![]() | 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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
As above As mentioned above in the discussion of chronologies, several albums are categorized under persons who appeared on the album in addition to the artist that is credited with the release. E.g. Category:John Coltrane albums used to have several dozen articles that included his sideman work, several Fairport Convention albums were categorized under Category:Sandy Denny albums, etc. I am amending the wording of WP:ALBUM to make it explicitly clear that categorization by artist is for the artist credited with the release, not simply someone who appears on the album--even if said performer appears throughout the release. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Please review I made a pretty bold edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body that more accurately reflects the various categorization schemes available for album articles. Please review this text and amend it as you see fit. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
…I recall that as per some guideline at WP:ALBUM, "Category:Albums by some artist" should be placed within "Category:some genre albums". (I think the idea (correct or not) was that albums should not go directly into "Category:genre albums", for some reason). This leads to a scenario where an artist with many albums may have only done one or two in a particular (sub-)genre, but all of the artist's albums will be categorized that way because of this hierarchy. I am not sure that Category:Jimmy Giuffre albums, Category:Yusef Lateef albums, or Category:Joe Zawinul albums properly belong within Category:Avant-garde jazz albums (or that Category:Albert Ayler albums and Category:Van Morrison albums should go in Category:Jazz fusion albums, or Category:Grant Green albums in Category:Latin jazz albums, etc.). Personally, I think resolving this is a daunting task, and it might be last on the list of anyone's priorities, but there you have it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 18#Artist+genre+album, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 17#Jazz albums. (or... don't.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I am just curious to see what the project here thinks about this. Is there really a need to have categories for every known certification level from every country that has an organization that certifies albums and singles as found under Category:Certified albums and Category:Certified singles? Albums like As I Am, Spirit, Supernatural are categorized in 19, 18, and 12 such categories, respectively.
Thanks for any feedback. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 15:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It just occured to me, is it possible to use pipelinks in the category? For the multi-platinum albums from the RIAA category, it would have "Category:Albums certified multi-platinum by the Recording Industry of America|2x platinum"? Erick ( talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kind of Blue has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. howcheng { chat} 17:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I was talking with the owner of voiceofrock.com via e-mails a while ago, as he was wanting his website's reviews to be included on the album pages. He did post his website's reviews via this account, and all the Voice of Rock reviews he added were removed by the same user. The owner, whom I don't think does any of the reviews on the site, turned to me afterwards to see what I could do. There is a conflict of interest here, and the owner has stated that he has no intentions of causing any trouble. The owner pointed out to me that there is a designated staff that writes reviews, which I said earlier likely does not include himself; this staff receives the albums before respective release dates as well. The website is based in South Africa and caters toward playing and documenting metal music. Any thoughts as to whether this website should be on WP:ALBUM/REVSIT? Thanks. Backtable Speak to me concerning my deeds. 21:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded two album covers for two different album pages that I posted and immediately had the Better Source Request template attached to them. I had entered the album name, record company, and copyright year as the source information and scanned them from my own copies of the albums, so what else can I add to address the issue? -- Danaphile ( talk) 04:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed, Rollingstone.com reorganized their website sometime in the past making many of the links from the Album articles to the corresponding 500 Best Albums page on the RS website dead. I've been updating these as I come across them and replacing the reference link with a book cite to the book and using the chapter and chapterurl attributes to identify the Album specific cite info'. Here's an example for Rust Never Sleeps:
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Note I've been keeping the accessdate as the original not changing it to when I updated the reference. You can find the new page on the RS site by clicking on the Rust Never Sleeps link in the sample cite above, then navigating to the page where the Album in which you are interested is referenced, then copy the url and paste into your cite, and then change the chapter title to the desired Album order, title, and artist. Here's the text of the cite that you can use as a template:
{ { cite book |chapter=350 | Rust Never Sleeps - Neil Young and Crazy Horse |chapterurl= http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-19691231/rust-never-sleeps-neil-young-and-crazy-horse-19691231 |accessdate=6 October 2010 |last=Levy |first=Joe |coauthors=Steven Van Zandt |title= Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time |origyear=2005 |edition=3rd |year=2006 |publisher=Turnaround |location=London |isbn=1932958614 |oclc=70672814 |ref=RS500 } }
-- J. Wong ( talk) 19:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
{{cite book}}
template, even though your main ref is apparently still the online source. Beyond that, it does not appear that you're actually even looking in the book (and how are you getting the chapter title?). Also, leaving the accessdate for the new citation (with updated URL) to be the same as it was when somebody else saw the detail at a completely different page is misleading at best. Finally, if you're going to cite a book as your source, I would expect you to provide a page number as a minimum. I don't see this in the example you provided.{{cite web}}
template or whatever is in place? —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
16:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Does anyone know how to add another cover to an infobox that already has two album chronologies in it? Jasper420 22:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
|misc=
field. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
23:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Please see here Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a reasonable consensus to change the chronologies from just studio albums to all album releases. Is this a fair assessment? If so, the template/ WP:ALBUM need to be amended and I'll set about changing some for artists whose discographies I know. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Since we seem to have a lot of support for a single chronology chain covering all album types and EPs, I re-propose (from the previous discussion) the following change to Template:Infobox album#Chronology:
This group of fields establishes a timeline of an artist's releases. In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain ( singles have a separate infobox, and thus a separate chain). Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies. If the previous or next release has a Wikipedia article, link the title to the corresponding article. Take care to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when release "A" points to "B" as the next release, "B" points back to "A" as the last (previous) release.
Thoughts? -- IllaZilla ( talk) 17:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Per the above comments, how about this amended wording?
This group of fields establishes a timeline of an artist's releases. In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain in order of release date ( singles have a separate infobox, and thus a separate chain). Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies which may warrant more than one chain. If the previous or next release has a Wikipedia article, link the title to the corresponding article. Take care to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when release "A" points to "B" as the next release, "B" points back to "A" as the previous release.
If there are no additional suggestions within a few days, I'll be bold and make the change to the documentation. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 00:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been a week with no objections, so I'm going for it. New wording is live at Template:Infobox album#Chronology. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 05:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching an article on an album by a Mexican rock group, and another editor just changes the track listing to use Spanish standards for capitalization(i.e. only proper nouns and the first word of the title are capitalized). It occurred to me that I don't know what WP's standard is for non-English song titles, and checking the relevant sections, I see that they explicitly cover only English language titles. So do we apply English capitalization rules to these titles, or just type them the way they would normally appear?-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 13:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me and this is something I support, since I contribute to Spanish-language album articles a lot. Erick ( talk) 18:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Please review I have added a little more to the body section of WP:ALBUM to discuss categorization and I take this as normative about everything related to categorizing album articles (and lists and redirects, etc.) If there is any other relevant consensus, please add it there and correct me. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss issues with specific articles. I copied the message to
Talk:Blue Wild Angel: Live at the Isle of Wight, where any discussion should continue.
|
---|
The lead of the above article states that this was Jimi Hendrix' last live performance. This is not correct. Jimi Hendrix' last live performance was on 6 September 1970 at the Open Air Love & Peace Festival on the German isle of Fehmarn: see here. I suppose what is meant is that his appearance at the Isle of Wight Festival was his last performance in the U.K., but I can not find a source for that. Maybe someone here can? Regards. 81.83.135.14 ( talk) 11:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I have changed the text to read 'last U.K. live performance', but still can not find a source. Regards. 81.83.135.14 ( talk) 13:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hey folks. You'll recall from the #Album reviews discussion here, and from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space, that we're working on moving the album ratings from the infobox to the album ratings template. You'll also recall that Tim1357 has been hard at work on an album ratings bot that will do all the hard work for us. Well, last night and this morning, the bot updated another big batch of articles -- more than 3,000 of them. Here is a link to a list of the changes. Interested editors are strongly encouraged to check the bot's work, and leave any feedback here in this talk page section. Thanks! — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The bot updated another batch of 1,000 articles earlier today. Here's a link to the list of edits. — Mudwater ( Talk) 00:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I started randomly looking through Category:Infobox album with reviews, and it looks like a fair number of those articles do have footnotes. So I'm wondering if the bot missed that, or if it skipped them for other reasons. Here are a few examples:
(Magic may have been skipped because it has more than 12 ratings in the infobox.) — Mudwater ( Talk) 13:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
{{rating}}
enclosed in parentheses. I don't think this would be hard to fix? Instead of looking for {{rating|xx}}
, you would look for {{rating|xx}}
or ({{rating|xx}}
)
. —
Akrabbim
talk
12:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey folks. We hit 50% today on moving the ratings from the infobox to the album ratings template. Thanks to everyone for their work on this. Hopefully the bot will be active again soon, that's how we made a lot of that progress. — Mudwater ( Talk) 03:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
So, if Tim can make the one small change with the parentheses, I would advocate one final unrestricted run on the remaining 25,000 articles. What do people think about this? — Akrabbim talk 14:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
He's been uploading a lot of oversized album covers. Anyone else wanna pitch in and scale down? Jasper420 00:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Due to album collaborations words like "With" are being capitalized in songs. This has been going on for years. I think and feel it is wrong to change what is released by an artist and we should respect what is done by the label, song-writer and/or artist. It's not our place to change that post false works. It's misleading and incorrect and this is an encyclopedia that's suppose to do everything correctly. So can we please fix this? Thanks. JamesAlan1986 * talk 09:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay first of we're not talking about album titles we're talking about song titles. Many songs use capital "With". This is why I've heard wikipedia is not a good source for anything. You guys gotta do things the right way or not at all. A song like "I Can't Be With You" or any other word that shows the song with a captilized "With" needs to be posted as such cause that's how the artist wants it and it's our job to make sure it shows when we talk about the song. that's my point. We have to do things correctly not cause our opinions are they are wrong. JamesAlan1986 * talk 18:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
"I Can't Be With You" is written by The Cranberries. I own all their albums and the way I am writing the song title is how it is shown on the album. So there needs to be exceptions with "with" being capitalized it should be if the artist advertise it as such. JamesAlan1986 * talk 18:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Reference Reference 2 Reference 3 Reference 4 JamesAlan1986 * talk 19:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:I_Can't_Be_with_You#Move Back. It's like Kotniski said at the end about "it seems that those who want to blindly follow rules outnumber those who are willing to apply their brains a little" that's my final stand on this. And so no I'm not a wikidiva and personally attack me like that again I'll report you cause that's offensive. I'm sick of coming on here and getting personally attacked for speaking my mind. JamesAlan1986 * talk 11:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that many of the review/ratings-boxes for progrock albums contain a rating from the ProgArchives website. Since the heading of the box is "Professional ratings", it could be argued that these ProgArchive ratings (which seem to be an average of user submitted ratings on the ProgArchives website) do not belong in this box. Regards. 81.83.133.29 ( talk) 19:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Per the comment in the last section about the use of Template:Non-free reduce. I have noticed that DASHBot reduces the album cover size to approximately 400px, example: File:Hard-Fi - Tied Up Too Tight.jpg, rather than "no more than 300px on at least one side" per Template:Infobox album. I discussed this with the bots operator User:Tim1357 last month [3] but have not received an adequate reply, and DashBot continues to reduce the covers to 400px. example: File:Strangers From The Universe tful282.jpg
My concern is that DashBot reducing the album covers to 400px will make users think that this is an acceptable size for album covers; and also that if these album covers are reduced to 300px in the future, they will have been resized twice, lowering the quality of the image. memphisto 09:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
who's that boy ft. dev is a single for unbroken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.104.33 ( talk) 04:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
in the last week I noticed again two attempts to remove alternative covers which are sufficiently different and have a proper FUR, see [4] [5]. It is my understanding that for quite some time now alternative covers are acceptable. Can someone suggest a proper link to the consensus discussion, or even better, add it somewhere where it can be quoted? -- Muhandes ( talk) 09:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
...ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion."
Re “...ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification”, this implies that NFCC has “criteria for identification”—it doesn't. Re “an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion”, if this is true, it should be added to NFCC, not the infobox. Uniplex ( talk) 05:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Based on some current highly-misleading categorizations, this discussion, and a few others, I propose to expand along the following lines the paragraph beginning "Albums are only categorized by arranger, conductor, ... " at WP:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body:
Uniplex ( talk) 20:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I’d like to make some points regarding this discussion. I am concentrating on album by producer, but that shouldn't exclude by arranger etc.
Cheers. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
My main opinion about all this is that if an album is produced by a band, it should be in a category of "Albums produced by [band]", but it should not be put into categories of "Albums produced by [member of band]". For example, Anthem of the Sun was produced by David Hassinger and the Grateful Dead, but it's currently in these categories: Albums produced by David Hassinger, Albums produced by Jerry Garcia, Albums produced by Bob Weir, Albums produced by Ron "Pigpen" McKernan, Albums produced by Phil Lesh, Albums produced by Bill Kreutzmann, Albums produced by Mickey Hart, and Albums produced by Tom Constanten. All except Hassinger were members of the band at the time the album was produced, but these categories are, for lack of a better term, incorrect. Anthem of the Sun wasn't produced by Jerry Garcia, it wasn't produced by Ron "Pigpen" McKernan, and it wasn't produced by any of those other individuals. It was produced by David Hassinger and by the band known as the Grateful Dead, and it should be in two categories that reflect that -- Albums produced by David Hassinger, and Albums produced by Grateful Dead. — Mudwater ( Talk) 20:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Given all the above, here's another attempt at text for the guideline:
Album categorization is per
WP:CATEGORY: an album may be categorized by characteristics such as performer, producer, conductor, arranger, artwork artist, record label, recording location, etc., only if these are “
defining” characteristics of the album, meaning that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the album as having the characteristic (not just mention it in passing or for completeness).
|
I think that is in line with the goals of the category scheme i.e. that every article should be in a few categories according to it's most significant ("defining") attributes, not every category that one could possibly apply. What do folks think? Uniplex ( talk) 12:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's an updated draft to hopefully clarify a bit more:
An album may be
categorized by characteristics such as performer, producer, composer, record-label, etc., only if these are
defining characteristics of the album (i.e. reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the album as having the characteristic—not just mention it in passing or for completeness).
|
Uniplex ( talk) 09:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
hello,
I have currently an issue with User:Uniplex edits on All Things Must Pass. He removes the rankings (such as "500 Greatest Albums of All Time") as he thinks it fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body (Due to their proliferation and dubious value, lists (e.g. Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Punk Rock Albums of the Early 1980s) may not be included.). But this is odd, as the guideline was edited by only a few people, and it is a WikiProject guideline, not important like WP:MOS. Everytime he removes that information, he cite Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body as a source! I don't understand why he do that and why only on All Things Must Pass. The main issue is not that he only change it on ATMP, but that he don't remove the rankings on the remaining 499 articles. I wrote this comment to avoid edit conflicts/edit wars and to reach consensus. This issue needs to be resolved and I need your help. Thanks.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 16:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
In case anyone was waiting for a response, I should point out that I'm a disinterested party: I have no comment other than to note that those who have suggested that the guideline does not represent the consensus view, that it “needs to be revised”, and have needed in excess of 400 words when trying to apply it, might want to propose an amendment to clarify/improve it. Uniplex ( talk) 08:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Just posting this for anyone who may be interested in it. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 16:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
There has been a recent change to the album infobox so that it is no longer a navigation aid to articles on the band's significant releases (what is conventionally regarded as their Discography), but rather a Chronology of all releases, apparently also including films (though this is unclear). There were some queries and objections raised during the discussion, mainly along the lines of the loss of navigational aid for readers. I often use the Infobox to move from one major album to the next, and I don't wish to be taken to dead end of no article, or to compilation albums or videos. I feel there is a benefit loss by removing the discography, and that a number of readers will be inconvenienced. I accept, though, that some people feel there is value in having a Chronology of all releases in the Infobox. So, rather than arguing for the merits of Chronology over Discography, or vice versa, perhaps it would be appropriate to have a Discography field to run alongside the Chronology field. In the Discography field the links would follow the established discography, as in R.E.M.#Discography, so on the Out of Time (album) article, the next album shown would be Automatic for the People rather than the video Pop Screen. The Infobox would, however, also contain the Chronology field, so people could see at a glance what the next release was, and click on it if they wanted. This would restore the widely accepted use of the Infobox (and so pre-empt any future likely edit wars), as well as preserving the recent change. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to mention this in the Vice Verses page?
Then a new page would be created for Hello Hurricane Live, which comes in the deluxe edition, and this album would also be added to the chronology? I've never done either of these before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossidor ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been working on article citations and I see that a large number of links to Rolling Stone album reviews, etc., have gone dead. There could be hundreds of dead links, each of which may be a significant source for the album article, etc. For example, this link [6] from this article: Smash (album). If someone is interested in fixing this there might be a simple way of doing it with a bot or AWB setting. Otherwise, the references may get lost. Will Beback talk 06:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
And I just updated the archive link that Muhandes put in place as a web cite with a news cite to the original article and an archive closer to the access date that the reference was added.
Unfortunately, although many links to the Rolling Stone articles have been archived at Wayback Machine not all have been. Or a different link to the same article has been archived and you must use some ingenuity to find it. (You might find an archive link to another album by the artist, and then select the Album Review link on that archive page to get to a list of album reviews for the artist where you might find a link to the album you want.) So, I doubt that a bot could be used to do this.
I might point out that for many "major" albums, the Rolling Stone website still provides access to the article for the album using a different url (search for the album title). In this case, I would suggest that you correct the link, but provide the archive url with deadurl=no so that editors can see the original text from near the date the original reference was made. For example, here's the cite I used for All Things Must Pass:
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I think it is important to provide the archive to the original link. In one case (I don't recall immediately but you can look at my history :-)) the current article on the Rolling Stone website is truncated, but the truncated text was available on the archived link. (And the quote in the album article was from the truncated section!)
Yes, I have actually been doing a lot of editing of these dead Rolling Stone reference links, turning them into publication cites. I have access to some PDF/HTML copy of the Rolling Stone articles from 1990 to the present through my local library through EBSCOHost; you might too.
You might notice that the date provided in the archive link is not the original publication date of the review, and the archive that Muhandes provided did not include the issue number, which Rolling Stone stopped posting with its articles at some point. However, an earlier archive of this link did include the issue number from which I was able to retrieve the actual publication source at EBSCOHost. That gave me the actual publication date, the page number, and the title and text, from which it was clear that this wasn't just a review of the Smash (album) but was a joint review with a Bad Religion album.
As far as I can tell, the dates posted with articles at the Rolling Stone website are the original posting dates only if the article was published before the existence of the website. Articles published after that may have a posting date that is (usually) earlier than the publication date.
Other notes: some Rolling Stone album review archive pages have star ratings although the published review, itself, did not. You should disregard these. As far as I can tell at this point, Rolling Stone did not start rating reviews until around 1982. Later archives and active links to those reviews on the website do not have ratings unless originally published with a rating. Also, the archives sometimes show that the website switched the review being linked from the original published review to a later published "Hall of Fame" review, which was usually rated, or visa-versa.
Let this be a lesson to us all! There is a reason that published works are to be preferred over web links. If a cite instead of a reference had been used, then the original article could be retrieved independent of what happened on the website whether it had been archived or not. Use publication cites if available not web cites!
-- J. Wong ( talk) 04:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought I should probably bring this discussion to the attention of editors involved in WikiProject Albums, because this could have a significant impact on Wikipedia's coverage of albums: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Delete_.22Every_album_by_notable_musician_gets_own_article.22_guideline.3F Opinions welcome. Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 13:09, 3 October 2011 (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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
As above As mentioned above in the discussion of chronologies, several albums are categorized under persons who appeared on the album in addition to the artist that is credited with the release. E.g. Category:John Coltrane albums used to have several dozen articles that included his sideman work, several Fairport Convention albums were categorized under Category:Sandy Denny albums, etc. I am amending the wording of WP:ALBUM to make it explicitly clear that categorization by artist is for the artist credited with the release, not simply someone who appears on the album--even if said performer appears throughout the release. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Please review I made a pretty bold edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body that more accurately reflects the various categorization schemes available for album articles. Please review this text and amend it as you see fit. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
…I recall that as per some guideline at WP:ALBUM, "Category:Albums by some artist" should be placed within "Category:some genre albums". (I think the idea (correct or not) was that albums should not go directly into "Category:genre albums", for some reason). This leads to a scenario where an artist with many albums may have only done one or two in a particular (sub-)genre, but all of the artist's albums will be categorized that way because of this hierarchy. I am not sure that Category:Jimmy Giuffre albums, Category:Yusef Lateef albums, or Category:Joe Zawinul albums properly belong within Category:Avant-garde jazz albums (or that Category:Albert Ayler albums and Category:Van Morrison albums should go in Category:Jazz fusion albums, or Category:Grant Green albums in Category:Latin jazz albums, etc.). Personally, I think resolving this is a daunting task, and it might be last on the list of anyone's priorities, but there you have it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 18#Artist+genre+album, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 17#Jazz albums. (or... don't.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I am just curious to see what the project here thinks about this. Is there really a need to have categories for every known certification level from every country that has an organization that certifies albums and singles as found under Category:Certified albums and Category:Certified singles? Albums like As I Am, Spirit, Supernatural are categorized in 19, 18, and 12 such categories, respectively.
Thanks for any feedback. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 15:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It just occured to me, is it possible to use pipelinks in the category? For the multi-platinum albums from the RIAA category, it would have "Category:Albums certified multi-platinum by the Recording Industry of America|2x platinum"? Erick ( talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kind of Blue has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. howcheng { chat} 17:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I was talking with the owner of voiceofrock.com via e-mails a while ago, as he was wanting his website's reviews to be included on the album pages. He did post his website's reviews via this account, and all the Voice of Rock reviews he added were removed by the same user. The owner, whom I don't think does any of the reviews on the site, turned to me afterwards to see what I could do. There is a conflict of interest here, and the owner has stated that he has no intentions of causing any trouble. The owner pointed out to me that there is a designated staff that writes reviews, which I said earlier likely does not include himself; this staff receives the albums before respective release dates as well. The website is based in South Africa and caters toward playing and documenting metal music. Any thoughts as to whether this website should be on WP:ALBUM/REVSIT? Thanks. Backtable Speak to me concerning my deeds. 21:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded two album covers for two different album pages that I posted and immediately had the Better Source Request template attached to them. I had entered the album name, record company, and copyright year as the source information and scanned them from my own copies of the albums, so what else can I add to address the issue? -- Danaphile ( talk) 04:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed, Rollingstone.com reorganized their website sometime in the past making many of the links from the Album articles to the corresponding 500 Best Albums page on the RS website dead. I've been updating these as I come across them and replacing the reference link with a book cite to the book and using the chapter and chapterurl attributes to identify the Album specific cite info'. Here's an example for Rust Never Sleeps:
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Note I've been keeping the accessdate as the original not changing it to when I updated the reference. You can find the new page on the RS site by clicking on the Rust Never Sleeps link in the sample cite above, then navigating to the page where the Album in which you are interested is referenced, then copy the url and paste into your cite, and then change the chapter title to the desired Album order, title, and artist. Here's the text of the cite that you can use as a template:
{ { cite book |chapter=350 | Rust Never Sleeps - Neil Young and Crazy Horse |chapterurl= http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-19691231/rust-never-sleeps-neil-young-and-crazy-horse-19691231 |accessdate=6 October 2010 |last=Levy |first=Joe |coauthors=Steven Van Zandt |title= Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time |origyear=2005 |edition=3rd |year=2006 |publisher=Turnaround |location=London |isbn=1932958614 |oclc=70672814 |ref=RS500 } }
-- J. Wong ( talk) 19:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
{{cite book}}
template, even though your main ref is apparently still the online source. Beyond that, it does not appear that you're actually even looking in the book (and how are you getting the chapter title?). Also, leaving the accessdate for the new citation (with updated URL) to be the same as it was when somebody else saw the detail at a completely different page is misleading at best. Finally, if you're going to cite a book as your source, I would expect you to provide a page number as a minimum. I don't see this in the example you provided.{{cite web}}
template or whatever is in place? —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
16:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Does anyone know how to add another cover to an infobox that already has two album chronologies in it? Jasper420 22:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
|misc=
field. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
23:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Please see here Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a reasonable consensus to change the chronologies from just studio albums to all album releases. Is this a fair assessment? If so, the template/ WP:ALBUM need to be amended and I'll set about changing some for artists whose discographies I know. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Since we seem to have a lot of support for a single chronology chain covering all album types and EPs, I re-propose (from the previous discussion) the following change to Template:Infobox album#Chronology:
This group of fields establishes a timeline of an artist's releases. In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain ( singles have a separate infobox, and thus a separate chain). Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies. If the previous or next release has a Wikipedia article, link the title to the corresponding article. Take care to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when release "A" points to "B" as the next release, "B" points back to "A" as the last (previous) release.
Thoughts? -- IllaZilla ( talk) 17:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Per the above comments, how about this amended wording?
This group of fields establishes a timeline of an artist's releases. In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain in order of release date ( singles have a separate infobox, and thus a separate chain). Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies which may warrant more than one chain. If the previous or next release has a Wikipedia article, link the title to the corresponding article. Take care to maintain the integrity of chains, so that when release "A" points to "B" as the next release, "B" points back to "A" as the previous release.
If there are no additional suggestions within a few days, I'll be bold and make the change to the documentation. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 00:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been a week with no objections, so I'm going for it. New wording is live at Template:Infobox album#Chronology. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 05:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching an article on an album by a Mexican rock group, and another editor just changes the track listing to use Spanish standards for capitalization(i.e. only proper nouns and the first word of the title are capitalized). It occurred to me that I don't know what WP's standard is for non-English song titles, and checking the relevant sections, I see that they explicitly cover only English language titles. So do we apply English capitalization rules to these titles, or just type them the way they would normally appear?-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 13:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me and this is something I support, since I contribute to Spanish-language album articles a lot. Erick ( talk) 18:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Please review I have added a little more to the body section of WP:ALBUM to discuss categorization and I take this as normative about everything related to categorizing album articles (and lists and redirects, etc.) If there is any other relevant consensus, please add it there and correct me. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss issues with specific articles. I copied the message to
Talk:Blue Wild Angel: Live at the Isle of Wight, where any discussion should continue.
|
---|
The lead of the above article states that this was Jimi Hendrix' last live performance. This is not correct. Jimi Hendrix' last live performance was on 6 September 1970 at the Open Air Love & Peace Festival on the German isle of Fehmarn: see here. I suppose what is meant is that his appearance at the Isle of Wight Festival was his last performance in the U.K., but I can not find a source for that. Maybe someone here can? Regards. 81.83.135.14 ( talk) 11:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I have changed the text to read 'last U.K. live performance', but still can not find a source. Regards. 81.83.135.14 ( talk) 13:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hey folks. You'll recall from the #Album reviews discussion here, and from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space, that we're working on moving the album ratings from the infobox to the album ratings template. You'll also recall that Tim1357 has been hard at work on an album ratings bot that will do all the hard work for us. Well, last night and this morning, the bot updated another big batch of articles -- more than 3,000 of them. Here is a link to a list of the changes. Interested editors are strongly encouraged to check the bot's work, and leave any feedback here in this talk page section. Thanks! — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The bot updated another batch of 1,000 articles earlier today. Here's a link to the list of edits. — Mudwater ( Talk) 00:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I started randomly looking through Category:Infobox album with reviews, and it looks like a fair number of those articles do have footnotes. So I'm wondering if the bot missed that, or if it skipped them for other reasons. Here are a few examples:
(Magic may have been skipped because it has more than 12 ratings in the infobox.) — Mudwater ( Talk) 13:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
{{rating}}
enclosed in parentheses. I don't think this would be hard to fix? Instead of looking for {{rating|xx}}
, you would look for {{rating|xx}}
or ({{rating|xx}}
)
. —
Akrabbim
talk
12:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey folks. We hit 50% today on moving the ratings from the infobox to the album ratings template. Thanks to everyone for their work on this. Hopefully the bot will be active again soon, that's how we made a lot of that progress. — Mudwater ( Talk) 03:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
So, if Tim can make the one small change with the parentheses, I would advocate one final unrestricted run on the remaining 25,000 articles. What do people think about this? — Akrabbim talk 14:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
He's been uploading a lot of oversized album covers. Anyone else wanna pitch in and scale down? Jasper420 00:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Due to album collaborations words like "With" are being capitalized in songs. This has been going on for years. I think and feel it is wrong to change what is released by an artist and we should respect what is done by the label, song-writer and/or artist. It's not our place to change that post false works. It's misleading and incorrect and this is an encyclopedia that's suppose to do everything correctly. So can we please fix this? Thanks. JamesAlan1986 * talk 09:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay first of we're not talking about album titles we're talking about song titles. Many songs use capital "With". This is why I've heard wikipedia is not a good source for anything. You guys gotta do things the right way or not at all. A song like "I Can't Be With You" or any other word that shows the song with a captilized "With" needs to be posted as such cause that's how the artist wants it and it's our job to make sure it shows when we talk about the song. that's my point. We have to do things correctly not cause our opinions are they are wrong. JamesAlan1986 * talk 18:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
"I Can't Be With You" is written by The Cranberries. I own all their albums and the way I am writing the song title is how it is shown on the album. So there needs to be exceptions with "with" being capitalized it should be if the artist advertise it as such. JamesAlan1986 * talk 18:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Reference Reference 2 Reference 3 Reference 4 JamesAlan1986 * talk 19:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:I_Can't_Be_with_You#Move Back. It's like Kotniski said at the end about "it seems that those who want to blindly follow rules outnumber those who are willing to apply their brains a little" that's my final stand on this. And so no I'm not a wikidiva and personally attack me like that again I'll report you cause that's offensive. I'm sick of coming on here and getting personally attacked for speaking my mind. JamesAlan1986 * talk 11:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that many of the review/ratings-boxes for progrock albums contain a rating from the ProgArchives website. Since the heading of the box is "Professional ratings", it could be argued that these ProgArchive ratings (which seem to be an average of user submitted ratings on the ProgArchives website) do not belong in this box. Regards. 81.83.133.29 ( talk) 19:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Per the comment in the last section about the use of Template:Non-free reduce. I have noticed that DASHBot reduces the album cover size to approximately 400px, example: File:Hard-Fi - Tied Up Too Tight.jpg, rather than "no more than 300px on at least one side" per Template:Infobox album. I discussed this with the bots operator User:Tim1357 last month [3] but have not received an adequate reply, and DashBot continues to reduce the covers to 400px. example: File:Strangers From The Universe tful282.jpg
My concern is that DashBot reducing the album covers to 400px will make users think that this is an acceptable size for album covers; and also that if these album covers are reduced to 300px in the future, they will have been resized twice, lowering the quality of the image. memphisto 09:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
who's that boy ft. dev is a single for unbroken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.104.33 ( talk) 04:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
in the last week I noticed again two attempts to remove alternative covers which are sufficiently different and have a proper FUR, see [4] [5]. It is my understanding that for quite some time now alternative covers are acceptable. Can someone suggest a proper link to the consensus discussion, or even better, add it somewhere where it can be quoted? -- Muhandes ( talk) 09:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
...ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification. Also, an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion."
Re “...ensure that if you add additional non-free images, that the use complies with the non-free content criteria. Essentially, an alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original passes the criteria for identification”, this implies that NFCC has “criteria for identification”—it doesn't. Re “an alternate cover that is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary passes the criteria for inclusion”, if this is true, it should be added to NFCC, not the infobox. Uniplex ( talk) 05:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Based on some current highly-misleading categorizations, this discussion, and a few others, I propose to expand along the following lines the paragraph beginning "Albums are only categorized by arranger, conductor, ... " at WP:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body:
Uniplex ( talk) 20:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I’d like to make some points regarding this discussion. I am concentrating on album by producer, but that shouldn't exclude by arranger etc.
Cheers. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
My main opinion about all this is that if an album is produced by a band, it should be in a category of "Albums produced by [band]", but it should not be put into categories of "Albums produced by [member of band]". For example, Anthem of the Sun was produced by David Hassinger and the Grateful Dead, but it's currently in these categories: Albums produced by David Hassinger, Albums produced by Jerry Garcia, Albums produced by Bob Weir, Albums produced by Ron "Pigpen" McKernan, Albums produced by Phil Lesh, Albums produced by Bill Kreutzmann, Albums produced by Mickey Hart, and Albums produced by Tom Constanten. All except Hassinger were members of the band at the time the album was produced, but these categories are, for lack of a better term, incorrect. Anthem of the Sun wasn't produced by Jerry Garcia, it wasn't produced by Ron "Pigpen" McKernan, and it wasn't produced by any of those other individuals. It was produced by David Hassinger and by the band known as the Grateful Dead, and it should be in two categories that reflect that -- Albums produced by David Hassinger, and Albums produced by Grateful Dead. — Mudwater ( Talk) 20:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Given all the above, here's another attempt at text for the guideline:
Album categorization is per
WP:CATEGORY: an album may be categorized by characteristics such as performer, producer, conductor, arranger, artwork artist, record label, recording location, etc., only if these are “
defining” characteristics of the album, meaning that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the album as having the characteristic (not just mention it in passing or for completeness).
|
I think that is in line with the goals of the category scheme i.e. that every article should be in a few categories according to it's most significant ("defining") attributes, not every category that one could possibly apply. What do folks think? Uniplex ( talk) 12:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's an updated draft to hopefully clarify a bit more:
An album may be
categorized by characteristics such as performer, producer, composer, record-label, etc., only if these are
defining characteristics of the album (i.e. reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the album as having the characteristic—not just mention it in passing or for completeness).
|
Uniplex ( talk) 09:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
hello,
I have currently an issue with User:Uniplex edits on All Things Must Pass. He removes the rankings (such as "500 Greatest Albums of All Time") as he thinks it fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body (Due to their proliferation and dubious value, lists (e.g. Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Punk Rock Albums of the Early 1980s) may not be included.). But this is odd, as the guideline was edited by only a few people, and it is a WikiProject guideline, not important like WP:MOS. Everytime he removes that information, he cite Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body as a source! I don't understand why he do that and why only on All Things Must Pass. The main issue is not that he only change it on ATMP, but that he don't remove the rankings on the remaining 499 articles. I wrote this comment to avoid edit conflicts/edit wars and to reach consensus. This issue needs to be resolved and I need your help. Thanks.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 16:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
In case anyone was waiting for a response, I should point out that I'm a disinterested party: I have no comment other than to note that those who have suggested that the guideline does not represent the consensus view, that it “needs to be revised”, and have needed in excess of 400 words when trying to apply it, might want to propose an amendment to clarify/improve it. Uniplex ( talk) 08:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Just posting this for anyone who may be interested in it. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 16:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
There has been a recent change to the album infobox so that it is no longer a navigation aid to articles on the band's significant releases (what is conventionally regarded as their Discography), but rather a Chronology of all releases, apparently also including films (though this is unclear). There were some queries and objections raised during the discussion, mainly along the lines of the loss of navigational aid for readers. I often use the Infobox to move from one major album to the next, and I don't wish to be taken to dead end of no article, or to compilation albums or videos. I feel there is a benefit loss by removing the discography, and that a number of readers will be inconvenienced. I accept, though, that some people feel there is value in having a Chronology of all releases in the Infobox. So, rather than arguing for the merits of Chronology over Discography, or vice versa, perhaps it would be appropriate to have a Discography field to run alongside the Chronology field. In the Discography field the links would follow the established discography, as in R.E.M.#Discography, so on the Out of Time (album) article, the next album shown would be Automatic for the People rather than the video Pop Screen. The Infobox would, however, also contain the Chronology field, so people could see at a glance what the next release was, and click on it if they wanted. This would restore the widely accepted use of the Infobox (and so pre-empt any future likely edit wars), as well as preserving the recent change. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to mention this in the Vice Verses page?
Then a new page would be created for Hello Hurricane Live, which comes in the deluxe edition, and this album would also be added to the chronology? I've never done either of these before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossidor ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been working on article citations and I see that a large number of links to Rolling Stone album reviews, etc., have gone dead. There could be hundreds of dead links, each of which may be a significant source for the album article, etc. For example, this link [6] from this article: Smash (album). If someone is interested in fixing this there might be a simple way of doing it with a bot or AWB setting. Otherwise, the references may get lost. Will Beback talk 06:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
And I just updated the archive link that Muhandes put in place as a web cite with a news cite to the original article and an archive closer to the access date that the reference was added.
Unfortunately, although many links to the Rolling Stone articles have been archived at Wayback Machine not all have been. Or a different link to the same article has been archived and you must use some ingenuity to find it. (You might find an archive link to another album by the artist, and then select the Album Review link on that archive page to get to a list of album reviews for the artist where you might find a link to the album you want.) So, I doubt that a bot could be used to do this.
I might point out that for many "major" albums, the Rolling Stone website still provides access to the article for the album using a different url (search for the album title). In this case, I would suggest that you correct the link, but provide the archive url with deadurl=no so that editors can see the original text from near the date the original reference was made. For example, here's the cite I used for All Things Must Pass:
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I think it is important to provide the archive to the original link. In one case (I don't recall immediately but you can look at my history :-)) the current article on the Rolling Stone website is truncated, but the truncated text was available on the archived link. (And the quote in the album article was from the truncated section!)
Yes, I have actually been doing a lot of editing of these dead Rolling Stone reference links, turning them into publication cites. I have access to some PDF/HTML copy of the Rolling Stone articles from 1990 to the present through my local library through EBSCOHost; you might too.
You might notice that the date provided in the archive link is not the original publication date of the review, and the archive that Muhandes provided did not include the issue number, which Rolling Stone stopped posting with its articles at some point. However, an earlier archive of this link did include the issue number from which I was able to retrieve the actual publication source at EBSCOHost. That gave me the actual publication date, the page number, and the title and text, from which it was clear that this wasn't just a review of the Smash (album) but was a joint review with a Bad Religion album.
As far as I can tell, the dates posted with articles at the Rolling Stone website are the original posting dates only if the article was published before the existence of the website. Articles published after that may have a posting date that is (usually) earlier than the publication date.
Other notes: some Rolling Stone album review archive pages have star ratings although the published review, itself, did not. You should disregard these. As far as I can tell at this point, Rolling Stone did not start rating reviews until around 1982. Later archives and active links to those reviews on the website do not have ratings unless originally published with a rating. Also, the archives sometimes show that the website switched the review being linked from the original published review to a later published "Hall of Fame" review, which was usually rated, or visa-versa.
Let this be a lesson to us all! There is a reason that published works are to be preferred over web links. If a cite instead of a reference had been used, then the original article could be retrieved independent of what happened on the website whether it had been archived or not. Use publication cites if available not web cites!
-- J. Wong ( talk) 04:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought I should probably bring this discussion to the attention of editors involved in WikiProject Albums, because this could have a significant impact on Wikipedia's coverage of albums: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Delete_.22Every_album_by_notable_musician_gets_own_article.22_guideline.3F Opinions welcome. Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 13:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)