![]() | 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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
Well y'all, here it is, thanks to User:Muhandes: Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover. Now...lets get crackin'! Only 20,017 to go! Jasper420 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I have always wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, but I could never think of anything that I could add. Little did I know that there was much work that I could do and even subjects (certain, sort of obscure albums) that I knew a lot about. So I went through the basic tutorials (still working on the MOS) and I am posting because it was suggested that I post to coordinate with the community. I think it is obvious that I don't have a clue as to what I'm doing, but I'd like to help with adding some more information to some album articles and also, maybe some other things if I am made aware of them. Any help would be appreciated. MusicMajorette ( talk) 04:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
@J.wong, how does your proposal differ, in spirit, from mandating that "trivial things should not be included"? Or, in other words, what it is about lists that warrants special attention in this guideline? Uniplex ( talk) 18:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, let's start over:
I am proposing that the guideline with respect to using lists as WP:RS in album articles be clarified so that it cannot be interpreted to prohibit all use of any said lists as WP:RS. If a list can meet the standard used for inclusion of music reviews as WP:RS, then it can be included. The guideline will continue to discourage use of dubious lists.
Given the preceding proposal, I am suggesting the following edit to the guideline:
If you can suggest a better wording to achieve the proposal, I welcome your input.
-- J. Wong ( talk) 04:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think we have a consensus here. I'll apply the agreed upon changes to WP:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body#Critical_reception, and I will also start a section here discussing a list of acceptable and unacceptable lists to be added to WP:REVSIT
-- J. Wong ( talk) 16:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should make a category for bootlegs. There are some very notable ones which have articles but are put into categories for bootlegs by the artists who may only have that one bootleg in the list. And there aren't too many articles for bootlegs so perhaps we should make a category for them all to go in additionally. There isn't many bootlegs. -- 92.237.88.53 ( talk) 21:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
People who know wiki better than me, the article for this album lists a track by the long-standing and significant bands "Moana and the Moahunters" and "Shihad", who both have wiki entries. But the wiki links from the album article (i.e. "[[]]") lead to a dead-ends, what's going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunswicknic ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks like Yahoo! Music has removed the album review pages so if they have been referenced by any album articles they are now dead. They may have been archived so check to add the archiveurl and archivedate to the cite. (And they should be cite's not just links or reference links.)
-- J. Wong ( talk) 01:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Please tell me why WP:ALBUMCAPS offers no alternative solution to a situation in which the artist himself capitalises a preposition. The above named album is actually titled 'Beatles For Sale' by artist intent, and can be verified by The Beatles' official site, among other sources. I propose a change to the wording of the relevant section. Radiopathy •talk• 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there: We capitalize prepositions in phrasal verbs ( Bringin' On the Heartbreak, Get On Your Boots, etc.), so why not in a phrasal adjective like " for sale"? Two Hearted River ( paddle / fish) 23:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I have found interest in the album "Time of my Life" by American rock band 3 doors down. I am interested in improving the information about this album and I am seeking some help. Here is a link to the page that should provide information about the album http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_My_Life_%28album%29 -- Reallyconfused ( talk) 03:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Using Romances as an example, I want to know if this how ALBUMCAPS are applied to album and song names. There isn't a single FA-class Spanish-language (let alone any non-English FA-class album articles), I just want to know if this would be an ideal for a foreign-album article following the last discussion. Erick ( talk) 09:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Has there been a previous discussion on notability of mixtapes? I asked this question at WikiProject Music, but nobody has responded. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 21:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Pitchfork is a magazine owned by Pitchfork Media. I propose that in album articles we refer to the magazine as Pitchfork notwithstanding decisions made here (or not) about the Pitchfork Media page itself. Pitchfork is the music magazine and not any other media websites associated with Pitchfork Media.
This is really no different than how we have to disambiguate Spin. Also, it's no different to how the media property should be used in references and not the copyright holder. For example, Entertainment Weekly not Time Inc, who is the copyright holder.
-- J. Wong ( talk) 14:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Since Pitchfork Media is the publisher, it seems reasonable that cites should include that as the "|publisher=", but since the web-based magazine is called Pitchfork references in articles in both prose and the Album ratings should use that wiki-linked to the Pitchfork Media article since there isn't a separate article for the magazine. -- J. Wong ( talk) 18:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
See Template talk:Infobox album#Album cover artist for discussion. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 18:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I really should have said something about this a lot sooner, but I've noticed something while working on the WP:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space project. Many articles are on albums that have no reviews cited, either because the album is too old to be covered by online review publications, or because it hasn't been reviewed by any notable ones. So for lack of any actual reviews, editors would often put a link to the article's Allmusic entry in the "reviews" section of the infobox, just so that there would be something there. Allmusic rates albums independently of reviewing them(this is why you'll often see overwhelmingly positive reviews accompanied by 1 or 2 star ratings, or overwhelmingly negative reviews accompanied by 4 or 5 star ratings), so editors even had a legit rating they could include.
The problem is that many editors helping with the project are simply moving the infobox reviews to the ratings template without using prose to summarize the reviews. This means that in many cases, they're wasting their time moving and reformatting citations for reviews that don't actually exist. I've already stumbled on a couple of articles with a new ratings template that simply links to a blank Allmusic entry.
So, I'm just putting out this bit of advice to everyone else helping with the project: Before you waste your time moving that review rating, click that link and make sure there's an actual review there.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 19:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I've seen some 2 star reviews saying more positive things than 4 star reviews, so there's a fair bit of error in Alllmusic's ratng system. It's not really for us to judge whether the rating is incorrect, so perhaps Allmusic should be left out of the ratings box, with perhaps just some quotes from the review in the relevant prose section?-- Tuzapicabit ( talk) 01:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to get a clarification on this issue, because there are examples of the use of what are considered inappropriate capitalizations but these are the forms that exist in all reliable sources, and WP:MOSTM states that Wikipedia should not make up new forms for page titles but use forms that exist in reliable sources (particularly in the Japanese market). The examples are:
So what is to be done concerning this aspect? I am not raising this at WP:MOS-JA because there is nothing there that concerns capitalization of particular words (they only concern ALL CAPS or no caps). So should Wikipedia continue enforce this rule that has conflicts within its own style guides?— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 04:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
(undent) Well, this is the sort of situation that WP:ALBUMCAPS exists for. English capitalization rules apply to English album/song titles, regardless of the capitalization appearing on the album cover or sources covering the album. Pretty straightforward. I don't think an exception is likely to be granted here. MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 06:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
(undent)Just to let everyone know, Ryulong started a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Song/album titles that conflict with WP:ALBUMCAPS, so everyone that offered an opinion here should also offer their opinion there. Aspects ( talk) 16:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reson that the bot stopped moving the reviews from the infobox? With >19,000 to go it's going to take a quite a while to do it manually. J04n( talk page) 15:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Anybody know a good reference for the French music charts? The official Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique website doesn't seem to archive their chart listings.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 18:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Where would I go if I wanted to get an A-Class assessment review for Entre a Mi Mundo and Selena Live!? Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 16:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see here Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Good news, folks. The album ratings bot is back. Hopefully this is the start of the final phase, where the bot moves most or all of the rest of the reviews from the album infobox to the album ratings template. The bot is now adding a References section to articles that didn't have one, which is needed to display the ratings references as footnotes. Everyone is encouraged to check the bot's latest batch of about 700 articles, here, and to leave any feedback in this talk page section. Thanks. — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
| noprose = yes
should be included and it should be left after the infobox and before the lede. --
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
01:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)http://audiopinions.net doesn't seem to have any paid staff and the reviews feel more like blogs, but some editors at Hats Off to the Bull are including it as a review. Should it stay or go? This was originally added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, I'm proposing to add "best of" and "greatest" lists to WP:REVSIT. The acceptability of lists in album articles is specified in WP:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body#Critical_reception, but essentially the requirement is that the list include prose discussing the albums placed on it, preferably the album in question, and that the editor include a quote from that review or otherwise reference it. That is, it's just like any other review.
Rolling Stone has published several lists that can be referenced.
The first proposed list is the Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time as follows:
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)If referenced, preferably including a quote, this should be cited using a Template:cite book to the book and specifying the list position using the chapter parameter identifying the list position, album, and artist with the chapterurl parameter specifying the active url on the Rolling Stone web site to that listing.
There was a book published somewhat as a counterbalance to the RS500 list, but it qualifies as a minority opinion especially because many of the reviewers included in their own personal ten best albums lists those being reviewed negatively by another reviewer.
---more to come---
-- J. Wong ( talk) 04:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
chapter=
and chapterurl=
parameters as mentioned above.
<ref>{{cite book |chapter= |chapterurl= |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>
Here's another list associated with Rolling Stone, but one that was never published in the magazine itself. It was included in a book about the 1990's called "The '90s" authored by the editors of the magazine. The citations are available on the website for Rolling Stone so this should use a
Template:cite book for the book with an additional
Template:cite web for the citation noted as such ("Citation posted at "):
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)Or in copy/paste form where you add the relevant citation to the the |title=
and provide the direct |url=
values in the
Template:cite web part of the reference:
<ref name=RS2010>{{Cite book |title=The '90s: The Inside Stories from the Decade That Rocked |year=2010 |pages=282–297 |chapter=The 100 Greatest Albums of the '90s |publisher=[[Harper Collins|Harper Design]] |isbn=978-0061779206}} Citation posted at {{Cite web |work=rollingstone.com |title=100 Best Albums of the Nineties: |url= |accessdate={{Date|}} }} Posted on April 27, 2011.</ref>
— J. Wong ( talk) 21:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Pitchfork has posted a series of staff lists. Here's an example from the "Top 100 Albums of the 1990s":
I'm guessing the album position is decided by the staff as a whole while write-ups for each individual albums are written by a specific person. Since lists are just like reviews, you should (hopefully) be quoting it, and the author should be specified in the cite.
Or it copy & paste text and all you need to do is insert the first=
, last=
, url=
, and accessdate=
, and append the position (leading zero per Pitchfork practice), artist, and italicized album title to the given title. The url=
should be to the page on which the album is listed not the main page for the list (unless that's where the album is listed).
<ref>{{Cite web |work=[[Pitchfork Magazine|Pitchfork]] |publisher=Pitchfork Media |date=November 17, 2003 |first=|last=|title=Top 100 Albums of the 1990s: |url=http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/5923-top-100-albums-of-the-1990s |accessdate={{date|}} }}</ref>
Here's the same for the other decades that they have covered:
<ref>{{Cite web |work=[[Pitchfork Magazine|Pitchfork]] |publisher=Pitchfork Media |date=June 23, 2004 |first=|last=|title=Top 100 Albums of the 1970s: |url=http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/5932-top-100-albums-of-the-1970s/ |accessdate={{date|}} }}</ref>
<ref>{{Cite web |work=[[Pitchfork Magazine|Pitchfork]] |publisher=Pitchfork Media |date=November 20, 2002 |first=|last=|title=Top 100 Albums of the 1980s: |url=http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/5882-top-100-albums-of-the-1980s/ |accessdate={{date|}} }}</ref>
Since 2000 they've been publishing a "Top 20" for each year. The format should be the same.
-- J. Wong ( talk) 06:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wanting to see if this group can provide guidance on the Immortal (Michael Jackson album) Talk page. There has been a dispute as to the album covers to use for the article. ADKIc3mAnX has insisted that both the original and deluxe album covers are necessary, User:Gabe19 has been removing it due to WP:FUC 3A "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I personally don't have a strong conviction to keeping or removing it, but the covers aren't significantly different (they differ in color and subtle background changes). The original album is File:Michael_jackson_immortal_album_cover.jpg and the deluxe is File:Immortal_Deluxe_Edition_Slipcase.jpg. The article page has been locked for 3 days until this matter is resolved (due to an editing war), but I'd like to have additional input from other users so that when the page is unlocked we can have the matter resolved appropriately. Thanks! ( Brent.austin ( talk) 20:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC))
Don't know if this is the right place, but I was just wondering if there is some rule about not splitting off bonus tracks into their own little collapsible template sections? I came across an issue where my edits to the Devin Townsend/ Strapping Young Lad albums were being reverted because they were considered "unnecessary". I personally think bonus tracks from special/deluxe/limited editions and re-issues, should be separated from the album proper, as it creates two different albums lengths. Plus I think it makes it look simpler and aesthetically better looking, and I've seen plenty of other album articles do the same thing. So what I'm wondering is are my edits valid or am I in the wrong? I don't want to get into a whole edit war thing Hellboy42 ( talk) 10:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
So I should be okay in reverting the changes back to how I had them? Hellboy42 ( talk) 23:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Although not related to albums, I thought my nomination may have an effect on here. Please see my reasons for nomination at CfD. Cheers. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 12:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
This has been raised before with favourable if cautious response - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_41#Linking_to_Source_Material and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_38#Album_streams_in_EL, and there is a discussion happening now at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Clarification_that_ELYES.232_includes_recordings. We have historically been cautious about linking to sites that contain copyright material in case of violations; however, with licensed streaming, this is now a viable option that offers an encyclopedic asset, and there are going to be increasing possibilities to create links to legal and appropriate sites. MySpace offers legal streaming alongside the option to buy. Some people are uncertain about bundling together the commercial and the educational, however the sound quality is good, it appears to play in all regions, and commercialism is wrapped up in music production; indeed, normally the only way one would get to legally hear an album whenever you want is to actually buy it. Added to MySpace is Radio3Net, an internet radio website owned by the Romanian government which legally hosts a large number of albums, including all those in the 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die book. Radio3Net is not licensed for all territories, though covers those in which the majority of en.Wiki users live. We are discussing at EL the appropriate wording to use when linking to Radio3Net and MySpace, which would also apply to other such sites. Suggestions are:
Along with a hidden: <!-- This is a licensed stream for the album, which is allowed under Wikipedia polices -->
What are people's thoughts on this? SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there a draft of the guideline yet? I would like to take a look at it.
I think that some templates (e.g.: {{
Listen live}}; {{
External media}}; {{
YouTube}}; {{
Google videos}};
Category:Radio external link templates;
Category:Television external link templates) should also be considered and provided with the necessary instructions and support in a case-by-case basis.
"
Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere" ...
Ready Steady Go! (1965) ... for the guideline. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
09:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to make an invitation to update Template:Roadrunner United, as adding all of the musicians and ensembles could be quite time consuming. How can I go about doing so?-- Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there any guideline or consensus as to what defines an album as a live album or a longform music video? What category do concert DVDs fall under? — Andrew s talk
Can Christianity Today ( link to music section) be put on the list of review sites? They are a reputable publication, and though they deal mostly with Christian music, I think they still should be listed, just as a site dealing mostly with pop music or metal could be listed.
Also, should Cross Rhythms ( site link) and HM Magazine ( site link) be added? They also specialize in Christian music, but they are so widely used I think they should be mentioned.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 16:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Question at WT:MOSCAPS#Composition titles concerning the guidance for capitazliation of album titles (as addressed here) and of composition titles generally; can we borrow from both bits of guidance so that both of them say the same thing and are sufficiently precise? Please comment there if possible. -- Kotniski ( talk) 16:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I messed something up. Can someone move Unlearn (Youngblood Brass Band album) to just Unlearn (album)? Jasper420 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we add Consequence of Sound to the review sites?-- 83.143.32.2 ( talk) 11:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The article for the website itself has mostly self refs. Does it have a large paid staff? Or just amateur contributors. Experienced staff on salary is a good enough crutch to lean on for notability. If it is like Sputnik it might have to have the added rule that only 'staff' reviews/articles would pass as valid citations... and 'user' submissions would be deleted. Just a thought. Otherwise, no issues. Mr Pyles ( talk) 22:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Has a large staff, I assume that they are paid. Metacritic includes them as a professional review site, and it has received coverage by About.com and Technorati.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 18:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason that this site is not a part of the professional review sources list? It's listed on more than its fair share of album reviews on Wikipedia (over 500), but I'd like some clarity regarding whether or not it is necessarily a viable review source for use in articles. - Rmzy717 ( talk) 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
For the lead, I have several issues on which I'd like clarification:
1. In the case of different album types such as studio album, live album, EP, etc., do they need to be linked? For many years I've been consistently linking them, but there's always been a niggling hint of overlink in my mind when doing so. A definitive answer on this would be great. I mean, everyone knows what a studio album is, but then again.. perhaps not an EP.
2. Is it really necessary to include the artist's nationality in the lead? Has to be said, I'm staunchly against this practice as I don't see what purpose it serves. To me, it only encourages potentially controversial statements (i.e. British vs English vs Scottish vs Irish vs Northern Irish) which should be confined to the artist's bio, rather than an article about their music. If the reader wants to find out about their nationality, they can readily click on the bio article for more information.
3. For the type of musician(s), such as a guitarist or band/group, must that also be linked?
4. Genre-wise, what if the artist has covered multiple styles throughout their career? Example: the guitarist in question is best known for playing jazz fusion on the majority of his discography, but his first album was actually hard rock. I think it would look mighty confusing if the lead were to state "__ is a studio album by jazz fusion guitarist __", whilst the infobox states something else. Hell, that's downright silly. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 06:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
What exactly are we talking about? Yes these could be overlinking and too much detail depending on the article. Are we talking about an article of a Band or album or both? Because just naming the bandmembers is enough in the lead and expand further in the article, if its about an album then there is no need to mention any bandmember unless they contributed to the album in a specific area. Lucia Black ( talk) 20:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no jungle in the norteast part of Brasil, an area in fact afflicted periodically by droughts. Just the reverse, is a very dry area, almost desert. The "jungle" or rain forest, covers just one third of Brasil´s mainland, and is extremely humid. It´s like saying that a song is about "the snowy mountains in Florida Everglades". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.146.84.252 ( talk) 13:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This template needs some feedback over here.-- WTF ( talk) 20:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the documentation for Template:Track listing to suggest that:
I trust that these changes are OK, but thought I should draw them to the attention of this WikiProject.
As for whether to include English translations at all: WP:NOR#Translations and transcriptions says that faithful translation is not WP:OR. There was a discussion on this last year at WT:NOR; only one editor ( Bread Ninja, now called Lucia Black) was opposed to including translations, and she did not cite any policy grounds to back her objections. – Fayenatic (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I can see potential confusion though. I understand it maybe too small but im beginning to question if thats relevant. Although it may not be eligable it is still distinguishable. And really this english wiki. It will most likely not be eligible for most english readers. Lucia Black ( talk) 07:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes I do. For convenience and completeness, here are the other alternatives mentioned so far:
These used the Extra column with a heading, appearing like this:
A:
No. | Title | Chinese | Length |
---|---|---|---|
1. | "Jiāng'ài" ("To Love") | 將愛 | 4:09 |
B:
No. | Title | Translation | Length |
---|---|---|---|
1. | "Jiāng'ài" (將愛) | "To Love" | 4:09 |
Although my opening arguments above were in favour of (A), I am now swayed by Lucia's arguments for putting the Chinese characters in the small-font Notes field. I've also tried putting all three versions of the title in one column of the track listing using formats (C) (here) and (D) (here) and I now think neither of them look good. They look cluttered; and as the article text discusses some of the tracks using the unofficial English translations, it would be better for the English translation to be in large font after all. I'm therefore inclined to go back to B (here), using the Extra field & column for the unofficial translations.
This is not explicitly sanctioned by the current documentation at Template:Track listing. I am therefore asking this WikiProject's permission to allow editors to use the Extra column for unofficial translations where there are no official English titles. The column heading could be expanded to "Unofficial translation" if that helps. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, good points. I propose to take the above comments by user:Backtable as permission from this Wikiproject to amend the track listing template documentation to permit the use of the Extra column for unofficial translations, as per example (B) above. Should the heading specify something like "Unofficial translation"/ "Suggested translation"? – Fayenatic (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I posted a COI notice today when I noticed that 2 newly-registered users were adding reviews from a website called http://propertyofzack.com/ to album articles. The editors are obviously members of the site's staff, and the site hasn't been discussed by the community for inclusion at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE. The COI notice can be found here; Any input or assistance would be appreciated. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 05:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this acceptable on Wikipedia? If so, should they be formatted like a standard cite, or by using
WP:HIDDEN on particularly relevant sections (such as Track listing and Personnel)? The only issue I would imagine with the latter is that one would need to physically own the album to, uh.. verify the verification, heh. The reason I bring this up is because I realise there's a need for everything to be verifiable, but a lot of these so-called gospel sources like Allmusic and whatnot are often incorrect in terms of basic information like personnel and track times. I believe that liner notes are the absolute definitive source for certain things and should be adhered to rigidly, above that of secondary sources; unless the latter is stating something new, such as additional recording locations or performers who weren't credited for whatever reason. The way I've done it for
this album seems good to me (see Track listing and Personnel), as per a suggestion on
Template:Infobox album: "It may be helpful to include a source in a comment, such as <!--CD liner notes-->
"
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
17:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
PropertyOfZack is well respected in the indie-punk music world and is always up to date with current music news and album reviews. I do not work for PropertyOfZack, but am an avid reader and believe that the website is a great source that readers of other "professional" sites like altpress would read. The site is smaller, and more DIY, but is needed on Wikipedia to widen the span of music knowledge on the page. They have writers, editors, and reviewers, same as any other music site. They are not a blog, but a full website with photographers, news articles and galleries, tour sponsorship, etc. Adding a link to punk album reviews on punk band album sites would give another perspective and help the reader utilize more sources in their research on albums and music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeLikesPunk ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 16 February 2012 (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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
Well y'all, here it is, thanks to User:Muhandes: Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover. Now...lets get crackin'! Only 20,017 to go! Jasper420 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I have always wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, but I could never think of anything that I could add. Little did I know that there was much work that I could do and even subjects (certain, sort of obscure albums) that I knew a lot about. So I went through the basic tutorials (still working on the MOS) and I am posting because it was suggested that I post to coordinate with the community. I think it is obvious that I don't have a clue as to what I'm doing, but I'd like to help with adding some more information to some album articles and also, maybe some other things if I am made aware of them. Any help would be appreciated. MusicMajorette ( talk) 04:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
@J.wong, how does your proposal differ, in spirit, from mandating that "trivial things should not be included"? Or, in other words, what it is about lists that warrants special attention in this guideline? Uniplex ( talk) 18:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, let's start over:
I am proposing that the guideline with respect to using lists as WP:RS in album articles be clarified so that it cannot be interpreted to prohibit all use of any said lists as WP:RS. If a list can meet the standard used for inclusion of music reviews as WP:RS, then it can be included. The guideline will continue to discourage use of dubious lists.
Given the preceding proposal, I am suggesting the following edit to the guideline:
If you can suggest a better wording to achieve the proposal, I welcome your input.
-- J. Wong ( talk) 04:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think we have a consensus here. I'll apply the agreed upon changes to WP:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body#Critical_reception, and I will also start a section here discussing a list of acceptable and unacceptable lists to be added to WP:REVSIT
-- J. Wong ( talk) 16:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should make a category for bootlegs. There are some very notable ones which have articles but are put into categories for bootlegs by the artists who may only have that one bootleg in the list. And there aren't too many articles for bootlegs so perhaps we should make a category for them all to go in additionally. There isn't many bootlegs. -- 92.237.88.53 ( talk) 21:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
People who know wiki better than me, the article for this album lists a track by the long-standing and significant bands "Moana and the Moahunters" and "Shihad", who both have wiki entries. But the wiki links from the album article (i.e. "[[]]") lead to a dead-ends, what's going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunswicknic ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks like Yahoo! Music has removed the album review pages so if they have been referenced by any album articles they are now dead. They may have been archived so check to add the archiveurl and archivedate to the cite. (And they should be cite's not just links or reference links.)
-- J. Wong ( talk) 01:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Please tell me why WP:ALBUMCAPS offers no alternative solution to a situation in which the artist himself capitalises a preposition. The above named album is actually titled 'Beatles For Sale' by artist intent, and can be verified by The Beatles' official site, among other sources. I propose a change to the wording of the relevant section. Radiopathy •talk• 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there: We capitalize prepositions in phrasal verbs ( Bringin' On the Heartbreak, Get On Your Boots, etc.), so why not in a phrasal adjective like " for sale"? Two Hearted River ( paddle / fish) 23:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I have found interest in the album "Time of my Life" by American rock band 3 doors down. I am interested in improving the information about this album and I am seeking some help. Here is a link to the page that should provide information about the album http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_My_Life_%28album%29 -- Reallyconfused ( talk) 03:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Using Romances as an example, I want to know if this how ALBUMCAPS are applied to album and song names. There isn't a single FA-class Spanish-language (let alone any non-English FA-class album articles), I just want to know if this would be an ideal for a foreign-album article following the last discussion. Erick ( talk) 09:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Has there been a previous discussion on notability of mixtapes? I asked this question at WikiProject Music, but nobody has responded. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 21:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Pitchfork is a magazine owned by Pitchfork Media. I propose that in album articles we refer to the magazine as Pitchfork notwithstanding decisions made here (or not) about the Pitchfork Media page itself. Pitchfork is the music magazine and not any other media websites associated with Pitchfork Media.
This is really no different than how we have to disambiguate Spin. Also, it's no different to how the media property should be used in references and not the copyright holder. For example, Entertainment Weekly not Time Inc, who is the copyright holder.
-- J. Wong ( talk) 14:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Since Pitchfork Media is the publisher, it seems reasonable that cites should include that as the "|publisher=", but since the web-based magazine is called Pitchfork references in articles in both prose and the Album ratings should use that wiki-linked to the Pitchfork Media article since there isn't a separate article for the magazine. -- J. Wong ( talk) 18:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
See Template talk:Infobox album#Album cover artist for discussion. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 18:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I really should have said something about this a lot sooner, but I've noticed something while working on the WP:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space project. Many articles are on albums that have no reviews cited, either because the album is too old to be covered by online review publications, or because it hasn't been reviewed by any notable ones. So for lack of any actual reviews, editors would often put a link to the article's Allmusic entry in the "reviews" section of the infobox, just so that there would be something there. Allmusic rates albums independently of reviewing them(this is why you'll often see overwhelmingly positive reviews accompanied by 1 or 2 star ratings, or overwhelmingly negative reviews accompanied by 4 or 5 star ratings), so editors even had a legit rating they could include.
The problem is that many editors helping with the project are simply moving the infobox reviews to the ratings template without using prose to summarize the reviews. This means that in many cases, they're wasting their time moving and reformatting citations for reviews that don't actually exist. I've already stumbled on a couple of articles with a new ratings template that simply links to a blank Allmusic entry.
So, I'm just putting out this bit of advice to everyone else helping with the project: Before you waste your time moving that review rating, click that link and make sure there's an actual review there.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 19:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I've seen some 2 star reviews saying more positive things than 4 star reviews, so there's a fair bit of error in Alllmusic's ratng system. It's not really for us to judge whether the rating is incorrect, so perhaps Allmusic should be left out of the ratings box, with perhaps just some quotes from the review in the relevant prose section?-- Tuzapicabit ( talk) 01:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to get a clarification on this issue, because there are examples of the use of what are considered inappropriate capitalizations but these are the forms that exist in all reliable sources, and WP:MOSTM states that Wikipedia should not make up new forms for page titles but use forms that exist in reliable sources (particularly in the Japanese market). The examples are:
So what is to be done concerning this aspect? I am not raising this at WP:MOS-JA because there is nothing there that concerns capitalization of particular words (they only concern ALL CAPS or no caps). So should Wikipedia continue enforce this rule that has conflicts within its own style guides?— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 04:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
(undent) Well, this is the sort of situation that WP:ALBUMCAPS exists for. English capitalization rules apply to English album/song titles, regardless of the capitalization appearing on the album cover or sources covering the album. Pretty straightforward. I don't think an exception is likely to be granted here. MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 06:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
(undent)Just to let everyone know, Ryulong started a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Song/album titles that conflict with WP:ALBUMCAPS, so everyone that offered an opinion here should also offer their opinion there. Aspects ( talk) 16:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reson that the bot stopped moving the reviews from the infobox? With >19,000 to go it's going to take a quite a while to do it manually. J04n( talk page) 15:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Anybody know a good reference for the French music charts? The official Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique website doesn't seem to archive their chart listings.-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 18:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Where would I go if I wanted to get an A-Class assessment review for Entre a Mi Mundo and Selena Live!? Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 16:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see here Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Good news, folks. The album ratings bot is back. Hopefully this is the start of the final phase, where the bot moves most or all of the rest of the reviews from the album infobox to the album ratings template. The bot is now adding a References section to articles that didn't have one, which is needed to display the ratings references as footnotes. Everyone is encouraged to check the bot's latest batch of about 700 articles, here, and to leave any feedback in this talk page section. Thanks. — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
| noprose = yes
should be included and it should be left after the infobox and before the lede. --
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
01:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)http://audiopinions.net doesn't seem to have any paid staff and the reviews feel more like blogs, but some editors at Hats Off to the Bull are including it as a review. Should it stay or go? This was originally added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, I'm proposing to add "best of" and "greatest" lists to WP:REVSIT. The acceptability of lists in album articles is specified in WP:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body#Critical_reception, but essentially the requirement is that the list include prose discussing the albums placed on it, preferably the album in question, and that the editor include a quote from that review or otherwise reference it. That is, it's just like any other review.
Rolling Stone has published several lists that can be referenced.
The first proposed list is the Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time as follows:
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)If referenced, preferably including a quote, this should be cited using a Template:cite book to the book and specifying the list position using the chapter parameter identifying the list position, album, and artist with the chapterurl parameter specifying the active url on the Rolling Stone web site to that listing.
There was a book published somewhat as a counterbalance to the RS500 list, but it qualifies as a minority opinion especially because many of the reviewers included in their own personal ten best albums lists those being reviewed negatively by another reviewer.
---more to come---
-- J. Wong ( talk) 04:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
chapter=
and chapterurl=
parameters as mentioned above.
<ref>{{cite book |chapter= |chapterurl= |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>
Here's another list associated with Rolling Stone, but one that was never published in the magazine itself. It was included in a book about the 1990's called "The '90s" authored by the editors of the magazine. The citations are available on the website for Rolling Stone so this should use a
Template:cite book for the book with an additional
Template:cite web for the citation noted as such ("Citation posted at "):
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)Or in copy/paste form where you add the relevant citation to the the |title=
and provide the direct |url=
values in the
Template:cite web part of the reference:
<ref name=RS2010>{{Cite book |title=The '90s: The Inside Stories from the Decade That Rocked |year=2010 |pages=282–297 |chapter=The 100 Greatest Albums of the '90s |publisher=[[Harper Collins|Harper Design]] |isbn=978-0061779206}} Citation posted at {{Cite web |work=rollingstone.com |title=100 Best Albums of the Nineties: |url= |accessdate={{Date|}} }} Posted on April 27, 2011.</ref>
— J. Wong ( talk) 21:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Pitchfork has posted a series of staff lists. Here's an example from the "Top 100 Albums of the 1990s":
I'm guessing the album position is decided by the staff as a whole while write-ups for each individual albums are written by a specific person. Since lists are just like reviews, you should (hopefully) be quoting it, and the author should be specified in the cite.
Or it copy & paste text and all you need to do is insert the first=
, last=
, url=
, and accessdate=
, and append the position (leading zero per Pitchfork practice), artist, and italicized album title to the given title. The url=
should be to the page on which the album is listed not the main page for the list (unless that's where the album is listed).
<ref>{{Cite web |work=[[Pitchfork Magazine|Pitchfork]] |publisher=Pitchfork Media |date=November 17, 2003 |first=|last=|title=Top 100 Albums of the 1990s: |url=http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/5923-top-100-albums-of-the-1990s |accessdate={{date|}} }}</ref>
Here's the same for the other decades that they have covered:
<ref>{{Cite web |work=[[Pitchfork Magazine|Pitchfork]] |publisher=Pitchfork Media |date=June 23, 2004 |first=|last=|title=Top 100 Albums of the 1970s: |url=http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/5932-top-100-albums-of-the-1970s/ |accessdate={{date|}} }}</ref>
<ref>{{Cite web |work=[[Pitchfork Magazine|Pitchfork]] |publisher=Pitchfork Media |date=November 20, 2002 |first=|last=|title=Top 100 Albums of the 1980s: |url=http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/5882-top-100-albums-of-the-1980s/ |accessdate={{date|}} }}</ref>
Since 2000 they've been publishing a "Top 20" for each year. The format should be the same.
-- J. Wong ( talk) 06:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wanting to see if this group can provide guidance on the Immortal (Michael Jackson album) Talk page. There has been a dispute as to the album covers to use for the article. ADKIc3mAnX has insisted that both the original and deluxe album covers are necessary, User:Gabe19 has been removing it due to WP:FUC 3A "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I personally don't have a strong conviction to keeping or removing it, but the covers aren't significantly different (they differ in color and subtle background changes). The original album is File:Michael_jackson_immortal_album_cover.jpg and the deluxe is File:Immortal_Deluxe_Edition_Slipcase.jpg. The article page has been locked for 3 days until this matter is resolved (due to an editing war), but I'd like to have additional input from other users so that when the page is unlocked we can have the matter resolved appropriately. Thanks! ( Brent.austin ( talk) 20:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC))
Don't know if this is the right place, but I was just wondering if there is some rule about not splitting off bonus tracks into their own little collapsible template sections? I came across an issue where my edits to the Devin Townsend/ Strapping Young Lad albums were being reverted because they were considered "unnecessary". I personally think bonus tracks from special/deluxe/limited editions and re-issues, should be separated from the album proper, as it creates two different albums lengths. Plus I think it makes it look simpler and aesthetically better looking, and I've seen plenty of other album articles do the same thing. So what I'm wondering is are my edits valid or am I in the wrong? I don't want to get into a whole edit war thing Hellboy42 ( talk) 10:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
So I should be okay in reverting the changes back to how I had them? Hellboy42 ( talk) 23:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Although not related to albums, I thought my nomination may have an effect on here. Please see my reasons for nomination at CfD. Cheers. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 12:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
This has been raised before with favourable if cautious response - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_41#Linking_to_Source_Material and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_38#Album_streams_in_EL, and there is a discussion happening now at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Clarification_that_ELYES.232_includes_recordings. We have historically been cautious about linking to sites that contain copyright material in case of violations; however, with licensed streaming, this is now a viable option that offers an encyclopedic asset, and there are going to be increasing possibilities to create links to legal and appropriate sites. MySpace offers legal streaming alongside the option to buy. Some people are uncertain about bundling together the commercial and the educational, however the sound quality is good, it appears to play in all regions, and commercialism is wrapped up in music production; indeed, normally the only way one would get to legally hear an album whenever you want is to actually buy it. Added to MySpace is Radio3Net, an internet radio website owned by the Romanian government which legally hosts a large number of albums, including all those in the 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die book. Radio3Net is not licensed for all territories, though covers those in which the majority of en.Wiki users live. We are discussing at EL the appropriate wording to use when linking to Radio3Net and MySpace, which would also apply to other such sites. Suggestions are:
Along with a hidden: <!-- This is a licensed stream for the album, which is allowed under Wikipedia polices -->
What are people's thoughts on this? SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there a draft of the guideline yet? I would like to take a look at it.
I think that some templates (e.g.: {{
Listen live}}; {{
External media}}; {{
YouTube}}; {{
Google videos}};
Category:Radio external link templates;
Category:Television external link templates) should also be considered and provided with the necessary instructions and support in a case-by-case basis.
"
Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere" ...
Ready Steady Go! (1965) ... for the guideline. –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs)
09:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to make an invitation to update Template:Roadrunner United, as adding all of the musicians and ensembles could be quite time consuming. How can I go about doing so?-- Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there any guideline or consensus as to what defines an album as a live album or a longform music video? What category do concert DVDs fall under? — Andrew s talk
Can Christianity Today ( link to music section) be put on the list of review sites? They are a reputable publication, and though they deal mostly with Christian music, I think they still should be listed, just as a site dealing mostly with pop music or metal could be listed.
Also, should Cross Rhythms ( site link) and HM Magazine ( site link) be added? They also specialize in Christian music, but they are so widely used I think they should be mentioned.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 16:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Question at WT:MOSCAPS#Composition titles concerning the guidance for capitazliation of album titles (as addressed here) and of composition titles generally; can we borrow from both bits of guidance so that both of them say the same thing and are sufficiently precise? Please comment there if possible. -- Kotniski ( talk) 16:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I messed something up. Can someone move Unlearn (Youngblood Brass Band album) to just Unlearn (album)? Jasper420 21:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we add Consequence of Sound to the review sites?-- 83.143.32.2 ( talk) 11:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The article for the website itself has mostly self refs. Does it have a large paid staff? Or just amateur contributors. Experienced staff on salary is a good enough crutch to lean on for notability. If it is like Sputnik it might have to have the added rule that only 'staff' reviews/articles would pass as valid citations... and 'user' submissions would be deleted. Just a thought. Otherwise, no issues. Mr Pyles ( talk) 22:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Has a large staff, I assume that they are paid. Metacritic includes them as a professional review site, and it has received coverage by About.com and Technorati.-- ¿3fam ily6 contribs 18:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason that this site is not a part of the professional review sources list? It's listed on more than its fair share of album reviews on Wikipedia (over 500), but I'd like some clarity regarding whether or not it is necessarily a viable review source for use in articles. - Rmzy717 ( talk) 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
For the lead, I have several issues on which I'd like clarification:
1. In the case of different album types such as studio album, live album, EP, etc., do they need to be linked? For many years I've been consistently linking them, but there's always been a niggling hint of overlink in my mind when doing so. A definitive answer on this would be great. I mean, everyone knows what a studio album is, but then again.. perhaps not an EP.
2. Is it really necessary to include the artist's nationality in the lead? Has to be said, I'm staunchly against this practice as I don't see what purpose it serves. To me, it only encourages potentially controversial statements (i.e. British vs English vs Scottish vs Irish vs Northern Irish) which should be confined to the artist's bio, rather than an article about their music. If the reader wants to find out about their nationality, they can readily click on the bio article for more information.
3. For the type of musician(s), such as a guitarist or band/group, must that also be linked?
4. Genre-wise, what if the artist has covered multiple styles throughout their career? Example: the guitarist in question is best known for playing jazz fusion on the majority of his discography, but his first album was actually hard rock. I think it would look mighty confusing if the lead were to state "__ is a studio album by jazz fusion guitarist __", whilst the infobox states something else. Hell, that's downright silly. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 06:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
What exactly are we talking about? Yes these could be overlinking and too much detail depending on the article. Are we talking about an article of a Band or album or both? Because just naming the bandmembers is enough in the lead and expand further in the article, if its about an album then there is no need to mention any bandmember unless they contributed to the album in a specific area. Lucia Black ( talk) 20:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no jungle in the norteast part of Brasil, an area in fact afflicted periodically by droughts. Just the reverse, is a very dry area, almost desert. The "jungle" or rain forest, covers just one third of Brasil´s mainland, and is extremely humid. It´s like saying that a song is about "the snowy mountains in Florida Everglades". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.146.84.252 ( talk) 13:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This template needs some feedback over here.-- WTF ( talk) 20:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the documentation for Template:Track listing to suggest that:
I trust that these changes are OK, but thought I should draw them to the attention of this WikiProject.
As for whether to include English translations at all: WP:NOR#Translations and transcriptions says that faithful translation is not WP:OR. There was a discussion on this last year at WT:NOR; only one editor ( Bread Ninja, now called Lucia Black) was opposed to including translations, and she did not cite any policy grounds to back her objections. – Fayenatic (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I can see potential confusion though. I understand it maybe too small but im beginning to question if thats relevant. Although it may not be eligable it is still distinguishable. And really this english wiki. It will most likely not be eligible for most english readers. Lucia Black ( talk) 07:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes I do. For convenience and completeness, here are the other alternatives mentioned so far:
These used the Extra column with a heading, appearing like this:
A:
No. | Title | Chinese | Length |
---|---|---|---|
1. | "Jiāng'ài" ("To Love") | 將愛 | 4:09 |
B:
No. | Title | Translation | Length |
---|---|---|---|
1. | "Jiāng'ài" (將愛) | "To Love" | 4:09 |
Although my opening arguments above were in favour of (A), I am now swayed by Lucia's arguments for putting the Chinese characters in the small-font Notes field. I've also tried putting all three versions of the title in one column of the track listing using formats (C) (here) and (D) (here) and I now think neither of them look good. They look cluttered; and as the article text discusses some of the tracks using the unofficial English translations, it would be better for the English translation to be in large font after all. I'm therefore inclined to go back to B (here), using the Extra field & column for the unofficial translations.
This is not explicitly sanctioned by the current documentation at Template:Track listing. I am therefore asking this WikiProject's permission to allow editors to use the Extra column for unofficial translations where there are no official English titles. The column heading could be expanded to "Unofficial translation" if that helps. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, good points. I propose to take the above comments by user:Backtable as permission from this Wikiproject to amend the track listing template documentation to permit the use of the Extra column for unofficial translations, as per example (B) above. Should the heading specify something like "Unofficial translation"/ "Suggested translation"? – Fayenatic (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I posted a COI notice today when I noticed that 2 newly-registered users were adding reviews from a website called http://propertyofzack.com/ to album articles. The editors are obviously members of the site's staff, and the site hasn't been discussed by the community for inclusion at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE. The COI notice can be found here; Any input or assistance would be appreciated. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 05:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this acceptable on Wikipedia? If so, should they be formatted like a standard cite, or by using
WP:HIDDEN on particularly relevant sections (such as Track listing and Personnel)? The only issue I would imagine with the latter is that one would need to physically own the album to, uh.. verify the verification, heh. The reason I bring this up is because I realise there's a need for everything to be verifiable, but a lot of these so-called gospel sources like Allmusic and whatnot are often incorrect in terms of basic information like personnel and track times. I believe that liner notes are the absolute definitive source for certain things and should be adhered to rigidly, above that of secondary sources; unless the latter is stating something new, such as additional recording locations or performers who weren't credited for whatever reason. The way I've done it for
this album seems good to me (see Track listing and Personnel), as per a suggestion on
Template:Infobox album: "It may be helpful to include a source in a comment, such as <!--CD liner notes-->
"
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
17:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
PropertyOfZack is well respected in the indie-punk music world and is always up to date with current music news and album reviews. I do not work for PropertyOfZack, but am an avid reader and believe that the website is a great source that readers of other "professional" sites like altpress would read. The site is smaller, and more DIY, but is needed on Wikipedia to widen the span of music knowledge on the page. They have writers, editors, and reviewers, same as any other music site. They are not a blog, but a full website with photographers, news articles and galleries, tour sponsorship, etc. Adding a link to punk album reviews on punk band album sites would give another perspective and help the reader utilize more sources in their research on albums and music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeLikesPunk ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)