's update was on a messageboard, his words have not been (and I doubt they ever will be) reprinted by a secondary source. Until he does interviews in the future, his "updates" seem to be limited to his messageboard. So, any thoughts would be fantastic so I may either go ahead and add some of the info, or drop it entirely. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 22:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Are live versions of album tracks listed as a single release in the infobox? A Momentary Lapse of Reason for instance, has a few live single releases due to the tour which followed its release, and one of them charted. What to do? Parrot of Doom 07:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello guys..Moxy here the guy that does the portals...We have made a Tip/guidelines section to help navigate Wikis vast rules!! Pls if y0u like add this to your project page if it apply to you guys here!!.. Moxy ( talk) 16:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
? | Use
common sense. Ultimately,
assume good faith on the part of others,
be bold in editing because
perfection is not required. See Wikipedia:Editing policy for more information. Before starting a new article! -
Notability is a concern that must be adhered to. See
Wikipedia:Notability (music) for more information. |
I. | Use references. This is an encyclopedia, so remember to include a ==References== section listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you used to write the article. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite_sources and Wikipedia:References for more information. |
II. | Use proper spelling and grammar. This is a very important aspect of an article. There is helpful guidelines in regards to styles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) for more information. |
III. | Use footnotes. Take advantage of the footnote ability Wikipedia has, instead of including html links inside the context include them as footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to use them. |
IV. | Write a good lead. Be sure to write a lead that concisely summarizes the entire article into one or two paragraphs, which make sense to someone who may know nothing about the subjects in question. See Wikipedia:Lead section for more information. |
V. | Stay on topic. Many articles are criticized for length; sticking to the subject matter helps eliminate this. See Wikipedia:The perfect article for more information. |
VI. | Keep it simple. Remember that the average reader should be able to comprehend the erudition. Although you should use a broad vocabulary of regular, non-technical terms, do not provide such a quantity of locutions as to impel those who aspire to derive serviceable information from the article to consult a dictionary. |
VII. | Use images if possible. Images enhance articles greatly, but only use them when they are necessary, and ensure that their copyright status has been specified and we are allowed to use it on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Images |
Per the Categories section of the Wikiproject page it states "For album articles, there are three "top-level" categories: Category:Albums by artist, Category:Albums by year and Category:Albums by genre. Each album page should be placed into two categories, Category:<Artist name> albums and Category:<year> albums, which should be sub-categories of the respective top-level category." But recently User:Koavf has been making probably over ten thousand edits over the past week, although it is hard for me to tell the number because there are have been so many, that I would characterize as overcategorization. I asked Koavf if there had been some consensus found somewhere for all of these categorizations and they stated they were being bold, which I also had a problem with one editor making this many of edits in such a short time span without any sort of consensus to back up the edits.
Koavf has been making edits such as moving Kapuso sa Pasko from categories Category:2004 albums, Category:Christmas albums and Category:Compilation albums as mentioned above to categories Category:2004 Christmas albums, Category:2004 compilation albums and Category:Christmas compilation albums. I find these adding of years to the types of albums and adding Christmas to the compliation albums to be overcategorizations that are not needed. Also for example is a category like Category:Carmen McRae live albums for two albums needed when the parent category Category:Carmen McRae albums only has five albums for a total of seven albums or a category like Category:Live Christmas albums needed for six albums. Maybe I am the only one who feels this way, but I thought I would get others' opinions of these categorizations. Aspects ( talk) 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI and FWIW, on a related note (I think), see my (archived) comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz/Archives/2010 1#Sub-categories. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with IllaZilla here, splitting these categories by year is more helpful for navigational purposes, as far as album types (studio albums, EPs, live albums, etc.) go. The only one that sticks out to me as a problem—mainly because I haven't gone too deep into this—is Category:Live Christmas albums, as that narrows down into album type and theme. To me, this would be equivalent to creating Category:Live concept albums or similar, which is not only overcategorization, but it really makes things more complicated and less accessible than they need to be. — ξ xplicit 20:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If this scheme is going to be standardized, rules need to be put in place and the statement "Each album page should be placed into two categories, Category:<Artist name> albums and Category:<year> albums" will have to be changed. However, unless it is all or none, no one is going to be consistent with putting albums in Category:<year> live albums (or other similar) just based on the number of album articles an artist has. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 22:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I support the splitting of categories into Category:Live albums by artist, Category:Compilation albums by artist, etc. I find the "too small" argument unconvincing, especially when we're supposed to create subcategories under Category:Albums by artist for recording artists and bands, even if they only ever release one album. By splitting by type of release (live, compilation, etc.), it would become easier to navigate through categories like Category:Live albums and Category:Compilation albums; the subcategories of Category:Live albums by artist, Category:Compilation albums by artist and so on, would all fall under WP:OC#SMALL, just like the subcategories of Category:Albums by artist do. — ξ xplicit 07:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I was wondering why we're not meant to use the 'Reviews' field in Infobox anymore (although most albums still do)?
On the article about the Josh Ritter album So Runs the World Away there is an empty gap (you can see it here: http://twitpic.com/1nqmhx/full), which in my opinion looks really bad, and un-wikipediay. It can be fixed by putting the reviews in the infobox (you can see that here: http://twitpic.com/1nswtn/full). But because of the consensus not to use the Reviews field of Infobox album anymore, I can't get rid of the gap.
What can I do?
JoseySmith ( talk) 23:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The big white gap appears on Internet Explorer 7, between the heading "Release and reception" and the text "The record's release was met with ..."; basically, the start of that text is horizontally aligned with the upper edge of the {{
Album ratings}}
template. The gap does not appear under Firefox 3.6.2 or Chrome, where the text begins immediately under the heading, as normal. All of these are for Windows XP, and whether the skin is Monobook or Vector makes no difference. It's worse at higher resolutions - but you've got to get the screen right down to about 640px wide before the gap becomes small enough to disappear, at which point the infobox is about the same width as the text in the lead section. One fix would be to move the "Release and reception" section down, so that other sections use up the remaining space to the left of the infobox; but that doesn't always work: try looking at
Led Zeppelin II in IE7 - the image in the "Album sleeve design" section pushes the {{
Album ratings}}
template downward, so there is a white gap between the heading "Release and reception" and text to the left of the template. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
There was a long discussion about it which you should find in the archives if you're interested, but basically it was agreed that the ratings shouldn't have such prominence in Wikipedia articles, as Wikipedia is not something like Allmusic. Its purpose is not primarily to provide a review of how good someone thinks something is, but to provide information in a more encyclopedic manner. I agree with the change. Ratings rarely tell the whole story, and it's far better to see them alongside Critical reception prose that presents the reception information in a balanced and informative manner. You're right that not all albums use the new layout yet, but they're getting converted when opportunities arise. About the gap in the article you mentioned, it's OK in FF, Opera and IE8. I do see it in IE7, but why would anyone use IE7?!! But anyway, the problem will go away once the article's developed further and there are more sections. (Try it by editing the page in IE7 and hitting Preview.) Currently there's plenty of stuff in the lead that never gets a mention in the main text. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should only summarize what the article already says. A couple more points to elaborate upon in Release and reception:
And some signs of a burgeoning Composition and recording section:
Just a couple of suggestions at a glance. There's probably a lot more that can be said apart from those if you want to develop the article more fully. PL290 ( talk) 15:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for replying. I will have a look at developing the article. JoseySmith ( talk) 23:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
At the top of Archive 33 there are link to the first (#1), the previous (#32), and the last (currently #36), but the link to the next (#34) is missing. Same issue for all other archives since #30. It's quite annoying for archive browsing. Does someone know how to fix this? – Ib Leo (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Is Allmusic really a reliable source for genre identification? From my experience, Allmusic slaps up to a half a dozen genres (or "styles", they call them) onto any album, essentially blanketing the album in every possible genre it may touch. If an Allmusic review specifically mentions a genre and even delves into why the album is that genre, then I'm game. I'm just curious what others have to say about the sidebar info. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 21:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Allmusic's categorization (specifically, jazz sub-genres) has been mirrored to some extent here at Wikipedia. (Funny you brought it up as I had just mentioned this to someone else the other day.) I haven't seen some of these genres mentioned anywhere else outside of Allmusic (well, and now Wikipedia) - e.g. see these comments, or these. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
In the assessment grid for the project there are currently more than 800 album articles classified as "Other" in the Class column. I browsed through a selection of these in a cursory fashion, and most of the ones I looked at have received legitimate Class assessments such as Stub, Start, etc. I can find no spelling or formatting errors in the respective talk page Album Project boxes that might throw off the bots. So many, if not most, of these 800+ articles should appear with their proper class numbers elsewhere in the grid. Does anyone know why this is happening? DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 02:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Albums}}
template on that album's talk page. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Degree of update. Hope that's the right place... -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
This is extremely silly that I'm even here, but to humour the belligerents, why not? I have two users currently trying to tell me that the Pink Floyd studio albums More, and Obscured By Clouds, are not studio albums, because they're soundtracks. Both of them complete albums, of course; both of them recorded in the studio completely by Pink Floyd. And, as I have said, using that twisted logic, then The Wall is not a studio album, as it is a soundtrack. Of course The Wall is a studio album, just as More, and Obscured By Clouds are. But for some strange reason, these two feel that 2 of their studio albums that are also soundtracks are, somehow not studio albums, whilst another studio album, which is also a soundtrack, is a studio album. Anyone? Mk5384 ( talk) 20:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
A studio album is an album made up of tracks recorded in the controlled environment of a recording studio, as opposed to a live recording made at a performance venue or a compilation or reissue album of previously recorded material.
I'm not disputing that. Are you saying that "soundtrack" and "studio album" are mutually exclusive categories? IMO, they are not. -- TorriTorri( talk/ contribs) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Years ago, when I was one of the many "regulars" watching and helping maintain Pink Floyd articles, we thoroughly discussed this issue and developed a policy about the soundtracks. We decided that most artists had their soundtrack work separated out because it did not fit in musically or thematically with their other work, or was difficult, if not impossible, to insert it into a chronology because of the gap between recording and release dates, which are often years apart. Also, some artists' soundtracks are released on other labels from their studio albums, and it becomes difficult to determine the order that albums were released. I have frequently cited Tangerine Dream as an example of this problem; they released soundtracks as frequently as they released normal studio albums, but on many different labels, usually with undocumented recording dates, and the appearance of older line-ups of the group suggested some were actually recorded years before release. We felt that no such problems existed with Pink Floyd's soundtracks, and the fact that there were only two albums to deal with, led to a decision that there was no need to separate them. We also felt that such a separation would create an unhelpful interruption in the chronology chain. This decision was made at a time when I believe the current participants in this discussion were not among the "regulars" watching Pink Floyd articles. So Parrot of Doom is incorrect when he says that "nobody really questioned" this before. It was reviewed quite thoroughly, but that was before his time. I do realize that what we decided back then, can be superceded by what has been discussed since. But here is the policy we used to have, for what it's worth. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 14:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
What a ridiculous argument. The distinction between "studio albums" and "soundtracks" is arbitrary and unhelpful. Echoes was conceived as a soundtrack, and indeed later used as one. The Final Cut began as a soundtrack, but emerged as a "studio" album. Both of the albums under discussion feature long-standing live favourites; yet have significant differences to the music used on the film soundtracks. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
So, can we perhaps clarify how this project identifies a studio album? Is there an industry-wide specification that would help? Do we classify albums based on time spent in a studio? I've had a look around and unfortunately I have not yet been able to find any sources which might improve Studio album, which is probably what we want to do. Parrot of Doom 08:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be quite a matter of personal opinion. Just thinking of a few other artists with complete conceptual "soundtrack albums", I was quite suprised that in The Beatles discography, Magical Mystery Tour is included in their studio albums chronology, yet Prince's Purple Rain is not in his. To my view, the particular Pink Floyd albums in discussion here should be included in the studio album discography as this is how I've always thought of them - an overall concept, and on the whole no different to any other studio album - but my reasoning for this is loose and I can see that other people may have different ideas on this. Another example: I believe The Monkees' Head is where it should be. Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:03, 18 May 2010 (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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
So, how do we go about this? Taylor Karras ( talk) 23:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Please have a look at the "file history" thumbnails in the page linked above. I am trying to replace the original picture, taken from a CD reissue, with a photo of the original LP. One problem is the LP was printed with a background of metallic silver ink, and I predicted it may not photograph well. The CD reissue is printed with dark grey instead, which gives better contrast and colour. But I wanted to replace it with the LP cover because the layout is a little different (picture centered, and band name at very top), which is a more "honest" depiction of the cover.
Problem: I have two computers, and on one it looks fine, but on the other, it looks awful! As soon as I uploaded, I saw how it looked, and reverted to the CD cover, which is why there are four pictures in the history thumbnails. Then I tried fixing the picture and uploading again. On my first computer, the latest picture looks fine, and its colours and contrast match the cover when I look at it beside the monitor. On my other computer, the first attempt looks muddy, and the second has a strong green tint. I also see a halo in the top half, of bad colour resolution, which I don't see on computer #1.
How does it look to you? If the current picture looks bad to others, I'll give up and revert to the CD cover. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 23:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that our Certifications subpage is completely redundant with List of music recording sales certifications. What about tagging the subpage as historical, or even redirecting it to the latter? – Ib Leo (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Would like to hear the community's opinion on Blabbermouth as a site for acceptable album reviews. Thanks J04n( talk page) 21:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
How can I use the citation archive from webcite.org, like it was used on the 1st Born Second article (ciation [6]), to archive this url which is a monthly feature that is not archived by the website? Dan56 ( talk) 05:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The extra chronologies seem a little too big, with the text size, like at the Blackout! 2 article. Is there a reason for this or had it not been addressed yet? Dan56 ( talk) 01:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Album articles should have covers.
If you need help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 01:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Category:Fan club releases, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 08:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me reiterate something for certain editors here who go on their crusades making pointless changes to album articles - this is a WikiProject, and whatever ideas it dreams up from week to week, are just that - ideas, guidelines. They aren't policies, and aren't mandatory. I thought I should point that out to some here who seem oblivious to this. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 11:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I found three more project subpages that looks more or less redundant to me. I suggest marking them as historical, unless someone thinks otherwise of it. – Ib Leo (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Articles – last update: 13 December 2006 – Ib Leo (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/audio samples – last update: 29 December 2008 – Ib Leo (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Featured Albums Project – last update: 10 June 2007 – Ib Leo (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone recently added the article Music recording sales certification to the Albums Project, which I noticed because it is currently on the "Unassessed" list. I'm not sure if adding that article to the project is appropriate given its topic. And how would it be assessed, especially regarding Importance for the project? I would consider removing it from the project altogether, but see no need to be so bold because the article might have some use as background info for project work. Comments? DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 21:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Category:The Essential, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am proposing/requesting that Xenobot Mk V would tag and auto-assess the articles in Category:Jazz albums and its subcategories. I have prepared a list ( User:Gyrofrog/jazzcat albums) of these subcategories for the 'bot to use (rather than having it automatically go through all of them itself). I would like for it to add the {{ Album}} template, in addition to {{ Jazz-music-project}} (I have already brought up the latter at WP:JAZZ regarding the Category:Jazz articles in general). Thank you, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
A user that edited the The Element of Freedom article put a line break between "Empire State of Mind" and "(Part II) Broken Down" in the infobox singles section, so it would look better. Should it be like this or without the break? Dan56 ( talk) 23:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Unsure about what to do with these that I've found: Paul Linford, Džej Ramadanovski. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 13:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently launched a proposal to move the album article The Story of Town Where Cherry Blossoms Bloom to Sakura Saku Machi Monogatari, its original location, and I was advised that I should seek input from this page due to the somewhat unique situation. The move proposal is found here for anyone interested. Thanks. Sorafune +1 06:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Problems Recently, Illinois (album) was promoted to GA status. While I agree that the article was altogether fine and in particular, User:Jujutacular put in a lot of effort to improve its quality, the version that was promoted didn't even pass all of the C-list criteria (e.g. it lacked a personnel section, which I have just added.) I don't know that there is a systematic brokenness with the review system, but it's simply sloppy to let an article pass through C-, B-, and GA-status without actually passing the proper criteria, so if this is common practice, I would like to admonish WP:ALBUM members that at least one article slipped through the cracks and it may be the case that other such articles are passing assessment without meeting the appropriate criteria. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It looks like they've revamped their website. Artist bios, which used to be at http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/foo, now appear to be at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/foo/ and then some code. It also looks like a lot of album reviews have disappeared. -- JD554 ( talk) 08:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently put the album article Xtort up for peer review. I figured that editors in this project could offer more precise criticisms, on average, than any random passersby, so I'm just putting a note about it here. Thanks in advance for anyone that helps out, and apologies if this is not an appropriate forum to request attention. Torchiest ( talk | contribs) 11:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Old vynil albums and some CDs include notes and additional texts that may be included in the relevant wikipedia article, I'm not sure if it is allowed. -- 82.85.226.37 ( talk) 16:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I've put a comment here > [1] about Black Sabbath's album Vol 4 which I (and others it seems) think this album should be titled just "Vol 4" not "Black Sabbath Vol 4". I found this Stone Temple Pilots album [2] which is named "No. 4 (album)" not "Stone Temple Pilots No. 4" or even "No. 4 (Stone Temple Pilots album)" so I was just seeking a bit of guidance on the whole area of numbered rather than named albums. I had a look round wiki for a bit of guidance but couldn't find any. Cheers. JSL595 ( talk) 19:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at the CD I have and on the CD itself it says "Vol 4" (Castle Communications 1996 GAS 0000304ESM) but as this CD is such a poorly printed affair with incorrect lyrics in the wee booklet etc I wouldn't trust it 100%. The website www.black-sabbath.com refers to it as "Volume 4" [ [4]] and as far as I know this website is the official one. SunCreator above mentions other similarly named albums which follow the "convention" I would expect to see... namely "Vol 4 (Black Sabbath album)". But wikipedia doesn't have a convention in this area it would seem. Sadly I gave my original vinyl copy to my brother years ago... who promptly lost all his vinyl (yes he is that useless) so I can't refer to it. Freekee says that the band themselves wouldn't be a reliable source which I find strange to say the least. JSL595 ( talk) 18:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we can go by the CD, especially when you think some CD releases out there get the lyrics in the wee booklet so wrong it's untrue, they've probably got the title wrong as well. I've attempted to contact someone connected with Sabbath to try and clarify the name but I've no reply yet... probably won't get one either. "Who's this fool asking such stupid questions" Ha ha ha... JSL595 ( talk) 16:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
For albums that have a notable lead single with the same title, should both of the articles be disambiguated? I don't see this specific example mentioned in the project. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 20:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
← Both ways of doing it co-exist peacefully:
A recent discussion here arrived at the conclusion that if one of the two is a primary topic then it should be the main entry. So for the examples in (1), the album is considered the primary topic, while for the examples in (2) the album and the song are considered equally important. In other words, it's decided on a case-by-case basis, as stated by WP:PT: "There are no absolute rules for determining primary topics; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move. If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic." – Ib Leo (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone else seen this article? I've tagged it as it reads like a review. However, going by the talk page, there is some confusion to its tagging. Maybe it needs fresh eyes. Any thoughts?-- Tuzapicabit ( talk) 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not that it has become unreliable in its content, it's that the site is basically almost impossible to navigate now. Album reviews which were once incredibly easy to find are now gone. I know part of the new features on the site is that you can pay a monthly/yearly fee to have access to all of the complete issues they have ever published, maybe album reviews are part of it? If so, is there really any point to having Rolling Stone reviews on album articles anymore, if the average reader will not be able to see that actual review for themselves? 24.189.90.68 ( talk) 07:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Studio album is still in need of lots of TLC even though it survived a deletion attempt. It is still in the same very very poor condition that led it to get nominated two years ago! Active Banana ( talk) 19:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be an ambiguos point of view here: "Do not include singles that were added as bonus tracks on a re-release of an album." This doesn't make sense. When an album is re-released the information is added to the original album's page therefore the singles should be added too? or are we trying to say that such album's should have a second single chronology with singles from the re-release? This makes the infobox messy. I request that this is removed from the project page because it appears to be contradictory and it is blatantly obvious that this practise is outdated considering that virtually every artist is reissuing album's left right and center at the moment and this rule is not being obeyed on wikipedia anyway (not in my 200 or so encounters with musical articles anyway). Just think... the pussycat doll's re-released Doll Domination about 4 or 5 times so if we fully followed WP:albums then two singles would be removed which specifically changes the context of the album in terms of success and reception etc. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 00:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Your input and comments are needed here. Thank you. Amsaim ( talk) 11:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello all, I would just like to inform you that No Line on the Horizon is currently undergoing an FAC. I was told the last time that an article I nominated failed to be promoted that in future I should " aggressively recruit music editors to review [the] FAC". I'm not looking for votes, only for feedback, and I thought that posting this notification here would be the best way to go about that; I apologize if I have done so incorrectly. A similar notification has also been left at WT:ROCK and Talk:U2. Cheers, MelicansMatkin ( talk, contributions) 05:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal to change the way the width of {{ Track listing}} over at Template talk:Track listing#Proposal to auto-narrow width. I invite people here to join the discussion. – Ib Leo (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
"A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs." Why do authors have to be included in the track listing? For example, I've just finished adding information to the article 12 Gauge (album) and I'll be adding more soon with several interviews I've just found. After all this work, the article is still going to be rated "Start" because I don't have access to the actual CD booklet information? If I finish all my work, including fixing the references (most are primary sources), and then add the C-class-required authors of each song... the article jumps from Start to B-class. C-class seems kind of... unnecessary. I've had this problem with several band articles I've worked on as well. Not enough of a gap between C and B. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 06:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm Germano from Italy, i correct the term that compares in the Miskolk experience spotigle in the correct italian spoglie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.142.138 ( talk) 08:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, according to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, "reviews in languages other than English should generally not be included unless the language is especially relevant to the album in question." However, the album article I'm working on, 12 Gauge (album), isn't a very well-reviewed album in the States. In fact, I have found many reviews, but the English ones are unreliable (they are blogged or user-submitted) and the majority of the reliable (I assume) reviews are in German. There are two or three reviews in Finnish, which is the language specific to the album. So... in short, I have no English reviews that I can use. What should I do? I have no problem working with the German and Finnish reviews, but in this case, they won't be diluted with English reviews. I can provide a list of the reviews as requested. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 05:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
A proposal has been made at the Still Standing article talk page, about a type of table that tracks sales of an album; is this suitable for this article and other album articles? Dan56 ( talk) 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, one editor put The Roxx Regime Demos up for deletion. It was determined that it was notable and so was dropped. The majority of the work was done by another editor. I started watching the album as I started to expand my interest in watching albums. When I joined it the two editors, User:Amsaim and User:Koavf were at it again. This time it was over how the Type = should be listed in the infobox. Amsaim insisted it as a compilation while Koavf, having lost the first battle, insisted that it was a demo. I thought studio would be a good thing. Amsaim had Koavf blocked for 48 hours for "for repeated abuse of editing privileges" (see [ [8]]). In his absence Amsaim requested that consensus be reached. Discussion was ongoing and consensus was forming. As soon as the block was lifted Koavf came back and changed several things including the Type = value. I laid into him and probably broke a few rules myself in the process, but the edits stopped. Consensus was then reached. Based on the evidence we felt that the infobox should list it under the category of compilation and that the categories of compilation album and demos were both suitable for the footer. Now Amsaim is not satisfied and is telling us that the latter category is not appropriate. He is also insisting that without verifiable sources (which we have provided) that he would either remove the category or slap it with an unsourced tag. His argument is that a demo is a single work that is unreleased and this doesn't qualify. He has changed his reason for not catting it as a demo but it always comes back to his opinion that the title itself is not a valid source, which I proved was wrong, and that no verifiable source could be found to indicate that it is a demo. He is not relenting and his arguments are, in my opinion, either an attempt at ownership of the article or a way to demonstrate dominance over Koavf. So if some of the WikiProject types wouldn't mind dropping over there, reading the volumes of discussion, and weighing in it would be appreciated. I am taking a break from the page since Amsaim refuses to discuss the issue, he only wants to make his point. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Albums. I have suggested a centeralised discussion on all of the issues drawing from several different albums as examples: User talk:Jubileeclipman/Demo album. Cheers -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 11:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm opening a discussion about the refinement and clarification of notability criteria. your opinion here would be appreciated. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 00:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I am hoping to get a bit more input from other editors regarding a discussion on the Wintersun Time talk page about using an update posted on the band's official messageboard by the band's creator/songwriter. Perhaps supporting my desire to do so, according to Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." Does this allow an exception in my case?
This is just an observation, but some of the bands I follow, and whose articles I contribute to, will post updates on their actual website, either the main index page or on some "News" page, and then these updates will be reprinted almost verbatim by, for example, Blabbermouth.net. Because Wintersun's update was on a messageboard, his words have not been (and I doubt they ever will be) reprinted by a secondary source. Until he does interviews in the future, his "updates" seem to be limited to his messageboard. So, any thoughts would be fantastic so I may either go ahead and add some of the info, or drop it entirely. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 22:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Are live versions of album tracks listed as a single release in the infobox? A Momentary Lapse of Reason for instance, has a few live single releases due to the tour which followed its release, and one of them charted. What to do? Parrot of Doom 07:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello guys..Moxy here the guy that does the portals...We have made a Tip/guidelines section to help navigate Wikis vast rules!! Pls if y0u like add this to your project page if it apply to you guys here!!.. Moxy ( talk) 16:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
? | Use
common sense. Ultimately,
assume good faith on the part of others,
be bold in editing because
perfection is not required. See Wikipedia:Editing policy for more information. Before starting a new article! -
Notability is a concern that must be adhered to. See
Wikipedia:Notability (music) for more information. |
I. | Use references. This is an encyclopedia, so remember to include a ==References== section listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you used to write the article. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite_sources and Wikipedia:References for more information. |
II. | Use proper spelling and grammar. This is a very important aspect of an article. There is helpful guidelines in regards to styles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) for more information. |
III. | Use footnotes. Take advantage of the footnote ability Wikipedia has, instead of including html links inside the context include them as footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to use them. |
IV. | Write a good lead. Be sure to write a lead that concisely summarizes the entire article into one or two paragraphs, which make sense to someone who may know nothing about the subjects in question. See Wikipedia:Lead section for more information. |
V. | Stay on topic. Many articles are criticized for length; sticking to the subject matter helps eliminate this. See Wikipedia:The perfect article for more information. |
VI. | Keep it simple. Remember that the average reader should be able to comprehend the erudition. Although you should use a broad vocabulary of regular, non-technical terms, do not provide such a quantity of locutions as to impel those who aspire to derive serviceable information from the article to consult a dictionary. |
VII. | Use images if possible. Images enhance articles greatly, but only use them when they are necessary, and ensure that their copyright status has been specified and we are allowed to use it on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Images |
Per the Categories section of the Wikiproject page it states "For album articles, there are three "top-level" categories: Category:Albums by artist, Category:Albums by year and Category:Albums by genre. Each album page should be placed into two categories, Category:<Artist name> albums and Category:<year> albums, which should be sub-categories of the respective top-level category." But recently User:Koavf has been making probably over ten thousand edits over the past week, although it is hard for me to tell the number because there are have been so many, that I would characterize as overcategorization. I asked Koavf if there had been some consensus found somewhere for all of these categorizations and they stated they were being bold, which I also had a problem with one editor making this many of edits in such a short time span without any sort of consensus to back up the edits.
Koavf has been making edits such as moving Kapuso sa Pasko from categories Category:2004 albums, Category:Christmas albums and Category:Compilation albums as mentioned above to categories Category:2004 Christmas albums, Category:2004 compilation albums and Category:Christmas compilation albums. I find these adding of years to the types of albums and adding Christmas to the compliation albums to be overcategorizations that are not needed. Also for example is a category like Category:Carmen McRae live albums for two albums needed when the parent category Category:Carmen McRae albums only has five albums for a total of seven albums or a category like Category:Live Christmas albums needed for six albums. Maybe I am the only one who feels this way, but I thought I would get others' opinions of these categorizations. Aspects ( talk) 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI and FWIW, on a related note (I think), see my (archived) comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz/Archives/2010 1#Sub-categories. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with IllaZilla here, splitting these categories by year is more helpful for navigational purposes, as far as album types (studio albums, EPs, live albums, etc.) go. The only one that sticks out to me as a problem—mainly because I haven't gone too deep into this—is Category:Live Christmas albums, as that narrows down into album type and theme. To me, this would be equivalent to creating Category:Live concept albums or similar, which is not only overcategorization, but it really makes things more complicated and less accessible than they need to be. — ξ xplicit 20:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If this scheme is going to be standardized, rules need to be put in place and the statement "Each album page should be placed into two categories, Category:<Artist name> albums and Category:<year> albums" will have to be changed. However, unless it is all or none, no one is going to be consistent with putting albums in Category:<year> live albums (or other similar) just based on the number of album articles an artist has. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 22:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I support the splitting of categories into Category:Live albums by artist, Category:Compilation albums by artist, etc. I find the "too small" argument unconvincing, especially when we're supposed to create subcategories under Category:Albums by artist for recording artists and bands, even if they only ever release one album. By splitting by type of release (live, compilation, etc.), it would become easier to navigate through categories like Category:Live albums and Category:Compilation albums; the subcategories of Category:Live albums by artist, Category:Compilation albums by artist and so on, would all fall under WP:OC#SMALL, just like the subcategories of Category:Albums by artist do. — ξ xplicit 07:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I was wondering why we're not meant to use the 'Reviews' field in Infobox anymore (although most albums still do)?
On the article about the Josh Ritter album So Runs the World Away there is an empty gap (you can see it here: http://twitpic.com/1nqmhx/full), which in my opinion looks really bad, and un-wikipediay. It can be fixed by putting the reviews in the infobox (you can see that here: http://twitpic.com/1nswtn/full). But because of the consensus not to use the Reviews field of Infobox album anymore, I can't get rid of the gap.
What can I do?
JoseySmith ( talk) 23:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The big white gap appears on Internet Explorer 7, between the heading "Release and reception" and the text "The record's release was met with ..."; basically, the start of that text is horizontally aligned with the upper edge of the {{
Album ratings}}
template. The gap does not appear under Firefox 3.6.2 or Chrome, where the text begins immediately under the heading, as normal. All of these are for Windows XP, and whether the skin is Monobook or Vector makes no difference. It's worse at higher resolutions - but you've got to get the screen right down to about 640px wide before the gap becomes small enough to disappear, at which point the infobox is about the same width as the text in the lead section. One fix would be to move the "Release and reception" section down, so that other sections use up the remaining space to the left of the infobox; but that doesn't always work: try looking at
Led Zeppelin II in IE7 - the image in the "Album sleeve design" section pushes the {{
Album ratings}}
template downward, so there is a white gap between the heading "Release and reception" and text to the left of the template. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
There was a long discussion about it which you should find in the archives if you're interested, but basically it was agreed that the ratings shouldn't have such prominence in Wikipedia articles, as Wikipedia is not something like Allmusic. Its purpose is not primarily to provide a review of how good someone thinks something is, but to provide information in a more encyclopedic manner. I agree with the change. Ratings rarely tell the whole story, and it's far better to see them alongside Critical reception prose that presents the reception information in a balanced and informative manner. You're right that not all albums use the new layout yet, but they're getting converted when opportunities arise. About the gap in the article you mentioned, it's OK in FF, Opera and IE8. I do see it in IE7, but why would anyone use IE7?!! But anyway, the problem will go away once the article's developed further and there are more sections. (Try it by editing the page in IE7 and hitting Preview.) Currently there's plenty of stuff in the lead that never gets a mention in the main text. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should only summarize what the article already says. A couple more points to elaborate upon in Release and reception:
And some signs of a burgeoning Composition and recording section:
Just a couple of suggestions at a glance. There's probably a lot more that can be said apart from those if you want to develop the article more fully. PL290 ( talk) 15:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for replying. I will have a look at developing the article. JoseySmith ( talk) 23:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
At the top of Archive 33 there are link to the first (#1), the previous (#32), and the last (currently #36), but the link to the next (#34) is missing. Same issue for all other archives since #30. It's quite annoying for archive browsing. Does someone know how to fix this? – Ib Leo (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Is Allmusic really a reliable source for genre identification? From my experience, Allmusic slaps up to a half a dozen genres (or "styles", they call them) onto any album, essentially blanketing the album in every possible genre it may touch. If an Allmusic review specifically mentions a genre and even delves into why the album is that genre, then I'm game. I'm just curious what others have to say about the sidebar info. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 21:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Allmusic's categorization (specifically, jazz sub-genres) has been mirrored to some extent here at Wikipedia. (Funny you brought it up as I had just mentioned this to someone else the other day.) I haven't seen some of these genres mentioned anywhere else outside of Allmusic (well, and now Wikipedia) - e.g. see these comments, or these. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
In the assessment grid for the project there are currently more than 800 album articles classified as "Other" in the Class column. I browsed through a selection of these in a cursory fashion, and most of the ones I looked at have received legitimate Class assessments such as Stub, Start, etc. I can find no spelling or formatting errors in the respective talk page Album Project boxes that might throw off the bots. So many, if not most, of these 800+ articles should appear with their proper class numbers elsewhere in the grid. Does anyone know why this is happening? DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 02:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Albums}}
template on that album's talk page. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Degree of update. Hope that's the right place... -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
This is extremely silly that I'm even here, but to humour the belligerents, why not? I have two users currently trying to tell me that the Pink Floyd studio albums More, and Obscured By Clouds, are not studio albums, because they're soundtracks. Both of them complete albums, of course; both of them recorded in the studio completely by Pink Floyd. And, as I have said, using that twisted logic, then The Wall is not a studio album, as it is a soundtrack. Of course The Wall is a studio album, just as More, and Obscured By Clouds are. But for some strange reason, these two feel that 2 of their studio albums that are also soundtracks are, somehow not studio albums, whilst another studio album, which is also a soundtrack, is a studio album. Anyone? Mk5384 ( talk) 20:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
A studio album is an album made up of tracks recorded in the controlled environment of a recording studio, as opposed to a live recording made at a performance venue or a compilation or reissue album of previously recorded material.
I'm not disputing that. Are you saying that "soundtrack" and "studio album" are mutually exclusive categories? IMO, they are not. -- TorriTorri( talk/ contribs) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Years ago, when I was one of the many "regulars" watching and helping maintain Pink Floyd articles, we thoroughly discussed this issue and developed a policy about the soundtracks. We decided that most artists had their soundtrack work separated out because it did not fit in musically or thematically with their other work, or was difficult, if not impossible, to insert it into a chronology because of the gap between recording and release dates, which are often years apart. Also, some artists' soundtracks are released on other labels from their studio albums, and it becomes difficult to determine the order that albums were released. I have frequently cited Tangerine Dream as an example of this problem; they released soundtracks as frequently as they released normal studio albums, but on many different labels, usually with undocumented recording dates, and the appearance of older line-ups of the group suggested some were actually recorded years before release. We felt that no such problems existed with Pink Floyd's soundtracks, and the fact that there were only two albums to deal with, led to a decision that there was no need to separate them. We also felt that such a separation would create an unhelpful interruption in the chronology chain. This decision was made at a time when I believe the current participants in this discussion were not among the "regulars" watching Pink Floyd articles. So Parrot of Doom is incorrect when he says that "nobody really questioned" this before. It was reviewed quite thoroughly, but that was before his time. I do realize that what we decided back then, can be superceded by what has been discussed since. But here is the policy we used to have, for what it's worth. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 14:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
What a ridiculous argument. The distinction between "studio albums" and "soundtracks" is arbitrary and unhelpful. Echoes was conceived as a soundtrack, and indeed later used as one. The Final Cut began as a soundtrack, but emerged as a "studio" album. Both of the albums under discussion feature long-standing live favourites; yet have significant differences to the music used on the film soundtracks. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
So, can we perhaps clarify how this project identifies a studio album? Is there an industry-wide specification that would help? Do we classify albums based on time spent in a studio? I've had a look around and unfortunately I have not yet been able to find any sources which might improve Studio album, which is probably what we want to do. Parrot of Doom 08:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be quite a matter of personal opinion. Just thinking of a few other artists with complete conceptual "soundtrack albums", I was quite suprised that in The Beatles discography, Magical Mystery Tour is included in their studio albums chronology, yet Prince's Purple Rain is not in his. To my view, the particular Pink Floyd albums in discussion here should be included in the studio album discography as this is how I've always thought of them - an overall concept, and on the whole no different to any other studio album - but my reasoning for this is loose and I can see that other people may have different ideas on this. Another example: I believe The Monkees' Head is where it should be. Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)