![]() | 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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
I have seen multiple times where "Promotional Singles" were released for the album but editors have not allowed in the infobox. Is there anything that says promo singles are not included in the infobox and Im talking about promo singles where the song was featured on the album as well. For example for Relapse (album) three "official singles" were released " 3 AM", " We Made You" and " Beautiful. " Crack A Bottle" and " Old Time's Sake" are "promo singles". STAT -Verse 20:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Some user moved The 18th Letter to The 18th Letter/The Book of Life, which is wrong as the Book of LIfe album was included on the original 18th Letter's rerelease. How can I undo this move? Dan56 ( talk) 19:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
{{db-move|1=The 18th Letter/The Book of Life|2=REASON FOR MOVE}}
, replacing "REASON FOR MOVE
" with a brief explanation of why the article needs to be moved back to the original title. An admin will delete the redirect and either move the article for you, or once the redirect is deleted you may
move it back to the previous title yourself. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
19:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)I am looking for editors to help make a consensus on review-related edits I made for the No Line on the Horizon article. I argued that two reviews are more notable/professional than another two, but a more notable issue is with a review by the Herald Sun, which according to wikipedia is a tabloid publication. From other experiences on album articles, I see editors removing tabloid publications' reviews and commenting that such publications shouldnt be used as reviews. Anyone interested in adding to a consensus for this?, the discussion is here. Dan56 ( talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed on the talk page of Ayumi Hamasaki's H (EP) that the article should be moved to "H (single)". There is no song titled "H" on the CD, but her company ( Avex Group) categorizes the CD as a "single". Is it a single?-- ACSE ( talk) 09:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything in WP:Albums policy about adding an extra chronology for collective/group work in an article on a solo album of a group member, sort of like all those Wu-Tang album articles? I am thinking of making one for Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty, the solo album of Big Boi from OutKast. Dan56 ( talk) 21:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we should add Rock Hard (magazine) and Lords of Metal to the review list. -- Spada 2 ♪♫ ( talk) 11:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Can the Rolling Stone review for this album be added to the reception section and rev template ( edit history) if its link is dead? With the Metacritic link (which shows its score and criticism) used instead in the citation for the review? Dan56 ( talk) 14:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Should tabloid publications such as People (magazine) and Us Weekly be incorporated as reviewers for an album article? Dan56 ( talk) 01:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. If you can spare a few minutes your opinion would be appreciated at: Wikiproject/Discographies#Do music videos and other charted songs belong. -- Lil-unique1 ( talk) 01:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:ELYES, "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the 'Links normally to be avoided' criteria apply." Would that make it acceptable for a link containing a free and legal stream of an album to be included as part of an album article's EL section? Fezmar9 ( talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Continuing the question two sections before, this Q&A interview with producer Russell Elevado be used on the article " The Root" to support information only regarding Elevado and the techniques he discussed about producing the song "The Root"? Dan56 ( talk) 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok here's the main problem. Natasha Bedingfield released her debut album Unwritten worldwide. Then in the UK she released N.B. (2007) as her second album. However in the U.S. she released Pocketful of Sunshine (2009) which contained some of the songs from N.B. but also new songs and was packed completely differently as well as being named different. Her next release is called 'Strip Me' and according to three reputable sources including 2 from her record labels 'Strip Me' is her third studio release even though three albums have already been released. Those sources are: NY:prnewswire from Epic Records, artist's official website and Press International (mini press release).
On wiki currently it says:
My opinion is that the two albums (N.B. and Pocket of sunshine) should be merged into one page because they are effectively ONE studio release according to her official website, record label and media. The page could be named:
What do people think? -- Lil-unique1 ( talk) 22:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
"With" is a preposition; should this be included in the list of words to not capitalize? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 14:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
An RfC has been raised concerning the use of italics in article titles (i.e., rendering the main title in italics on the Wikipedia page). A guideline currently restricts the use of this feature to "special cases", but there is now a suggestion that it could be more widely used, wherever appropriate to the article's title. Opinions are invited at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. PL290 ( talk) 07:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I nominated His Band and the Street Choir as a Featured Article candidate about a week ago and has received little interest in terms of reviews. If anyone would like to review the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/His Band and the Street Choir/archive3 it'd been a great help. Thanks Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
When should the "language" parameter be used in {{ Infobox film}}? The documentation isn't clear, but I would have thought it was relevant for any album that isn't wholly in English. I added the line to the infobox at Hurricane Venus, but it's been removed several times by another editor on the basis that the information is already in the lead (which doesn't make sense to me). Since I don't often edit album articles, some input from other users would be welcome. PC78 ( talk) 17:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm intending on starting an article for the concert film 7 by Supersilent. As the material is entirely improvised I don't feel that the standard concert film format + infobox would be appropriate.
My options:
Whatever the album articles are formatted as, I believe the discography and chronology should treat all their releases identically.
I'm currently favouring the "other" option but I didn't want to begin before asking here.
Anybody else have any feelings about this or any other options?
RWyn ( talk) 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand that this site's article was deleted b/c of lack of notability, but user Jrod2 has been removing it as a citation for the article The Root, and in his edit summary, he assumes that the deletion of the article suggests that it shouldnt be used as a source. In this case, the source is a forum of the song's (article) producer discussing his production of the song ( link), and therefore its valuable to the article. I've seen blogspot, forums and twitter account of artists/musicians used as references on album/song articles before, so this doesnt seem different. Other sites such as RapReviews and HipHopDX have had their articles deleted on wikipedia, but are still used as sources for music articles, with the former noted by Metacritic as a professional review site. Does the article Gearslutz's deletion warrant its deletion as a source? Dan56 ( talk) 13:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
What if its used just to support information regarding Elevado and the techniques he discussed about producing the song? Dan56 ( talk) 14:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Dont get your panties in a bunc, aint nobody gonna respond to this section. As u can see, I posted this question a while ago and the only user that initially responded has not been around to respond to the second question. But jeez, "misguided use"? The article The Root passed B-class assessment with the source your questioning, so I'm gonna feel the need to be sure about its reliability. Dan56 ( talk) 22:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
U were misguided in reading the last comment, the user has not been available to answer the second question (highlighted that for u). Now I dont see how your opening statement is relevant or productive to this matter either. As for the assessment, its available at the article's talk page, as any assessment for an article can be found at. The specific assessment edit is here. But regardless, I'm just trying to get an answer for this question, since the information that can be supported by the source is notable to the article, and whether WP "need all that" if it doesnt "exist" in a "major" site or "reputable" publication is disputable. What u cited at my talk page (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) may support my argument, as it says unless written by the subject of the biographical material. The material is biographical as it, by definition, relates to the facts or events in a person's life. Elevado wrote the blog piece and the content of his work on the album is biographical, as his working on the album was an event/fact of his life. And thats what I wanted to be clear about with User:JD554. Unfortunately, he hasnt be around Wikipedia since last responding the first question in this section. Dan56 ( talk) 23:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi dan, my name is Greg and I'm a senior in HS doing a paper on recording and some of my favorite albums. Russell is one of my favorite recorders and that's why I'm here. In doing my paper in summer school over the last few weeksl, the links that you put into russelles recording techniques kept disappearing and then they were there and then gone again. I thought I was going insane lol. My teacher then showed my the history of edits and that's how I found this. There's a whole world of activity behind the scenes lol. I clicked on your user name to ask you what was going on and that's how I found you here. Out of curiosity I clicked on joes name and looked at his history and there's a lot of activity around the gearslutz links. So I kept clicking and there is more to the story. If you look At his history, he's in a jihad against gearslutz. I don't know how to do the wiki links but if you look down his history you can see. He was in a debate with chase and then told him he was banned 3 times from the site. Then he threatened the owner in one post so you have to hit the history button to see that. He is not a good wiki editor from what I've read. I'm going to write wiki to show them. My teacher also read what I found and is going to write them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.217 ( talk) 02:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
He may get a little personal at times, but he seems to have good faith with the guidelines. I am not concerned though with him, but the source and the article, and if u would like to help with this matter, u can contact some established editors about this. I'd appreciate it. Thanks Dan56 ( talk) 02:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
My response to Jrod2's previous comment: youre right, I dont get "it", and I'm not confident about u gettin it either. Which is why I came to this talk page. Now I dont think this decision has too be rushed, I mean its not there's no tomorrow. Other opinions/interpretations of the guidelines from users cant hurt. As for the piece u offered about what the "exception" implies about excluding material written on ebooks or personal sites, WP:BLP states "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites" and lists some rules, which may be interpretated differently. Now since u and I are the only ones contributing to this discussion, I'd say its not too efficient to just leave it like this. Dan56 ( talk) 02:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi dan, thanks for responding. I like your contributions to wiki and I think they are useful. Joe is not useful and he has a beef with gearslutz, so ignore him. The history thing is very enlightening, you can see all of the behind the scenes stuff. I had a different impression of wiki until my teacher showed me what goes on behind the pages. Now I don't trust it because of people like Joe. Sad. Keep writing good stuff so I can learn, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.217 ( talk) 03:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
What's the view of albums project contributors on the types of sources needed to satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY for album track info? I know that independent sources are ordinarily deemed most reliable, but my sense is that there's little reason, as a general matter, to doubt the accuracy of liner notes as to things like track names, lengths, songwriters, etc. I wandered over here to ask b/c a stub I submitted for creation (on Maria Rita's Samba Meu) got flagged as needing more independent sources -- and I'm not at all clear where to look for an independent (much less more reliable than the liner notes) source of that kind of data. I'm wondering whether WP:BURO and WP:IAR are relevant here... Thoughts/suggestions? Many thanks!!! 67.127.53.126 ( talk) 01:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
{{ Promo singles}} is a relatively recent fork of {{ Singles}}, and is being used in the infobox for a handfull of albums. Is this something that should be included in the infobox, or should the infobox be reserved for proper singles only? I was considering taking this template to WP:TfD, but I wanted to get a second opinion here first. PC78 ( talk) 11:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a discussion/consensus relating to hip hop regional/sub-genres in the infobox? There are frequent edits to hip hop album articles involving changes to genre(s). Dan56 ( talk) 17:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see here Since there are no peer review volunteers who claim to specialize in album or pop music articles, I would like to request that someone(s) from WP:ALBUM take a look at this article and see if there are suggestions on how to improve it for FA status. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I am having some opposition at this discussion, and apparantely one of them has threatened me w/blocking for the recent edits I made to Voodoo (D'Angelo album) and The Root concerning a video interview source and the Gearslutz source (only for Elevado's info on his own individual work). User:Jrod2 said "U cant use what Elevado said about Hunter at gearslutz or any other place period. It makes no difference if ya find another source; ya just cant add that type of content regarding LP". I would really appreciate some help. Dan56 ( talk) 23:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a TfD discussion regarding merging {{ Infobox song}} and {{ Infobox single}}. Members of this project may wish to contribute to the discussion, which can be found here. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 16:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The wikipedia entry for this self released CD-R got me very interested, particularly as it contains 3 otherwise unavailable tracks by NEU! I would very much like to get hold of this somehow, does anyone know how to get it, or how to contact Eberhard Kranemann?
thanks, slim tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimtimslide ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a discussion or policy about including hip hop regional/sub-genres (like hardcore, underground, West Coast) in the infobox? Dan56 ( talk) 21:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
[[Hip hop music|Hip hop]]
rather than [[East Coast hip hop]]
)." But the album infobox gives no such instruction. Subgenres should be fine as long as they're discussed somewhere in the article's text, where they should be supported by references. As usual, the infobox should reflect the article's contents, which in turn should reflect its sources. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
22:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)The singles part of the album infobox doesnt appear. Dan56 ( talk) 18:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Done, give it a whirl. --
Gyrofrog
(talk)
20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me or has {{ Singles}} disappeared from infoboxes? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
For anyone interested in how standard album categories don't always work, see the minor edit squabble over the album infobox and TYPE field at Headlines (mini album). I suspect that the disambig in the article title is also incorrect. After this album appeared several times at Album articles with non-standard infoboxes I changed the TYPE to "ep" (more than once) and someone else tried "studio." Both make a certain amount of sense to me, but the main editor behind the article says it's neither of those, based on non-crucial things said by the band and their record company. Check it out. There is an associated discussion here. -- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 19:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
|type=studio
still technically correct, and the best fit? "Mini-album" strikes me a bit like the Greek "Maxi-single" thing that's been discussed here before; a regional term that doesn't have widespread use or recognition as a termk or format. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
21:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Illa, please consider chipping in at the album article talk page. What you've said would probably make a difference over there. -- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 21:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Since the OCC compile the charts it makes sense for wikipedia to follow the industry rules rather than make up their own classification for individual releases because people like pretty maintaintance categories etc. The whole issue needs to be looked at again from scracth because wiki is way off the mark here. I've only just realised that many singles sold on iTunes are classfied as EPs because they often include more than 3 components. Those are classfied as EPs but fall under chart rules as a maxi single (EPs don't exist in the OCC guidelines). Maxi singles (as the name suggests) can only chart on single charts. However it is well known that artists like Usher have released EPs but they're are in fact minature albums. E.g. Versus (Usher EP) exceeds the limitations of a single release and is therefore classified as an album yet we're naming it EP and calling it EP because that's what critics etc. have said. It is factually incorrect. An EP cannot be both a single and an album like wikipedia allows. We need to investigate other chart compilers and clearly define whether an EP is a single release format or an album format. I suspect the latter. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Allow me to jump in with my opinion here (better late than never). I can't help siding with Doomsdayer520 and IllaZilla and I am definitely against the usage of the term "mini album" in the infobox (incl. a new value to support it). One thing is that the band calls it a mini-album (probably to cover up that the record company pushed them to release something this year, or whatever, but this is irrelevant for this discussion). This can be mentioned in the article text, no problem. However, in my opinion it does not change the fact that "studio" should be used in the infobox: It is recorded in a record studio, it is more than 25 minutes long (so it's not an EP) and it charted on the UK album charts. Besides, it does not fit the description of the Mini-LP which specifically refers to the vinyl format. If we create a new value for mini-album, then for consistency we should do the same for double album. All the arguments that have been put forward above for mini-album also holds for double album. Hell no. As they say, size doesnt' matter ;-) – Ib Leo (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently, I've been debating the content of a "background" section in an album article. The way I see it, there's two ways to interpret it, 1) the events before the album's release, or 2) the events before the album began production. For me, the second definition makes the most sense, because an album does not have to be released or completed to exist. What happened during production is part of the album's existence; what triggered its creation is its background. However, there have been some logical arguments against this, so I was wondering what the wider community thinks.
Also, the use of "conception" in some articles really bugs me. I interpret "conception" as how/when/why the album was conceived, but most conception sections have no such information. Rather they discus "background" information or production information. See the good articles, Curtis (50 Cent album) and Discipline (Janet Jackson album). I cannot see any "conception" information in either article, and the word does not even properly summarize the section's content. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Any opinions as to whether this article is at the correct page? Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
What purpose beyond navigational do succession boxes for albums reaching number one in various countries serve such as in the article for Recovery? The table listing chart positions already provides the same information, so this is just repeating that it reached number one. The "Reception" section provides more in depth info regarding the album's chart success, so it seems redundant and unnecessary to have a series of succession boxes that seem only to provide links to entirely unrelated articles on other albums. For those truly interested in the succession of number ones for a particular country or chart, they can be found in Category:Lists of number one albums. If they're going to exist for the sole purpose of navigation between albums, shouldn't the boxes be placed at the bottom of an article per WP:FOOTERS where navboxes are supposed to be. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 18:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This has been discussed in earnest a few different times here on this same discussion page. See Archives 33 and 35 in the navigation box above. The succession boxes were developed through a lot of work at some point back in the past, and even though opinions on their usefulness have changed, it looks like recent discussions concluded with a consensus of "don't bother, they're not really hurting anything by being there." A classic case of institutional inertia, as it were. -- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 23:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
please comment about the album's title at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Kelly Rowland (album) was confirmed but now untitled. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Music album articles on Wikipedia have an inherent problem. For instance, Ahmad Jamal's "But Not For Me" album was first released on an LP in 1958 on Argo records, but the Wikipedia page says “Released 1995” and “Label: Affinity”.
Presumably the article information refers to a CD reissue of the LP, but it never makes this clear. In this case it’s not hard to figure out, but in a lot of other album articles, it could be extremely misleading.
I think Wikipedia needs to reconsider its template for listing things like this. I suggest having both “LP Released” and “CD Reissue” information fields, with a date field and label for each.
216.73.206.180 ( talk) 23:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC) John Payne 30 September 2010
On the Relapse (Eminem album) article, an editor has tried to cite the lyrics of the song "Not Afraid" that convey Eminem's criticism of one of his albums. Since citing a lyrics website isnt reliable, is there a proper way of citing a song? Dan56 ( talk) 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There has been a problem with referencing the Tube Bar prank calls albums. The best I could find from my limited understanding was listings & some reviews at BillBoard which is certainly a third party and a non-bias site. The issue is most of the albums are only the listing which proves that they exsist and but does that qualify for "notable"? Can these be used for some of the albums so they won't be delated?
Thank you kindly, ( Tyros1972 ( talk) 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)).
The article Asylum (Disturbed album) has seen constant edits to the release date in the infobox. Many anonymous and beginning users change the release date to August 31, the American release date, versus August 27, the earliest release date. Can I get some help either protecting this page or help explaining it on the talk page? BOVINEBOY 2008 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor added uncredited artists to the featured artist/note column in the track listing for Before I Self Destruct, claiming that "Doesn't matter if they say they're featured or not. listen to the song, or read the credit booklet. They're listed there, just not written as "FEATURED." It's called being uncredited". Is this valid? Dan56 ( talk) 16:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to draw some attention to this problem. There've been quite a few issues lately with date changes to release and recording dates on a variety of albums, particularly singles. Some of these have persisted for quite a while, in some cases over a year. It's unclear if this is the work of only a few, or a widespread problem. See for example Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190fordhouse. Those edits combined are well over 500 or so edits, many of them changing (in this case adding) specific dates that are likely inaccurate.
I don't know what the solution is, but one idea is to only specify album dates to the year, unless they're sourced. This would help cut down on this sort of vandalism, and also help sort out helpful editors. Right now I don't personally trust the dates found on these articles unless there's another source verifying it. Shadowjams ( talk) 19:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've edited several Dancemania-related ariticles. Dancemania is a compilation series, originally from Japan, and has released its albums with entirely English titles, as we can see here (official). Its album titles are usually stylized like Dancemania XYZ not Dancemania Xyz (or DANCEMANIA XYZ), like the famous WOW series (i.e. it's an intentional thing like Da REAList, BlaQKout and "C" Is for (Please Insert Sophomoric Genitalia Reference HERE), not a case of random capitalization that WP:MOSJP mentions).
Now, Dancemania and Dancemania Speed (I originally created this as SPEED) articles are available, and I'm going to create a new article, Dancemania CLASSICS, and another new article about Super Eurobeat's sub-series. So what I would like to know is, which way is proper, or more proper? - Thanks. The Wifechaser ( talk) 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
A source has been disputed on the Dangerously in Love article concerning the phrase "records" and whether it refers to the album or whatever else it could have sold, such as singles. The statement goes: "Beyonce toured for the first time as a solo artist in 2003 in support of "Dangerously In Love," which has sold more than 11 million records worldwide." To me, the statement signifies copies/units with the term "records" (why would a press release complicate matters by using "records" in the context of singles as well), but the other interpretation is understandable. Dan56 ( talk) 14:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Since About.com's reliability as a source has been disputed before, I thought I should ask whether or not its reviews are professional to be included in an album article. For the I Am... Sasha Fierce, an editor claimed that "About.com IS a professional website, it is accepted for reviews since it is published by the New York Times" [1], but the article on Wikipedia on About.com says that its owned by the Times Company. Is it a professional review site? Dan56 ( talk) 06:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I created the page on the Souls of Mischief's album 'Montezuma's Revenge' last year, which I bought. I listed the production credits on the page by simply reading them off the inlay. I was then asked to cite a source. Well the source is the actual cd itself and the case/inlay. How do I cite this? Thanks.
I apologize if this is the wrong forum to ask this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeokq ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 September 2010
The article A Fleeting Glance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
15:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The article Flogging the Horses has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
16:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I have created articles for the singer-songwriter Nadia Ali. Could anyone please review the articles Nadia Ali Discography, Embers, Crash and Burn, Love Story, Fine Print and Fantasy and suggest any improvements I could make to them. Thanks! Hassan514 ( talk) 02:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just having a small problem with working out which chart is which. Is this a record of the UK Classical Chart or the Billboard Classical Albums Chart? I think the latter, but I wasn't certain. J Milburn ( talk) 15:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Are holiday albums considered to be studio albums? In popular culture, holiday albums are usually just referred to as a holiday album, not a studio album. Labels and artists themselves do not acknowledge them as a studio albums. For example, if Mariah Carey's Merry Christmas counted, it would be considered Carey's fourth studio album and the rest of her albums would need to be pushed back — Daydream would be her fifth instead of fourth and so on. In a more curious case, Hilary Duff released a holiday album called Santa Clause Lane in 2002. It wasn't until 2003 that her actual studio album Metamorphosis was released. Which album would be considered Duff's debut studio album? If they are not considered studio albums then holiday albums should have their own type field on the infobox, similar to how soundtracks, extended plays, and live albums have a different characteristics to set them apart. If the former is applied, in discographies, they should be separated into their own section and have their own link in the infobox. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
As with the previous times this has been proposed, I oppose creating a "holiday" type for the infobox. The infobox types refer to how an album was put together (recorded live or in a studio, or compiled from other releases or various artists, or compiled from a film soundtrack, etc.), not why (for the holidays, or as a joke, or as a stopgap release, or to promote something specific like a brand or TV show). It's the same reason we don't have types for "covers album", "side project album", "themed album" or anything like that. Yes holiday albums have a theme and a rather spedific market, and artists/labels don't typically consider them part of the artist's "canon", but that doesn't make them any less of a studio album or live album. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 03:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not up for the addition of holiday albums in the studio albums section. I can't say why because something about a holiday album to me, doesn't count as a studio album. But that is just how I see it. EnDaLeCoMpLeX ( talk) 15:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has digressed a little, it would be good if Ipodnano could respond and say what he/she thinks of what's been said... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There is currently discussion on whether or not to use the tilde/hyphen/etc. as found in titles of Japanese media as it appears in the Japanese media rather than modifying it into another punctuation format on the English Wikipedia. As articles in this WikiProject's purview may be affected, users here are requested to contribute to the discussion here.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Should promotional singles be included in the Singles template of the infobox ? Dan56 ( talk) 21:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Following a long-running RfC to decide which article titles should be displayed in italics,
the policy was recently amended to the effect that it should now be done wherever italics would be used in running text. Album articles are one example. I suggest the simplest way to implement this is to do what the Comics project did, and place the {{
italictitle}} template in the infobox. The line they added to {{
Infobox comic book title}} (before it got taken away while the RfC ran) was: {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{italictitle}}}}
. Assuming that is the correct code, can someone with admin rights add it to {{
Infobox album}}, which is currently fully protected.
PL290 (
talk)
17:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Done (as soon as the {{
Edit protected}} request on the template's talk page is actioned). To disable italics, specify
Italic title=no
(template doc has been updated to this effect).
PL290 (
talk)
16:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've recently listed a few albums at WP:RM if anyone is interested, specifically:
Some of these involve multiple moves, so some input from editors more familiar with album naming conventions than I would be welcomed. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 11:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
What's up with the album cover size? I don't like the new size, it's too big. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This is my first attempt at an album article and I'm sure this question gets asked quite often. I have downloaded the CD cover and need to link it to my existing page on the user talk section. Please advise. Thanks. Kenwaditty ( talk) 02:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Can someone review the article From Brush and Stone and let me know if it is good to submit? Also, what is the process to submit from a User talk location? Thanks. Kenwaditty ( talk) 18:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it necessary to add redirect links in the infobox for albums? Many articles use the (see release history) wikilink. To me, it is disruptive and makes a reader go directly to the bottom of an article, which doesnot appear feasible to me. We should let them go through the article and then reach such trivial sections as release history and charts. Wat are other's thoughts? — Legolas (talk2me) 11:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I sometimes encounter this situation (where editors have placed subsection links within the infobox). Usually it takes one of 2 forms:
genre = [[#Musical style|disputed]]
or genre = [[#Musical style|See below]]
released = see [[#Release history|release history]]
I almost unilaterally remove these, for a couple of reasons:
For these reasons I believe we should discourage subsection linking from within the infobox. It's redundant to the ToC, and it does not serve the infobox's purpose of summarizing basic information about a topic. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 18:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
released = see [[#Release history|release history]]
as now with the advent of 'Radio ONLY singles' I use released = see [[#Radio adds|radio adds]]
to differentiate these from the 'historical singles' that have a different sales date from being an album track. Oops, sorry this is Albums project, but this thought came to mind.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)"WikiProject Albums/Archive 38" | |
---|---|
Song |
(→)Guys, you are veering off the discussion at hand. This is not about what should be present as teh redirect link in the infobox, this is about how the redirect links are redundant, seeing that a TOC already exists. So please veer the discussion towards that. Radio add dates can be discussed at WT:CHARTS. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
In the example of " Say Aah", IMO it is important to have '(see radio adds)' in the infobox to alert readers to the fact that there is not a release history section at all.— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a redirect link is redundant but useful so the reader can tell 'what named section' to look to; such as released = see [[#Release history|release history]]
or released = see [[#Radio adds|radio adds]]
. There is no rule against redundancy is there? If so, some material is repeated over and over again within many articles. Why is it so bad to have just a few words there in the infobox?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
21:07, 24 September 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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
I have seen multiple times where "Promotional Singles" were released for the album but editors have not allowed in the infobox. Is there anything that says promo singles are not included in the infobox and Im talking about promo singles where the song was featured on the album as well. For example for Relapse (album) three "official singles" were released " 3 AM", " We Made You" and " Beautiful. " Crack A Bottle" and " Old Time's Sake" are "promo singles". STAT -Verse 20:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Some user moved The 18th Letter to The 18th Letter/The Book of Life, which is wrong as the Book of LIfe album was included on the original 18th Letter's rerelease. How can I undo this move? Dan56 ( talk) 19:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
{{db-move|1=The 18th Letter/The Book of Life|2=REASON FOR MOVE}}
, replacing "REASON FOR MOVE
" with a brief explanation of why the article needs to be moved back to the original title. An admin will delete the redirect and either move the article for you, or once the redirect is deleted you may
move it back to the previous title yourself. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
19:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)I am looking for editors to help make a consensus on review-related edits I made for the No Line on the Horizon article. I argued that two reviews are more notable/professional than another two, but a more notable issue is with a review by the Herald Sun, which according to wikipedia is a tabloid publication. From other experiences on album articles, I see editors removing tabloid publications' reviews and commenting that such publications shouldnt be used as reviews. Anyone interested in adding to a consensus for this?, the discussion is here. Dan56 ( talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed on the talk page of Ayumi Hamasaki's H (EP) that the article should be moved to "H (single)". There is no song titled "H" on the CD, but her company ( Avex Group) categorizes the CD as a "single". Is it a single?-- ACSE ( talk) 09:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything in WP:Albums policy about adding an extra chronology for collective/group work in an article on a solo album of a group member, sort of like all those Wu-Tang album articles? I am thinking of making one for Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty, the solo album of Big Boi from OutKast. Dan56 ( talk) 21:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we should add Rock Hard (magazine) and Lords of Metal to the review list. -- Spada 2 ♪♫ ( talk) 11:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Can the Rolling Stone review for this album be added to the reception section and rev template ( edit history) if its link is dead? With the Metacritic link (which shows its score and criticism) used instead in the citation for the review? Dan56 ( talk) 14:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Should tabloid publications such as People (magazine) and Us Weekly be incorporated as reviewers for an album article? Dan56 ( talk) 01:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. If you can spare a few minutes your opinion would be appreciated at: Wikiproject/Discographies#Do music videos and other charted songs belong. -- Lil-unique1 ( talk) 01:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:ELYES, "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the 'Links normally to be avoided' criteria apply." Would that make it acceptable for a link containing a free and legal stream of an album to be included as part of an album article's EL section? Fezmar9 ( talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Continuing the question two sections before, this Q&A interview with producer Russell Elevado be used on the article " The Root" to support information only regarding Elevado and the techniques he discussed about producing the song "The Root"? Dan56 ( talk) 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok here's the main problem. Natasha Bedingfield released her debut album Unwritten worldwide. Then in the UK she released N.B. (2007) as her second album. However in the U.S. she released Pocketful of Sunshine (2009) which contained some of the songs from N.B. but also new songs and was packed completely differently as well as being named different. Her next release is called 'Strip Me' and according to three reputable sources including 2 from her record labels 'Strip Me' is her third studio release even though three albums have already been released. Those sources are: NY:prnewswire from Epic Records, artist's official website and Press International (mini press release).
On wiki currently it says:
My opinion is that the two albums (N.B. and Pocket of sunshine) should be merged into one page because they are effectively ONE studio release according to her official website, record label and media. The page could be named:
What do people think? -- Lil-unique1 ( talk) 22:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
"With" is a preposition; should this be included in the list of words to not capitalize? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 14:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
An RfC has been raised concerning the use of italics in article titles (i.e., rendering the main title in italics on the Wikipedia page). A guideline currently restricts the use of this feature to "special cases", but there is now a suggestion that it could be more widely used, wherever appropriate to the article's title. Opinions are invited at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. PL290 ( talk) 07:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I nominated His Band and the Street Choir as a Featured Article candidate about a week ago and has received little interest in terms of reviews. If anyone would like to review the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/His Band and the Street Choir/archive3 it'd been a great help. Thanks Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
When should the "language" parameter be used in {{ Infobox film}}? The documentation isn't clear, but I would have thought it was relevant for any album that isn't wholly in English. I added the line to the infobox at Hurricane Venus, but it's been removed several times by another editor on the basis that the information is already in the lead (which doesn't make sense to me). Since I don't often edit album articles, some input from other users would be welcome. PC78 ( talk) 17:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm intending on starting an article for the concert film 7 by Supersilent. As the material is entirely improvised I don't feel that the standard concert film format + infobox would be appropriate.
My options:
Whatever the album articles are formatted as, I believe the discography and chronology should treat all their releases identically.
I'm currently favouring the "other" option but I didn't want to begin before asking here.
Anybody else have any feelings about this or any other options?
RWyn ( talk) 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand that this site's article was deleted b/c of lack of notability, but user Jrod2 has been removing it as a citation for the article The Root, and in his edit summary, he assumes that the deletion of the article suggests that it shouldnt be used as a source. In this case, the source is a forum of the song's (article) producer discussing his production of the song ( link), and therefore its valuable to the article. I've seen blogspot, forums and twitter account of artists/musicians used as references on album/song articles before, so this doesnt seem different. Other sites such as RapReviews and HipHopDX have had their articles deleted on wikipedia, but are still used as sources for music articles, with the former noted by Metacritic as a professional review site. Does the article Gearslutz's deletion warrant its deletion as a source? Dan56 ( talk) 13:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
What if its used just to support information regarding Elevado and the techniques he discussed about producing the song? Dan56 ( talk) 14:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Dont get your panties in a bunc, aint nobody gonna respond to this section. As u can see, I posted this question a while ago and the only user that initially responded has not been around to respond to the second question. But jeez, "misguided use"? The article The Root passed B-class assessment with the source your questioning, so I'm gonna feel the need to be sure about its reliability. Dan56 ( talk) 22:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
U were misguided in reading the last comment, the user has not been available to answer the second question (highlighted that for u). Now I dont see how your opening statement is relevant or productive to this matter either. As for the assessment, its available at the article's talk page, as any assessment for an article can be found at. The specific assessment edit is here. But regardless, I'm just trying to get an answer for this question, since the information that can be supported by the source is notable to the article, and whether WP "need all that" if it doesnt "exist" in a "major" site or "reputable" publication is disputable. What u cited at my talk page (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) may support my argument, as it says unless written by the subject of the biographical material. The material is biographical as it, by definition, relates to the facts or events in a person's life. Elevado wrote the blog piece and the content of his work on the album is biographical, as his working on the album was an event/fact of his life. And thats what I wanted to be clear about with User:JD554. Unfortunately, he hasnt be around Wikipedia since last responding the first question in this section. Dan56 ( talk) 23:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi dan, my name is Greg and I'm a senior in HS doing a paper on recording and some of my favorite albums. Russell is one of my favorite recorders and that's why I'm here. In doing my paper in summer school over the last few weeksl, the links that you put into russelles recording techniques kept disappearing and then they were there and then gone again. I thought I was going insane lol. My teacher then showed my the history of edits and that's how I found this. There's a whole world of activity behind the scenes lol. I clicked on your user name to ask you what was going on and that's how I found you here. Out of curiosity I clicked on joes name and looked at his history and there's a lot of activity around the gearslutz links. So I kept clicking and there is more to the story. If you look At his history, he's in a jihad against gearslutz. I don't know how to do the wiki links but if you look down his history you can see. He was in a debate with chase and then told him he was banned 3 times from the site. Then he threatened the owner in one post so you have to hit the history button to see that. He is not a good wiki editor from what I've read. I'm going to write wiki to show them. My teacher also read what I found and is going to write them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.217 ( talk) 02:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
He may get a little personal at times, but he seems to have good faith with the guidelines. I am not concerned though with him, but the source and the article, and if u would like to help with this matter, u can contact some established editors about this. I'd appreciate it. Thanks Dan56 ( talk) 02:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
My response to Jrod2's previous comment: youre right, I dont get "it", and I'm not confident about u gettin it either. Which is why I came to this talk page. Now I dont think this decision has too be rushed, I mean its not there's no tomorrow. Other opinions/interpretations of the guidelines from users cant hurt. As for the piece u offered about what the "exception" implies about excluding material written on ebooks or personal sites, WP:BLP states "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites" and lists some rules, which may be interpretated differently. Now since u and I are the only ones contributing to this discussion, I'd say its not too efficient to just leave it like this. Dan56 ( talk) 02:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi dan, thanks for responding. I like your contributions to wiki and I think they are useful. Joe is not useful and he has a beef with gearslutz, so ignore him. The history thing is very enlightening, you can see all of the behind the scenes stuff. I had a different impression of wiki until my teacher showed me what goes on behind the pages. Now I don't trust it because of people like Joe. Sad. Keep writing good stuff so I can learn, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.217 ( talk) 03:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
What's the view of albums project contributors on the types of sources needed to satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY for album track info? I know that independent sources are ordinarily deemed most reliable, but my sense is that there's little reason, as a general matter, to doubt the accuracy of liner notes as to things like track names, lengths, songwriters, etc. I wandered over here to ask b/c a stub I submitted for creation (on Maria Rita's Samba Meu) got flagged as needing more independent sources -- and I'm not at all clear where to look for an independent (much less more reliable than the liner notes) source of that kind of data. I'm wondering whether WP:BURO and WP:IAR are relevant here... Thoughts/suggestions? Many thanks!!! 67.127.53.126 ( talk) 01:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
{{ Promo singles}} is a relatively recent fork of {{ Singles}}, and is being used in the infobox for a handfull of albums. Is this something that should be included in the infobox, or should the infobox be reserved for proper singles only? I was considering taking this template to WP:TfD, but I wanted to get a second opinion here first. PC78 ( talk) 11:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a discussion/consensus relating to hip hop regional/sub-genres in the infobox? There are frequent edits to hip hop album articles involving changes to genre(s). Dan56 ( talk) 17:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see here Since there are no peer review volunteers who claim to specialize in album or pop music articles, I would like to request that someone(s) from WP:ALBUM take a look at this article and see if there are suggestions on how to improve it for FA status. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I am having some opposition at this discussion, and apparantely one of them has threatened me w/blocking for the recent edits I made to Voodoo (D'Angelo album) and The Root concerning a video interview source and the Gearslutz source (only for Elevado's info on his own individual work). User:Jrod2 said "U cant use what Elevado said about Hunter at gearslutz or any other place period. It makes no difference if ya find another source; ya just cant add that type of content regarding LP". I would really appreciate some help. Dan56 ( talk) 23:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a TfD discussion regarding merging {{ Infobox song}} and {{ Infobox single}}. Members of this project may wish to contribute to the discussion, which can be found here. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 16:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The wikipedia entry for this self released CD-R got me very interested, particularly as it contains 3 otherwise unavailable tracks by NEU! I would very much like to get hold of this somehow, does anyone know how to get it, or how to contact Eberhard Kranemann?
thanks, slim tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimtimslide ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a discussion or policy about including hip hop regional/sub-genres (like hardcore, underground, West Coast) in the infobox? Dan56 ( talk) 21:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
[[Hip hop music|Hip hop]]
rather than [[East Coast hip hop]]
)." But the album infobox gives no such instruction. Subgenres should be fine as long as they're discussed somewhere in the article's text, where they should be supported by references. As usual, the infobox should reflect the article's contents, which in turn should reflect its sources. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
22:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)The singles part of the album infobox doesnt appear. Dan56 ( talk) 18:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Done, give it a whirl. --
Gyrofrog
(talk)
20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me or has {{ Singles}} disappeared from infoboxes? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
For anyone interested in how standard album categories don't always work, see the minor edit squabble over the album infobox and TYPE field at Headlines (mini album). I suspect that the disambig in the article title is also incorrect. After this album appeared several times at Album articles with non-standard infoboxes I changed the TYPE to "ep" (more than once) and someone else tried "studio." Both make a certain amount of sense to me, but the main editor behind the article says it's neither of those, based on non-crucial things said by the band and their record company. Check it out. There is an associated discussion here. -- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 19:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
|type=studio
still technically correct, and the best fit? "Mini-album" strikes me a bit like the Greek "Maxi-single" thing that's been discussed here before; a regional term that doesn't have widespread use or recognition as a termk or format. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
21:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Illa, please consider chipping in at the album article talk page. What you've said would probably make a difference over there. -- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 21:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Since the OCC compile the charts it makes sense for wikipedia to follow the industry rules rather than make up their own classification for individual releases because people like pretty maintaintance categories etc. The whole issue needs to be looked at again from scracth because wiki is way off the mark here. I've only just realised that many singles sold on iTunes are classfied as EPs because they often include more than 3 components. Those are classfied as EPs but fall under chart rules as a maxi single (EPs don't exist in the OCC guidelines). Maxi singles (as the name suggests) can only chart on single charts. However it is well known that artists like Usher have released EPs but they're are in fact minature albums. E.g. Versus (Usher EP) exceeds the limitations of a single release and is therefore classified as an album yet we're naming it EP and calling it EP because that's what critics etc. have said. It is factually incorrect. An EP cannot be both a single and an album like wikipedia allows. We need to investigate other chart compilers and clearly define whether an EP is a single release format or an album format. I suspect the latter. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 14:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Allow me to jump in with my opinion here (better late than never). I can't help siding with Doomsdayer520 and IllaZilla and I am definitely against the usage of the term "mini album" in the infobox (incl. a new value to support it). One thing is that the band calls it a mini-album (probably to cover up that the record company pushed them to release something this year, or whatever, but this is irrelevant for this discussion). This can be mentioned in the article text, no problem. However, in my opinion it does not change the fact that "studio" should be used in the infobox: It is recorded in a record studio, it is more than 25 minutes long (so it's not an EP) and it charted on the UK album charts. Besides, it does not fit the description of the Mini-LP which specifically refers to the vinyl format. If we create a new value for mini-album, then for consistency we should do the same for double album. All the arguments that have been put forward above for mini-album also holds for double album. Hell no. As they say, size doesnt' matter ;-) – Ib Leo (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently, I've been debating the content of a "background" section in an album article. The way I see it, there's two ways to interpret it, 1) the events before the album's release, or 2) the events before the album began production. For me, the second definition makes the most sense, because an album does not have to be released or completed to exist. What happened during production is part of the album's existence; what triggered its creation is its background. However, there have been some logical arguments against this, so I was wondering what the wider community thinks.
Also, the use of "conception" in some articles really bugs me. I interpret "conception" as how/when/why the album was conceived, but most conception sections have no such information. Rather they discus "background" information or production information. See the good articles, Curtis (50 Cent album) and Discipline (Janet Jackson album). I cannot see any "conception" information in either article, and the word does not even properly summarize the section's content. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Any opinions as to whether this article is at the correct page? Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
What purpose beyond navigational do succession boxes for albums reaching number one in various countries serve such as in the article for Recovery? The table listing chart positions already provides the same information, so this is just repeating that it reached number one. The "Reception" section provides more in depth info regarding the album's chart success, so it seems redundant and unnecessary to have a series of succession boxes that seem only to provide links to entirely unrelated articles on other albums. For those truly interested in the succession of number ones for a particular country or chart, they can be found in Category:Lists of number one albums. If they're going to exist for the sole purpose of navigation between albums, shouldn't the boxes be placed at the bottom of an article per WP:FOOTERS where navboxes are supposed to be. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 18:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This has been discussed in earnest a few different times here on this same discussion page. See Archives 33 and 35 in the navigation box above. The succession boxes were developed through a lot of work at some point back in the past, and even though opinions on their usefulness have changed, it looks like recent discussions concluded with a consensus of "don't bother, they're not really hurting anything by being there." A classic case of institutional inertia, as it were. -- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 23:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
please comment about the album's title at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Kelly Rowland (album) was confirmed but now untitled. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Music album articles on Wikipedia have an inherent problem. For instance, Ahmad Jamal's "But Not For Me" album was first released on an LP in 1958 on Argo records, but the Wikipedia page says “Released 1995” and “Label: Affinity”.
Presumably the article information refers to a CD reissue of the LP, but it never makes this clear. In this case it’s not hard to figure out, but in a lot of other album articles, it could be extremely misleading.
I think Wikipedia needs to reconsider its template for listing things like this. I suggest having both “LP Released” and “CD Reissue” information fields, with a date field and label for each.
216.73.206.180 ( talk) 23:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC) John Payne 30 September 2010
On the Relapse (Eminem album) article, an editor has tried to cite the lyrics of the song "Not Afraid" that convey Eminem's criticism of one of his albums. Since citing a lyrics website isnt reliable, is there a proper way of citing a song? Dan56 ( talk) 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There has been a problem with referencing the Tube Bar prank calls albums. The best I could find from my limited understanding was listings & some reviews at BillBoard which is certainly a third party and a non-bias site. The issue is most of the albums are only the listing which proves that they exsist and but does that qualify for "notable"? Can these be used for some of the albums so they won't be delated?
Thank you kindly, ( Tyros1972 ( talk) 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)).
The article Asylum (Disturbed album) has seen constant edits to the release date in the infobox. Many anonymous and beginning users change the release date to August 31, the American release date, versus August 27, the earliest release date. Can I get some help either protecting this page or help explaining it on the talk page? BOVINEBOY 2008 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor added uncredited artists to the featured artist/note column in the track listing for Before I Self Destruct, claiming that "Doesn't matter if they say they're featured or not. listen to the song, or read the credit booklet. They're listed there, just not written as "FEATURED." It's called being uncredited". Is this valid? Dan56 ( talk) 16:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to draw some attention to this problem. There've been quite a few issues lately with date changes to release and recording dates on a variety of albums, particularly singles. Some of these have persisted for quite a while, in some cases over a year. It's unclear if this is the work of only a few, or a widespread problem. See for example Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190fordhouse. Those edits combined are well over 500 or so edits, many of them changing (in this case adding) specific dates that are likely inaccurate.
I don't know what the solution is, but one idea is to only specify album dates to the year, unless they're sourced. This would help cut down on this sort of vandalism, and also help sort out helpful editors. Right now I don't personally trust the dates found on these articles unless there's another source verifying it. Shadowjams ( talk) 19:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've edited several Dancemania-related ariticles. Dancemania is a compilation series, originally from Japan, and has released its albums with entirely English titles, as we can see here (official). Its album titles are usually stylized like Dancemania XYZ not Dancemania Xyz (or DANCEMANIA XYZ), like the famous WOW series (i.e. it's an intentional thing like Da REAList, BlaQKout and "C" Is for (Please Insert Sophomoric Genitalia Reference HERE), not a case of random capitalization that WP:MOSJP mentions).
Now, Dancemania and Dancemania Speed (I originally created this as SPEED) articles are available, and I'm going to create a new article, Dancemania CLASSICS, and another new article about Super Eurobeat's sub-series. So what I would like to know is, which way is proper, or more proper? - Thanks. The Wifechaser ( talk) 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
A source has been disputed on the Dangerously in Love article concerning the phrase "records" and whether it refers to the album or whatever else it could have sold, such as singles. The statement goes: "Beyonce toured for the first time as a solo artist in 2003 in support of "Dangerously In Love," which has sold more than 11 million records worldwide." To me, the statement signifies copies/units with the term "records" (why would a press release complicate matters by using "records" in the context of singles as well), but the other interpretation is understandable. Dan56 ( talk) 14:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Since About.com's reliability as a source has been disputed before, I thought I should ask whether or not its reviews are professional to be included in an album article. For the I Am... Sasha Fierce, an editor claimed that "About.com IS a professional website, it is accepted for reviews since it is published by the New York Times" [1], but the article on Wikipedia on About.com says that its owned by the Times Company. Is it a professional review site? Dan56 ( talk) 06:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I created the page on the Souls of Mischief's album 'Montezuma's Revenge' last year, which I bought. I listed the production credits on the page by simply reading them off the inlay. I was then asked to cite a source. Well the source is the actual cd itself and the case/inlay. How do I cite this? Thanks.
I apologize if this is the wrong forum to ask this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeokq ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 September 2010
The article A Fleeting Glance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
15:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The article Flogging the Horses has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
JeepdaySock (AKA,
Jeepday)
16:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I have created articles for the singer-songwriter Nadia Ali. Could anyone please review the articles Nadia Ali Discography, Embers, Crash and Burn, Love Story, Fine Print and Fantasy and suggest any improvements I could make to them. Thanks! Hassan514 ( talk) 02:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just having a small problem with working out which chart is which. Is this a record of the UK Classical Chart or the Billboard Classical Albums Chart? I think the latter, but I wasn't certain. J Milburn ( talk) 15:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Are holiday albums considered to be studio albums? In popular culture, holiday albums are usually just referred to as a holiday album, not a studio album. Labels and artists themselves do not acknowledge them as a studio albums. For example, if Mariah Carey's Merry Christmas counted, it would be considered Carey's fourth studio album and the rest of her albums would need to be pushed back — Daydream would be her fifth instead of fourth and so on. In a more curious case, Hilary Duff released a holiday album called Santa Clause Lane in 2002. It wasn't until 2003 that her actual studio album Metamorphosis was released. Which album would be considered Duff's debut studio album? If they are not considered studio albums then holiday albums should have their own type field on the infobox, similar to how soundtracks, extended plays, and live albums have a different characteristics to set them apart. If the former is applied, in discographies, they should be separated into their own section and have their own link in the infobox. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
As with the previous times this has been proposed, I oppose creating a "holiday" type for the infobox. The infobox types refer to how an album was put together (recorded live or in a studio, or compiled from other releases or various artists, or compiled from a film soundtrack, etc.), not why (for the holidays, or as a joke, or as a stopgap release, or to promote something specific like a brand or TV show). It's the same reason we don't have types for "covers album", "side project album", "themed album" or anything like that. Yes holiday albums have a theme and a rather spedific market, and artists/labels don't typically consider them part of the artist's "canon", but that doesn't make them any less of a studio album or live album. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 03:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not up for the addition of holiday albums in the studio albums section. I can't say why because something about a holiday album to me, doesn't count as a studio album. But that is just how I see it. EnDaLeCoMpLeX ( talk) 15:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has digressed a little, it would be good if Ipodnano could respond and say what he/she thinks of what's been said... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There is currently discussion on whether or not to use the tilde/hyphen/etc. as found in titles of Japanese media as it appears in the Japanese media rather than modifying it into another punctuation format on the English Wikipedia. As articles in this WikiProject's purview may be affected, users here are requested to contribute to the discussion here.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Should promotional singles be included in the Singles template of the infobox ? Dan56 ( talk) 21:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Following a long-running RfC to decide which article titles should be displayed in italics,
the policy was recently amended to the effect that it should now be done wherever italics would be used in running text. Album articles are one example. I suggest the simplest way to implement this is to do what the Comics project did, and place the {{
italictitle}} template in the infobox. The line they added to {{
Infobox comic book title}} (before it got taken away while the RfC ran) was: {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{italictitle}}}}
. Assuming that is the correct code, can someone with admin rights add it to {{
Infobox album}}, which is currently fully protected.
PL290 (
talk)
17:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Done (as soon as the {{
Edit protected}} request on the template's talk page is actioned). To disable italics, specify
Italic title=no
(template doc has been updated to this effect).
PL290 (
talk)
16:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've recently listed a few albums at WP:RM if anyone is interested, specifically:
Some of these involve multiple moves, so some input from editors more familiar with album naming conventions than I would be welcomed. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 11:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
What's up with the album cover size? I don't like the new size, it's too big. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This is my first attempt at an album article and I'm sure this question gets asked quite often. I have downloaded the CD cover and need to link it to my existing page on the user talk section. Please advise. Thanks. Kenwaditty ( talk) 02:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Can someone review the article From Brush and Stone and let me know if it is good to submit? Also, what is the process to submit from a User talk location? Thanks. Kenwaditty ( talk) 18:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Is it necessary to add redirect links in the infobox for albums? Many articles use the (see release history) wikilink. To me, it is disruptive and makes a reader go directly to the bottom of an article, which doesnot appear feasible to me. We should let them go through the article and then reach such trivial sections as release history and charts. Wat are other's thoughts? — Legolas (talk2me) 11:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I sometimes encounter this situation (where editors have placed subsection links within the infobox). Usually it takes one of 2 forms:
genre = [[#Musical style|disputed]]
or genre = [[#Musical style|See below]]
released = see [[#Release history|release history]]
I almost unilaterally remove these, for a couple of reasons:
For these reasons I believe we should discourage subsection linking from within the infobox. It's redundant to the ToC, and it does not serve the infobox's purpose of summarizing basic information about a topic. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 18:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
released = see [[#Release history|release history]]
as now with the advent of 'Radio ONLY singles' I use released = see [[#Radio adds|radio adds]]
to differentiate these from the 'historical singles' that have a different sales date from being an album track. Oops, sorry this is Albums project, but this thought came to mind.—
Iknow23 (
talk)
02:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)"WikiProject Albums/Archive 38" | |
---|---|
Song |
(→)Guys, you are veering off the discussion at hand. This is not about what should be present as teh redirect link in the infobox, this is about how the redirect links are redundant, seeing that a TOC already exists. So please veer the discussion towards that. Radio add dates can be discussed at WT:CHARTS. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
In the example of " Say Aah", IMO it is important to have '(see radio adds)' in the infobox to alert readers to the fact that there is not a release history section at all.— Iknow23 ( talk) 02:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a redirect link is redundant but useful so the reader can tell 'what named section' to look to; such as released = see [[#Release history|release history]]
or released = see [[#Radio adds|radio adds]]
. There is no rule against redundancy is there? If so, some material is repeated over and over again within many articles. Why is it so bad to have just a few words there in the infobox?—
Iknow23 (
talk)
21:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)