![]() | 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 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
Hi. I've noticed some editors using the site HITS Daily Double as a source for US sales. Can anyone say if it's reliable or not? Dan56 ( talk) 04:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
"The numbers for the sales figures collected by Hits magazine and posted on its Web site are projections based on data from a limited number of the retailers who share point of sale information with our charts source, Nielsen SoundScan. Hits retail editor Mark Pearson generally does a commendable job of approximating the sales figures that drive Billboard's charts but there are discrepancies from time to time, particularly for titles that sell particularly well at department stores. Nielsen SoundScan's sample is based on actual consumer purchases at a universe of more than 90% of the U.S. market, a wider sample than Hits or any other source can tout. Therefore, I am not just being a company guy when I say that in the event that a Hits number disagrees with ours, the Billboard/SoundScan total is likely the more accurate one."
Hello, project members. Have any of you noticed edits by this person? He/she sheems to be adding unreferenced material about recordings and chart positions to various articles without any references at all. I hope someone will check this out and see if you can help him/her or else remove the WP:OR. Happy editing. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not certain enough of the guidelines, could someone comment on I Get a Kick out of You and WP:ALBUMCAPS? Should "out" really not be capitalized? -- Muhandes ( talk) 14:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Many compilation album series (e.g. Now! That's What I Call Music and Radio 1's Live Lounge etc) have had articles created for each individual volume in the series. I believe it is much more worthwhile to have an article about the compilation series as a whole because it is the series which is well-known and notable, rather than each volume. These articles about individual albums are mostly stubs and do not give much information apart from the track listing, release date and other trivia.
I have re-directed several stubs to the parent article for some compilation series such as Clubland, Bonkers and The Annual and have also added chart positions and certifications (which shows the article's notability), however I was told to open a discussion about the matter. I think this way, it makes it much more easier to see how the series has progressed, readers can compare albums against each other and mainly it will condense several stubs about the subject into a single manageable article.
I realise for some large compilation series such as Now! it would be almost impossible to condense into a single article, but for most other smaller series this seems like the best thing to do. On an additional note, some people may consider this to make the articles too long by including all the track listings for each volume in one article, so may I suggest that the tracklistings be made expandable for each separate volume, which will shorten the length of the article but will still include all the neccessary information. Please feel free to discuss the idea and contribute with any suggestions - 0800abc123 ( talk) 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I have Emerald Forest and the Blackbird on my watchlist, and I have in the last few days been involved with a conflict of interest somewhat relevant to this page. A user named User:AORmaniac13 has posted information connected to grande-rock.com, which I initially questioned the notability of. As you can see on the user's talk page, (s)he didn't like the fact that I had removed the information twice. Since the person objected to me doing so, I have not removed anything that (s)he has added to the aforementioned album article since due to the conflict of interest. Does anyone have opinions on grande-rock.com and whether or not it should be utilized on Wikipedia? Also, note that this page is not mentioned on WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE yet. With this question, I want to remain neutral and not try to sway the opinion to either way. Backtable Speak to me concerning my deeds. 06:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know about WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE... so it's time to put Grande Rock there... as this site is one of the oldest ones... when the internet wasn't so easy to access or to have a website or even to share your thoughts so easily. The guys that maintain it were editors in many magazines in Greece as well. Hard Rocker 13 00:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I would like someone from this project to take a look at the album article I am creating in my userspace, Call Me Burroughs and give me some feedback. Specifically, I want to know if there are any glaring omissions, or if I have formatted or organized anything incorrectly, etc. I do not feel that the article is "finished," but I do feel the basics have been covered, and the article is close to the point that it can be published. First, though, I would like to hear some opinions from members of this project. Thanks! --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 18:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion of problematic text not supported by references, and falsified references added by Legolas2186 to articles about songs, albums, concert tours, and to biographies. Anybody wishing to help verify sources or rework the indicated text are welcome to join the effort.
Here is the original discussion:
Here is the ongoing workpage for listing problems and for listing fixes.
Thanks for your attention! Binksternet ( talk) 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
A review by FoxNews of Beyonce's B'Day album was included in the article, and I'm not sure it's a professional music review source. Comments? Dan56 ( talk) 22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on a merge proposal at Talk:3 Doors Down EP (1996 album). Thanks.
A cleanup template {{ Cleanup-tracklist}} links to this page, but the section it used to link to is no longer here. Could someone who knows where it should link update the template. It currently links to a sub-section titled #track listing. AIRcorn (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I created a category for King Crimson's album covers.
Such categories serve as de facto galleries.
Have we had complaints form artists, musicians, or other copyright-holders that such de facto galleries exceed fair use?
P.S. I left a copy of this at the category's talk page, which is watched by very few.
Sincerely, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 16:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
__NOGALLERY__ <!--Do not remove this tag, as displaying these fair-use images in a gallery violates Wikipedia policy.-->
I'm proposing that a new Album Article Style Guide be created, by combining the "Style" section on the project page ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Style) with the "Article body" sub-page ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body). The style guide can either be a new sub-page of the project page, linked to very prominently from the project page, or else it can be part of the project page itself. Although I think a new sub-page would be better -- how about Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide? There's some preliminary discussion of this idea in the #Track listing standards discussion section above. It seems to me that this is a worthwhile idea. Right now the album article style guidelines are half in one place and half in another, and also I think a lot of people don't find the article body part, even though it's linked to from the main project page. Thoughts? — Mudwater ( Talk) 12:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The combined style guide would be something like this. :-) Again, there would be a prominent link to the new page, from the main project page, probably under a section header of "Album article style guide", to make it very easy for other editors to find. — Mudwater ( Talk) 14:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the new, combined style guide page has been created, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide, and there's a link to it from a new section of the main project page. Again, to create the new page, all I did was take the then-current versions of the "Style" section of the project page and the "Article body" sub-page, stick them together, and make a few minor changes to account for that fact that they're combined now. Thanks to everyone who has participated (or will participate) in the discussion. — Mudwater ( Talk) 14:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that looks great! Extremely handy to have all that information in one spot. Good work! MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 16:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
A few of Eminem's album pages have recently come under dispute over whether the record Infinite should be listed as the rappers debut studio album. Many sources agree that the debut studio album is the Slim Shady LP, with some acknowledging that Infinite was his first full length solo project (having initially only released around 1,000 copies, only 70 being sold). However some editors believe that Infinite is in fact the first studio album. As you can imagine, this has caused quite of bit of disruption, with both sides claiming that they are correct. The opening line of every album article is being changed back and forth constantly(i.e. "The Marshall Mathers LP is the rapper Eminem's second studio album", to "The Marshall Mathers LP is the rapper Eminem's third studio album". I hope a discussion here will help resolve the issue. Aunty-S ( talk) 09:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
(undent) Sounds to me like Infinite was his first studio album, and TSSLP was his first major-label album (and second album overall). Pretty straight-forward. MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 20:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Would these two templates be helpful to the project: {{ Albums category}} and {{ Album label category}}? They've existed quietly for over a year, created and used primarily by their author with no exposure or notice to other editors. The use of the albums category template will automatically add a intro statement ("This category contains albums by Foo") and Category:Albums by artist into new categories, with the creator of the new cats only needing to add additional appropriate categories (by genre/nationality) or, if necessary, a defaultsort. If acceptable, these can then be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Categorization as an option or suggestion for creating categories for an artist's albums or for record labels that don't already exist. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see here For a potential new scheme for categorizing album covers. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see here I made some changes to reflect different ways of listing performers when the credits to an album get more complicated. As always, my prose is not great, so please polish it. I also changed the last names of the fake performers, so that they will all appear in alphabetical order. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Please assist I've put some work into New Multitudes and it would be nice if someone decided to polish it up a little before it goes through WP:GA. For that matter, the GA process has a perpetual backlog (including in albums) that could always use reviewers. I don't feel qualified to do it myself, but if anyone's game to read some (potentially) good articles about albums, it's always there... — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Albums by certification and its category tree have been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Muhandes ( talk) 09:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I just started {{ WikiProject Albums navbox}} to better link related pages in this project. I've been wanting to do this for a long time as I've always felt some editors aren't even aware of all the related WP:ALBUMS pages. Feel free to add more links or reorganize if necessary. Fezmar9 ( talk) 02:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
A few months ago, I brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies on what to do if an album received both a standard and a Latin certification from the RIAA and I believe the suggestion brought there should also be brought to album articles. Basically, if an album receives both a standard and a Latin certification from the RIAA, whichever one with the higher shipping value should be used. For example, if an album receives a Gold certification and 4× Platinum (Latin field), the former should be used because 500,000 units is higher than 400,000 units. Likewise, if an album receives a Gold certification and 6× Platinum (Latin field), the latter should be used because 600,000 units is higher than 500,000 units. If both certifications result in the value, then it should be up to editor/consensus to decide which one to use. I would like a consensus on this decision. I think it should also apply to musician biography articles as well. Erick ( talk) 19:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
So I keep trying to put this into the standard as every other page, listing just studio albums and their year of release, but people keep putting back the charts with sales info and single info too, saying they're used to it like that and it enhances the article, let alone the fact Aerosmith of course have their own discography page for such info. Any help? Have shown them the guideline and they don't care! lol Yellowxander ( talk) 08:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
There has been repeated attempts to vandalize this and Template:Frank Zappa by mixing together the live, studio and compilations to remove any distinction between a album of new studio recordings, an album of new live recordings and albums which clearly serve as compilations, either of previously released material, or outtakes, or posthumous compilations that have no connection to a conceptualized album envisioned by the artist during his life time.-- WTF ( talk) 01:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Could I get some help with this article? It's my first substantial editing work on an album article. Thanks! — danhash ( talk) 18:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
So the album ratings bot has stalled yet again. We're up to something like 75% done, with 12,000 articles left to go. Can someone figure out how to get it up and running again, so we can finish this off? MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 23:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
This seems like as good a place as any to have a centralized discussion of the genres on Tom Waits' albums. A discussion could take place on the talk page of everyone of his albums, but I do not think that would be helpful. Waits has changed styles and has shown the influence of a great many styles of music, but I still think it is accurate to say that he is a singer-songwriter in the rock tradition. He is not a jazz musician, a blues musician, or an experimental musician, but all of those styles can be heard on his albums. Currently, there is a discussion ongoing on the Small Change article because the genre was changed to jazz. I simply do not think this can be accurately defined as a jazz album. It is a rock album with a lot of jazz, R&B, and blues influence. Genres on numerous other Waits albums have been changed multiple times to satisfy various editors opinions. There needs to be one discussion of this issue. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 15:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I've created a page for an album named Everything Is Boring and Everyone Is a Fucking Liar and for some reason the page title won't go italic, even when I attempted adding the {{ Italic title}} template... Anyone know why this may be?! Cheers, Nik the stoned 15:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
italicstitle}}
nor {{
DISPLAYTITLE}} seem to work for me though... --
JHunterJ (
talk)
15:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
|Italic title=force
. --
Muhandes (
talk)
23:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/archive4 I'm sorry to go stumping for this, but I've worked really hard on Everything That Happens Will Happen Today and I'd like someone to comment on the FAC so it can finally pass. Will someone please leave feedback there? Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Yasht101 ( talk · contribs) has nominated American Idiot for GA. Yasht101 plans to retire from Wikipedia in a couple of days, so anyone willing to put their eyes on and participate in the GAR would be appreciated. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 14:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I recently re-wrote the article for Killswitch Engage's second album, Alive or Just Breathing. I was wondering if I could get someone to do a peer review for it. That would be awesome. My goal is to get this to Good article status. Thanks, Burningclean [speak] 06:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been discussed before, so forgive me. But do we have a standard size for the cover of a video album? I don't think it's covered in the style guide, so I've been either winging it and taking a guess, or ignoring them. Thoughts? Jasper420 01:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's merge Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums and Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover are redundant. The former is populated by deliberately entering a field in {{ album}} or {{ reqphoto}}, but the latter is automatically populated by not filling in a field in {{ Infobox Album}}. Since the latter is easy and automatic, it is much more full than the former and I can see no compelling reason for both. I propose that the fields requiring manual entry on talk pages be removed and the two categories be collapsed into the latter. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Wu-Tang Clan affiliated albums, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey! Ive been developing, together with Michael Jester ( talk · contribs), a template similar to Template:Singlechart but for albums. As of now, the template is pretty complete, with 19 national charts plus 10 UK-related charts and 30 Billboard charts for a total 59 charts already included. So, i'd like to ask of the WP Albums would make use of the template on the charts sections of articles as a standard, just as is being done with its singles counterpart. Regards. -- Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 00:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Rolling Stone has updated the online citations for its 500 Greatest Albums to its 2012 revision. This means url links to those citations now show the 2012 placement even though the text refers to the original 2003 placement. -- J. Wong ( talk) 13:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a dispute with a rotating anonymous IP regarding {{ Anticon}}, which raises a general problem. The discussion itself is at Template Talk:Anticon. The IP maintains that the label's navigation box should be added to all albums by all artists who are related to the label. I think that:
Any general thoughts on the subject? Or on the specific case? -- Muhandes ( talk) 12:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This user is still attempting to add/restore this template and the related category to assorted articles, including to Genghis Tron. Do we have a consensus here? Should this navbox and/or category exist and be included in articles? Neither (but especially the navbox) seem to be all that useful. MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 17:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I just came across J.Lo (album), which has 19 separate categories for different countries' album certifications, which seems excessive to me. These are primarily for countries that are not important markets for English (or Spanish)-language albums, nor are they important if their sales figures are compared on a worldwide scale, particularly since some of these seem to have rather low bars for certification. For example, Argentine Chamber of Phonograms and Videograms Producers requires only 20,000 units sold for Gold certification, Musiikkituottajat – IFPI Finland only 10,000; by contrast, the Recording Industry Association of America requires 500,000 for Gold cert. So per WP:OCAT, should these be culled down to the most significant ones (or entirely) and otherwise converted to lists, should the categories be all kept but only applied to artists from those countries or otherwise significantly associated with those markets (which would be difficult if not impossible to maintain in practice), or should these categories all be kept as is and I am just an American exhibiting systemic WP:BIAS? Honest question. Notice of this thread also posted at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. postdlf ( talk) 20:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed a peculiar trend concerning reviews on album pages. There are multiple potential single-purpose accounts putting reviews from particular sites on these album pages. Several individuals have gone on Wikipedia adding possibly their own websites' reviews to such pages; the pages that are especially affected are pages concerning recent releases from 2011/2012 and pages for upcoming albums. With this type of practice, there are concerns about conflict of interest (especially), self promotion, review guidelines, and the aforementioned single-purpose account practices. This is a concern of mine because review websites need to be established as notable and worthy before being posted on Wikipedia, in order to maintain this website's integrity. An example of a page heavily affected by this practice is Storm Corrosion (album) ( history). Some of the websites that are being constantly linked from Wikipedia are not listed in the professional review sources area Can I have some further opinions on this please? I wouldn't bring this up here if only one or two people were doing it, but I have noticed a significant amount of people doing this. If the REVSITE guidelines exist, then they have to be administered and not just "existing". I hope the best possible results can come from this discussion. Backtable Speak to me concerning my deeds. 01:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Similar issues arise in video game related articles as well. It's a problem, but with both video game or album related articles, I pretty much just do the same thing that MrMoustacheMM described above. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Would it maybe be beneficial to create a template similar to {{ Uw-spam1}} or {{ uw-genre1}} that specifically states adding unreliable review sites is frowned upon? Fezmar9 ( talk) 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Backtable, Thanks for bringing it up because obviously we should something about this and a very good example for an article. recently i'm a little busy to revolve around Wikipedia and protect pages from spamming but days ago i logged in and i saw this situation in Storm Corrosion (album) and i just did what MrMoustacheMM said. it's the best behavior and if they still continue we take an action like giving them warnings and if it still go we report them. and about that template for unreliable review... i don't think it's necessary. if we do something like that many websites want to put their links in it and it'd turn out as a big mess. just imagine. Reza (Let'sTalk) 21:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The first version of a report on the use of self-published sources is now available, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability. Some of the self-published sources listed in the report pertain to this project.
Suggestions on the report itself (a discussion has started here), and help in remedying the use of the self-published items that relate to this project will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 06:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't say whether this is relegated strictly to articles pertaining to albums, but I've noticed numerous cases in which a quote block overflows into the infobox. 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) (bottom of the page) is just the latest example I've seen, with perhaps a dozen or two others in the past few weeks. Anyone have a clue? Jasper420 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
<blockquote></blockquote>
behave exactly the same. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
17:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Any chance of concentrated drive to finally break the back on a persistent backlog?
It's sorted by size because the longer the page, the more likely it has an FUR that's not being picked up by automated tools. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there a standard? Recently I've come across One Direction's second album and TBA (2012 Grizzly Bear album). Should the latter be moved to resemble the former? Thanks. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 01:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
While creating the new Van Morrison article for his soon to be released latest, I find that the official website calls it his 35th - see para. 2 - while I count it as his 34th. I think the difference in this must be with this album: Track listing for The Philosopher's Stone which perhaps they consider a studio album but in WP's definition, I believe it would fall under Compilation album. Am I correct or should I change it to go along with their count, which will probably be picked up by the reliable sources writing on this album. Agadant ( talk) 18:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
To try to be more to the point: Is The Philosopher's Stone (compiled from studio recorded outtakes spanning years) a Compilation album or a Studio album? I think sources have already picked up the number as his 34th album from his discography article. ex: New Album. - There are many more with this number in opposition to his official website count and I had not started the Born to Sing article yet. If I am wrong (as I have been the editor to number and classify the albums), I would like to get it corrected right away. If this is not the proper talk page to have help with this question, will someone please direct me elsewhere? Agadant ( talk) 20:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there a standard procedure for this? I've been trying to clean up a ton of unsourced articles, and for a lot of albums, I am redirecting, but merging the tracklist into the main band article. Is this necessary, or can I just redirect and skip the tracklist? — Torchiest talk edits 04:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The background (from what I can make out):
Considering the above, if it were a recent addition, I'd have just removed it without batting an eye. However, as it has been listed here for several years, I'd prefer to give other editors a chance to argue in favor of keeping it, or supporting removal, before taking action. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 17:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Posting from discussion on Allmusic talk page: Here is what I found on Google.
hello,
I had the idea to suggest a goal for this project: all articles which were ranked on Rolling Stones' 500 Greatest Albums of All Time should reach at least GA. I think it would be a fun idea; what do you all think? Regards.-- GoP T C N 20:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I created a "Goal" section. Feel free to modify it and add similar goals. Regards-- GoP T C N 10:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Marco Sartorio ( talk · contribs). He creates massively album articles, which are completely (or poorly) sourced. Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated at Talk:This Time Next Year#Requested move, which concerns the move of the album This Time Next Year by The Movielife. It's quite an old request (relisted twice), and additional participation would be quite helpful in reaching a decision. Thanks, France3470 (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Should we add Metal Forces to the list of professional review sites? The magazine has its own Wikipedia page. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we add The Metal Critic to a list of non-professional reviews? The site just appears to be a fan site with self-published content. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 18:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The Drowned in Sound site appears to be user reviews without any editorial oversite. It does not appear to meet the general requirements of 'professional reivews'. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Just questioning the notability of the site Rock Sins. Their About Us section doesn't indicate that they are a formal business or the professional level of their staff and it's just a site powered by Wordpress currently. How should this be included on our list of notable or non-notable review sites? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 13:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This site is used as a source of critical reviews and interviews for lots of industrial music articles. I had always assumed it was okay, but now I'm not so sure. I'd like to get some discussion and consensus on it here so it can be added to one of the two lists. Thanks. — Torchiest talk edits 14:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:DiscogAlbumEntry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DH85868993 (
talk)
04:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
hello,
there is huge backlog at WP:GAN. Please help clearing it. Regards.-- Kürbis ( ✔) 13:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is a recent exchange on the subject of the list of options under "type" in the album infobox. Are we being a bit unnecessary here? should another "type" option be added??
I saw your reversion on my "soundtrack" edit. The album infobox only allows 12 words in the type field, one of which is "soundtrack." If you don't use one of those 12 words, the system puts the article into Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes, where an editor like me will change it to one of those 12 words. So if not "soundtrack," which of those words do you think applies to an original cast recording? Soundtrack seems the closest to me.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Straight Outta Compton, an article that your project may be interested in, 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.
SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Dustin Lynch (album) has a blank "track 13" between tracks 12 ("Name on It") and 14 ("Your Plan"). I've seen a few other albums that do phantom Track 13s to keep the album from literally having 13 tracks (another example being Double Live (Garth Brooks album)). What would be the proper way to list these phantom Track 13s in the tracklist? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
No. | Title | Length |
---|---|---|
12. | "Name on It" | 3:45 |
13. | Untitled | 0:03 |
14. | "Your Plan" | 4:56 |
Calling it untitled implies that there is a song with no name. Calling it a blank track gives more information to the reader. - Freekee ( talk) 02:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
What's the policy on direct links out to external sites that offer albums or bonus tracks for sale? I noticed it at Sticks + Stones (album), to which several such links have been added recently. It seems to me that it's not for Wikipedia to direct users to places where they can purchase music - "Wikipedia is not a directory - not to mention there were not one, but several such links; but at the same time the links may be the only source for the arguably encyclopedic fact asserted, such as, "X is a track that can only be found on iTunes". (I sort of wonder what an "album" is any more if you get a different version of it depending on where you purchase it, but that's another issue I suppose.) I removed a series of such links once, but they were restored, and am now asking what consensus is on them. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 11:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed some editors adding Georgiy Starostin as a reviewer in the ratings template, but is he considered a professional review source? According to his article, he is a linguistics professor or something. His site says that his reviews are also published on this blogspot and he only reviews select rock music. Dan56 ( talk) 16:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been trying to get the title of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 (soundtrack) italicized ( The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 (soundtrack)) but I've not had luck. The article says that Template:Italic title is in use, and I tried Template:DISPLAYTITLE and it wouldn't change it either. A little help? thanx. NYSM talk page 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on whether we should continue summarizing reviews as "favorable/unfavorable" in {{ Album ratings}}. Input is welcome at Template talk:Album ratings#Favorable/Unfavorable. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/GeraldBourguet is too long of a list for me to deal with. I've warned him to stop. Could we have a project member remove these please? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#List_of_Billboard_Year-End_number-one_singles_and_albums if you can help source List of Billboard Year-End number-one singles and albums.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Gerald Bourguet and I operate the current Wordpress blog Diamond in the Rock. I recently added my blog's reviews to numerous album pages as a professional review source and stopped adding them after I was told it did not qualify as a professional source. However, I'd like to argue the validity of my blog on the grounds that it will soon be expanded into a fully fledged website as part of graduate coursework for the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. I will be graduating in May with a combined Bachelor's and Master's degree in print journalism in just four years, I have done extensive research on the history of rock and its criticism (including a 33-page literature review on the subject), and this blog is more than just a personal blog expressing my own opinions. Its validity is based not on my opinion of my own writing or desire to get more exposure, but on the extensive research I've already accomplished, the fact that it will be expanding to a legitimate website within the next 60 days and based on the amount of content I've already published.
I would like to add that as soon as I was informed that my blog did not qualify as a professional source, I stopped posting it to the various albums I've reviewed. I apologize if it seemed as though I was continuing to add my blog out of spite or resentment. This is not the case and I stopped as soon as I was informed. I also would like to apologize adding my blog as a reference on pages that already had 10 or more reviews; I must have skimmed over that rule and did not realize I was committing a fault.
I would just like to discuss whether or not my work will be accepted as a professional source once the website is built or whether it's possible for my blog to be added based on the fact that it is graduate thesis coursework for a prestigious journalism university. If none of these scenarios qualifies my work as a professional source, I would like to discuss what exactly constitutes "professional." Finally, if I have to wait until the blog becomes a website because the blog appears unprofessional I'd like to discuss what I can do to change its appearance or information so that it is satisfactory for citing.
Thank you,
Gerald Bourguet — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeraldBourguet ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Since Metacritic, and to a lesser extent AnyDecentMusic?, seem like acceptable review sites, can a note be added to WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE that the reviews they use are acceptable here as well? Metacritic's list is pretty similar to the one at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE, while ADM also uses UK, Australia, Germany, Ireland, and Canada review sources, along with some of Metacritic's more notable US sources ( [12]), such as The Skinny (magazine), Loud and Quiet, State (magazine), and The Sunday Times/ The Times. Dan56 ( talk) 20:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I just created Re-Machined: A Tribute to Deep Purple's Machine Head if a project member needs to check it out, rate it whatever. Cheers. Mlpearc Phone ( Powwow) 20:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, in relation to the discussion above, can people please comment on the discussion over at Talk:Two Eleven#Release dates. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop a note here letting this project know that the GOCE will be running a "blitz" from October 21–27 to copy edit all tagged articles from this WikiProject. Drop by and take a look if you're interested in helping. — Torchiest talk edits 23:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Does it make sense to categorize, for example, Category:Pearl Jam albums as Category:Eddie Vedder albums? If this is the case, shouldn't individual albums, such as 1984 (Van Halen album) be categorized as Category:David Lee Roth albums as well as Category:Van Halen albums and the same with 5150 (album) being categorized under Category:Sammy Hagar albums. Personally, I don't consider a Pearl Jam album as an Eddie Vedder album and don't think it should be categorized as such, but if that's going to be ok, individual albums should also be categorized by individual band members for those who were not part of band during its entire run. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 17:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the parenthentical note should be removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide because it is presenting conflicting information on how to categorize albums.
Note that albums are only categorized according the artist who is credited with the release. Consequently, Kind of Blue is categorized under Category:Miles Davis albums and not Category:John Coltrane albums, even though Coltrane is a sideman appearing on that recording. Similarly, Led Zeppelin II is categorized under Category:Led Zeppelin albums and not Category:Robert Plant albums as Plant was a member of Led Zeppelin at the time—the latter category is only for his solo work.
(Note that it is appropriate to make Category:Led Zeppelin albums a subcategory of Category:Robert Plant albums, as Plant appears on all Led Zeppelin recordings, but it is not appropriate to categorize Category:Miles Davis albums under Category:John Coltrane albums as Davis had several dozen releases without Coltrane's involvement.)
Otherwise, it says it's not ok to categorize a band's album as an album by a band member but it is ok to categorize all the band's albums as albums by a band member. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 20:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that Star... is right. I would like to suggest liberally using {{ Seealsocat}} for interlinking categories. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Backtable et al. This is the band's album not his solo album, hence a removal of the category would be correct. Regards.-- Tomcat ( 7) 10:06, 19 October 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 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
Hi. I've noticed some editors using the site HITS Daily Double as a source for US sales. Can anyone say if it's reliable or not? Dan56 ( talk) 04:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
"The numbers for the sales figures collected by Hits magazine and posted on its Web site are projections based on data from a limited number of the retailers who share point of sale information with our charts source, Nielsen SoundScan. Hits retail editor Mark Pearson generally does a commendable job of approximating the sales figures that drive Billboard's charts but there are discrepancies from time to time, particularly for titles that sell particularly well at department stores. Nielsen SoundScan's sample is based on actual consumer purchases at a universe of more than 90% of the U.S. market, a wider sample than Hits or any other source can tout. Therefore, I am not just being a company guy when I say that in the event that a Hits number disagrees with ours, the Billboard/SoundScan total is likely the more accurate one."
Hello, project members. Have any of you noticed edits by this person? He/she sheems to be adding unreferenced material about recordings and chart positions to various articles without any references at all. I hope someone will check this out and see if you can help him/her or else remove the WP:OR. Happy editing. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not certain enough of the guidelines, could someone comment on I Get a Kick out of You and WP:ALBUMCAPS? Should "out" really not be capitalized? -- Muhandes ( talk) 14:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Many compilation album series (e.g. Now! That's What I Call Music and Radio 1's Live Lounge etc) have had articles created for each individual volume in the series. I believe it is much more worthwhile to have an article about the compilation series as a whole because it is the series which is well-known and notable, rather than each volume. These articles about individual albums are mostly stubs and do not give much information apart from the track listing, release date and other trivia.
I have re-directed several stubs to the parent article for some compilation series such as Clubland, Bonkers and The Annual and have also added chart positions and certifications (which shows the article's notability), however I was told to open a discussion about the matter. I think this way, it makes it much more easier to see how the series has progressed, readers can compare albums against each other and mainly it will condense several stubs about the subject into a single manageable article.
I realise for some large compilation series such as Now! it would be almost impossible to condense into a single article, but for most other smaller series this seems like the best thing to do. On an additional note, some people may consider this to make the articles too long by including all the track listings for each volume in one article, so may I suggest that the tracklistings be made expandable for each separate volume, which will shorten the length of the article but will still include all the neccessary information. Please feel free to discuss the idea and contribute with any suggestions - 0800abc123 ( talk) 21:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I have Emerald Forest and the Blackbird on my watchlist, and I have in the last few days been involved with a conflict of interest somewhat relevant to this page. A user named User:AORmaniac13 has posted information connected to grande-rock.com, which I initially questioned the notability of. As you can see on the user's talk page, (s)he didn't like the fact that I had removed the information twice. Since the person objected to me doing so, I have not removed anything that (s)he has added to the aforementioned album article since due to the conflict of interest. Does anyone have opinions on grande-rock.com and whether or not it should be utilized on Wikipedia? Also, note that this page is not mentioned on WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE yet. With this question, I want to remain neutral and not try to sway the opinion to either way. Backtable Speak to me concerning my deeds. 06:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know about WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE... so it's time to put Grande Rock there... as this site is one of the oldest ones... when the internet wasn't so easy to access or to have a website or even to share your thoughts so easily. The guys that maintain it were editors in many magazines in Greece as well. Hard Rocker 13 00:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I would like someone from this project to take a look at the album article I am creating in my userspace, Call Me Burroughs and give me some feedback. Specifically, I want to know if there are any glaring omissions, or if I have formatted or organized anything incorrectly, etc. I do not feel that the article is "finished," but I do feel the basics have been covered, and the article is close to the point that it can be published. First, though, I would like to hear some opinions from members of this project. Thanks! --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 18:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion of problematic text not supported by references, and falsified references added by Legolas2186 to articles about songs, albums, concert tours, and to biographies. Anybody wishing to help verify sources or rework the indicated text are welcome to join the effort.
Here is the original discussion:
Here is the ongoing workpage for listing problems and for listing fixes.
Thanks for your attention! Binksternet ( talk) 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
A review by FoxNews of Beyonce's B'Day album was included in the article, and I'm not sure it's a professional music review source. Comments? Dan56 ( talk) 22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on a merge proposal at Talk:3 Doors Down EP (1996 album). Thanks.
A cleanup template {{ Cleanup-tracklist}} links to this page, but the section it used to link to is no longer here. Could someone who knows where it should link update the template. It currently links to a sub-section titled #track listing. AIRcorn (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I created a category for King Crimson's album covers.
Such categories serve as de facto galleries.
Have we had complaints form artists, musicians, or other copyright-holders that such de facto galleries exceed fair use?
P.S. I left a copy of this at the category's talk page, which is watched by very few.
Sincerely, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 16:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
__NOGALLERY__ <!--Do not remove this tag, as displaying these fair-use images in a gallery violates Wikipedia policy.-->
I'm proposing that a new Album Article Style Guide be created, by combining the "Style" section on the project page ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Style) with the "Article body" sub-page ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body). The style guide can either be a new sub-page of the project page, linked to very prominently from the project page, or else it can be part of the project page itself. Although I think a new sub-page would be better -- how about Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide? There's some preliminary discussion of this idea in the #Track listing standards discussion section above. It seems to me that this is a worthwhile idea. Right now the album article style guidelines are half in one place and half in another, and also I think a lot of people don't find the article body part, even though it's linked to from the main project page. Thoughts? — Mudwater ( Talk) 12:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The combined style guide would be something like this. :-) Again, there would be a prominent link to the new page, from the main project page, probably under a section header of "Album article style guide", to make it very easy for other editors to find. — Mudwater ( Talk) 14:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, the new, combined style guide page has been created, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide, and there's a link to it from a new section of the main project page. Again, to create the new page, all I did was take the then-current versions of the "Style" section of the project page and the "Article body" sub-page, stick them together, and make a few minor changes to account for that fact that they're combined now. Thanks to everyone who has participated (or will participate) in the discussion. — Mudwater ( Talk) 14:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that looks great! Extremely handy to have all that information in one spot. Good work! MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 16:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
A few of Eminem's album pages have recently come under dispute over whether the record Infinite should be listed as the rappers debut studio album. Many sources agree that the debut studio album is the Slim Shady LP, with some acknowledging that Infinite was his first full length solo project (having initially only released around 1,000 copies, only 70 being sold). However some editors believe that Infinite is in fact the first studio album. As you can imagine, this has caused quite of bit of disruption, with both sides claiming that they are correct. The opening line of every album article is being changed back and forth constantly(i.e. "The Marshall Mathers LP is the rapper Eminem's second studio album", to "The Marshall Mathers LP is the rapper Eminem's third studio album". I hope a discussion here will help resolve the issue. Aunty-S ( talk) 09:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
(undent) Sounds to me like Infinite was his first studio album, and TSSLP was his first major-label album (and second album overall). Pretty straight-forward. MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 20:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Would these two templates be helpful to the project: {{ Albums category}} and {{ Album label category}}? They've existed quietly for over a year, created and used primarily by their author with no exposure or notice to other editors. The use of the albums category template will automatically add a intro statement ("This category contains albums by Foo") and Category:Albums by artist into new categories, with the creator of the new cats only needing to add additional appropriate categories (by genre/nationality) or, if necessary, a defaultsort. If acceptable, these can then be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Categorization as an option or suggestion for creating categories for an artist's albums or for record labels that don't already exist. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see here For a potential new scheme for categorizing album covers. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see here I made some changes to reflect different ways of listing performers when the credits to an album get more complicated. As always, my prose is not great, so please polish it. I also changed the last names of the fake performers, so that they will all appear in alphabetical order. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Please assist I've put some work into New Multitudes and it would be nice if someone decided to polish it up a little before it goes through WP:GA. For that matter, the GA process has a perpetual backlog (including in albums) that could always use reviewers. I don't feel qualified to do it myself, but if anyone's game to read some (potentially) good articles about albums, it's always there... — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Albums by certification and its category tree have been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Muhandes ( talk) 09:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I just started {{ WikiProject Albums navbox}} to better link related pages in this project. I've been wanting to do this for a long time as I've always felt some editors aren't even aware of all the related WP:ALBUMS pages. Feel free to add more links or reorganize if necessary. Fezmar9 ( talk) 02:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
A few months ago, I brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies on what to do if an album received both a standard and a Latin certification from the RIAA and I believe the suggestion brought there should also be brought to album articles. Basically, if an album receives both a standard and a Latin certification from the RIAA, whichever one with the higher shipping value should be used. For example, if an album receives a Gold certification and 4× Platinum (Latin field), the former should be used because 500,000 units is higher than 400,000 units. Likewise, if an album receives a Gold certification and 6× Platinum (Latin field), the latter should be used because 600,000 units is higher than 500,000 units. If both certifications result in the value, then it should be up to editor/consensus to decide which one to use. I would like a consensus on this decision. I think it should also apply to musician biography articles as well. Erick ( talk) 19:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
So I keep trying to put this into the standard as every other page, listing just studio albums and their year of release, but people keep putting back the charts with sales info and single info too, saying they're used to it like that and it enhances the article, let alone the fact Aerosmith of course have their own discography page for such info. Any help? Have shown them the guideline and they don't care! lol Yellowxander ( talk) 08:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
There has been repeated attempts to vandalize this and Template:Frank Zappa by mixing together the live, studio and compilations to remove any distinction between a album of new studio recordings, an album of new live recordings and albums which clearly serve as compilations, either of previously released material, or outtakes, or posthumous compilations that have no connection to a conceptualized album envisioned by the artist during his life time.-- WTF ( talk) 01:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Could I get some help with this article? It's my first substantial editing work on an album article. Thanks! — danhash ( talk) 18:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
So the album ratings bot has stalled yet again. We're up to something like 75% done, with 12,000 articles left to go. Can someone figure out how to get it up and running again, so we can finish this off? MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 23:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
This seems like as good a place as any to have a centralized discussion of the genres on Tom Waits' albums. A discussion could take place on the talk page of everyone of his albums, but I do not think that would be helpful. Waits has changed styles and has shown the influence of a great many styles of music, but I still think it is accurate to say that he is a singer-songwriter in the rock tradition. He is not a jazz musician, a blues musician, or an experimental musician, but all of those styles can be heard on his albums. Currently, there is a discussion ongoing on the Small Change article because the genre was changed to jazz. I simply do not think this can be accurately defined as a jazz album. It is a rock album with a lot of jazz, R&B, and blues influence. Genres on numerous other Waits albums have been changed multiple times to satisfy various editors opinions. There needs to be one discussion of this issue. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 15:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I've created a page for an album named Everything Is Boring and Everyone Is a Fucking Liar and for some reason the page title won't go italic, even when I attempted adding the {{ Italic title}} template... Anyone know why this may be?! Cheers, Nik the stoned 15:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
italicstitle}}
nor {{
DISPLAYTITLE}} seem to work for me though... --
JHunterJ (
talk)
15:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
|Italic title=force
. --
Muhandes (
talk)
23:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/archive4 I'm sorry to go stumping for this, but I've worked really hard on Everything That Happens Will Happen Today and I'd like someone to comment on the FAC so it can finally pass. Will someone please leave feedback there? Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Yasht101 ( talk · contribs) has nominated American Idiot for GA. Yasht101 plans to retire from Wikipedia in a couple of days, so anyone willing to put their eyes on and participate in the GAR would be appreciated. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 14:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I recently re-wrote the article for Killswitch Engage's second album, Alive or Just Breathing. I was wondering if I could get someone to do a peer review for it. That would be awesome. My goal is to get this to Good article status. Thanks, Burningclean [speak] 06:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been discussed before, so forgive me. But do we have a standard size for the cover of a video album? I don't think it's covered in the style guide, so I've been either winging it and taking a guess, or ignoring them. Thoughts? Jasper420 01:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's merge Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums and Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover are redundant. The former is populated by deliberately entering a field in {{ album}} or {{ reqphoto}}, but the latter is automatically populated by not filling in a field in {{ Infobox Album}}. Since the latter is easy and automatic, it is much more full than the former and I can see no compelling reason for both. I propose that the fields requiring manual entry on talk pages be removed and the two categories be collapsed into the latter. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Wu-Tang Clan affiliated albums, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey! Ive been developing, together with Michael Jester ( talk · contribs), a template similar to Template:Singlechart but for albums. As of now, the template is pretty complete, with 19 national charts plus 10 UK-related charts and 30 Billboard charts for a total 59 charts already included. So, i'd like to ask of the WP Albums would make use of the template on the charts sections of articles as a standard, just as is being done with its singles counterpart. Regards. -- Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 00:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Rolling Stone has updated the online citations for its 500 Greatest Albums to its 2012 revision. This means url links to those citations now show the 2012 placement even though the text refers to the original 2003 placement. -- J. Wong ( talk) 13:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a dispute with a rotating anonymous IP regarding {{ Anticon}}, which raises a general problem. The discussion itself is at Template Talk:Anticon. The IP maintains that the label's navigation box should be added to all albums by all artists who are related to the label. I think that:
Any general thoughts on the subject? Or on the specific case? -- Muhandes ( talk) 12:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This user is still attempting to add/restore this template and the related category to assorted articles, including to Genghis Tron. Do we have a consensus here? Should this navbox and/or category exist and be included in articles? Neither (but especially the navbox) seem to be all that useful. MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 17:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I just came across J.Lo (album), which has 19 separate categories for different countries' album certifications, which seems excessive to me. These are primarily for countries that are not important markets for English (or Spanish)-language albums, nor are they important if their sales figures are compared on a worldwide scale, particularly since some of these seem to have rather low bars for certification. For example, Argentine Chamber of Phonograms and Videograms Producers requires only 20,000 units sold for Gold certification, Musiikkituottajat – IFPI Finland only 10,000; by contrast, the Recording Industry Association of America requires 500,000 for Gold cert. So per WP:OCAT, should these be culled down to the most significant ones (or entirely) and otherwise converted to lists, should the categories be all kept but only applied to artists from those countries or otherwise significantly associated with those markets (which would be difficult if not impossible to maintain in practice), or should these categories all be kept as is and I am just an American exhibiting systemic WP:BIAS? Honest question. Notice of this thread also posted at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. postdlf ( talk) 20:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed a peculiar trend concerning reviews on album pages. There are multiple potential single-purpose accounts putting reviews from particular sites on these album pages. Several individuals have gone on Wikipedia adding possibly their own websites' reviews to such pages; the pages that are especially affected are pages concerning recent releases from 2011/2012 and pages for upcoming albums. With this type of practice, there are concerns about conflict of interest (especially), self promotion, review guidelines, and the aforementioned single-purpose account practices. This is a concern of mine because review websites need to be established as notable and worthy before being posted on Wikipedia, in order to maintain this website's integrity. An example of a page heavily affected by this practice is Storm Corrosion (album) ( history). Some of the websites that are being constantly linked from Wikipedia are not listed in the professional review sources area Can I have some further opinions on this please? I wouldn't bring this up here if only one or two people were doing it, but I have noticed a significant amount of people doing this. If the REVSITE guidelines exist, then they have to be administered and not just "existing". I hope the best possible results can come from this discussion. Backtable Speak to me concerning my deeds. 01:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Similar issues arise in video game related articles as well. It's a problem, but with both video game or album related articles, I pretty much just do the same thing that MrMoustacheMM described above. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Would it maybe be beneficial to create a template similar to {{ Uw-spam1}} or {{ uw-genre1}} that specifically states adding unreliable review sites is frowned upon? Fezmar9 ( talk) 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Backtable, Thanks for bringing it up because obviously we should something about this and a very good example for an article. recently i'm a little busy to revolve around Wikipedia and protect pages from spamming but days ago i logged in and i saw this situation in Storm Corrosion (album) and i just did what MrMoustacheMM said. it's the best behavior and if they still continue we take an action like giving them warnings and if it still go we report them. and about that template for unreliable review... i don't think it's necessary. if we do something like that many websites want to put their links in it and it'd turn out as a big mess. just imagine. Reza (Let'sTalk) 21:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The first version of a report on the use of self-published sources is now available, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability. Some of the self-published sources listed in the report pertain to this project.
Suggestions on the report itself (a discussion has started here), and help in remedying the use of the self-published items that relate to this project will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 06:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't say whether this is relegated strictly to articles pertaining to albums, but I've noticed numerous cases in which a quote block overflows into the infobox. 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) (bottom of the page) is just the latest example I've seen, with perhaps a dozen or two others in the past few weeks. Anyone have a clue? Jasper420 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
<blockquote></blockquote>
behave exactly the same. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
17:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Any chance of concentrated drive to finally break the back on a persistent backlog?
It's sorted by size because the longer the page, the more likely it has an FUR that's not being picked up by automated tools. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 14:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there a standard? Recently I've come across One Direction's second album and TBA (2012 Grizzly Bear album). Should the latter be moved to resemble the former? Thanks. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 01:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
While creating the new Van Morrison article for his soon to be released latest, I find that the official website calls it his 35th - see para. 2 - while I count it as his 34th. I think the difference in this must be with this album: Track listing for The Philosopher's Stone which perhaps they consider a studio album but in WP's definition, I believe it would fall under Compilation album. Am I correct or should I change it to go along with their count, which will probably be picked up by the reliable sources writing on this album. Agadant ( talk) 18:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
To try to be more to the point: Is The Philosopher's Stone (compiled from studio recorded outtakes spanning years) a Compilation album or a Studio album? I think sources have already picked up the number as his 34th album from his discography article. ex: New Album. - There are many more with this number in opposition to his official website count and I had not started the Born to Sing article yet. If I am wrong (as I have been the editor to number and classify the albums), I would like to get it corrected right away. If this is not the proper talk page to have help with this question, will someone please direct me elsewhere? Agadant ( talk) 20:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there a standard procedure for this? I've been trying to clean up a ton of unsourced articles, and for a lot of albums, I am redirecting, but merging the tracklist into the main band article. Is this necessary, or can I just redirect and skip the tracklist? — Torchiest talk edits 04:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The background (from what I can make out):
Considering the above, if it were a recent addition, I'd have just removed it without batting an eye. However, as it has been listed here for several years, I'd prefer to give other editors a chance to argue in favor of keeping it, or supporting removal, before taking action. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 17:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Posting from discussion on Allmusic talk page: Here is what I found on Google.
hello,
I had the idea to suggest a goal for this project: all articles which were ranked on Rolling Stones' 500 Greatest Albums of All Time should reach at least GA. I think it would be a fun idea; what do you all think? Regards.-- GoP T C N 20:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I created a "Goal" section. Feel free to modify it and add similar goals. Regards-- GoP T C N 10:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Marco Sartorio ( talk · contribs). He creates massively album articles, which are completely (or poorly) sourced. Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated at Talk:This Time Next Year#Requested move, which concerns the move of the album This Time Next Year by The Movielife. It's quite an old request (relisted twice), and additional participation would be quite helpful in reaching a decision. Thanks, France3470 (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Should we add Metal Forces to the list of professional review sites? The magazine has its own Wikipedia page. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we add The Metal Critic to a list of non-professional reviews? The site just appears to be a fan site with self-published content. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 18:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The Drowned in Sound site appears to be user reviews without any editorial oversite. It does not appear to meet the general requirements of 'professional reivews'. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Just questioning the notability of the site Rock Sins. Their About Us section doesn't indicate that they are a formal business or the professional level of their staff and it's just a site powered by Wordpress currently. How should this be included on our list of notable or non-notable review sites? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 13:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This site is used as a source of critical reviews and interviews for lots of industrial music articles. I had always assumed it was okay, but now I'm not so sure. I'd like to get some discussion and consensus on it here so it can be added to one of the two lists. Thanks. — Torchiest talk edits 14:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:DiscogAlbumEntry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DH85868993 (
talk)
04:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
hello,
there is huge backlog at WP:GAN. Please help clearing it. Regards.-- Kürbis ( ✔) 13:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is a recent exchange on the subject of the list of options under "type" in the album infobox. Are we being a bit unnecessary here? should another "type" option be added??
I saw your reversion on my "soundtrack" edit. The album infobox only allows 12 words in the type field, one of which is "soundtrack." If you don't use one of those 12 words, the system puts the article into Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes, where an editor like me will change it to one of those 12 words. So if not "soundtrack," which of those words do you think applies to an original cast recording? Soundtrack seems the closest to me.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 14:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Straight Outta Compton, an article that your project may be interested in, 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.
SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Dustin Lynch (album) has a blank "track 13" between tracks 12 ("Name on It") and 14 ("Your Plan"). I've seen a few other albums that do phantom Track 13s to keep the album from literally having 13 tracks (another example being Double Live (Garth Brooks album)). What would be the proper way to list these phantom Track 13s in the tracklist? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
No. | Title | Length |
---|---|---|
12. | "Name on It" | 3:45 |
13. | Untitled | 0:03 |
14. | "Your Plan" | 4:56 |
Calling it untitled implies that there is a song with no name. Calling it a blank track gives more information to the reader. - Freekee ( talk) 02:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
What's the policy on direct links out to external sites that offer albums or bonus tracks for sale? I noticed it at Sticks + Stones (album), to which several such links have been added recently. It seems to me that it's not for Wikipedia to direct users to places where they can purchase music - "Wikipedia is not a directory - not to mention there were not one, but several such links; but at the same time the links may be the only source for the arguably encyclopedic fact asserted, such as, "X is a track that can only be found on iTunes". (I sort of wonder what an "album" is any more if you get a different version of it depending on where you purchase it, but that's another issue I suppose.) I removed a series of such links once, but they were restored, and am now asking what consensus is on them. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 11:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed some editors adding Georgiy Starostin as a reviewer in the ratings template, but is he considered a professional review source? According to his article, he is a linguistics professor or something. His site says that his reviews are also published on this blogspot and he only reviews select rock music. Dan56 ( talk) 16:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been trying to get the title of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 (soundtrack) italicized ( The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 (soundtrack)) but I've not had luck. The article says that Template:Italic title is in use, and I tried Template:DISPLAYTITLE and it wouldn't change it either. A little help? thanx. NYSM talk page 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on whether we should continue summarizing reviews as "favorable/unfavorable" in {{ Album ratings}}. Input is welcome at Template talk:Album ratings#Favorable/Unfavorable. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/GeraldBourguet is too long of a list for me to deal with. I've warned him to stop. Could we have a project member remove these please? -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#List_of_Billboard_Year-End_number-one_singles_and_albums if you can help source List of Billboard Year-End number-one singles and albums.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Gerald Bourguet and I operate the current Wordpress blog Diamond in the Rock. I recently added my blog's reviews to numerous album pages as a professional review source and stopped adding them after I was told it did not qualify as a professional source. However, I'd like to argue the validity of my blog on the grounds that it will soon be expanded into a fully fledged website as part of graduate coursework for the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. I will be graduating in May with a combined Bachelor's and Master's degree in print journalism in just four years, I have done extensive research on the history of rock and its criticism (including a 33-page literature review on the subject), and this blog is more than just a personal blog expressing my own opinions. Its validity is based not on my opinion of my own writing or desire to get more exposure, but on the extensive research I've already accomplished, the fact that it will be expanding to a legitimate website within the next 60 days and based on the amount of content I've already published.
I would like to add that as soon as I was informed that my blog did not qualify as a professional source, I stopped posting it to the various albums I've reviewed. I apologize if it seemed as though I was continuing to add my blog out of spite or resentment. This is not the case and I stopped as soon as I was informed. I also would like to apologize adding my blog as a reference on pages that already had 10 or more reviews; I must have skimmed over that rule and did not realize I was committing a fault.
I would just like to discuss whether or not my work will be accepted as a professional source once the website is built or whether it's possible for my blog to be added based on the fact that it is graduate thesis coursework for a prestigious journalism university. If none of these scenarios qualifies my work as a professional source, I would like to discuss what exactly constitutes "professional." Finally, if I have to wait until the blog becomes a website because the blog appears unprofessional I'd like to discuss what I can do to change its appearance or information so that it is satisfactory for citing.
Thank you,
Gerald Bourguet — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeraldBourguet ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Since Metacritic, and to a lesser extent AnyDecentMusic?, seem like acceptable review sites, can a note be added to WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE that the reviews they use are acceptable here as well? Metacritic's list is pretty similar to the one at WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE, while ADM also uses UK, Australia, Germany, Ireland, and Canada review sources, along with some of Metacritic's more notable US sources ( [12]), such as The Skinny (magazine), Loud and Quiet, State (magazine), and The Sunday Times/ The Times. Dan56 ( talk) 20:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I just created Re-Machined: A Tribute to Deep Purple's Machine Head if a project member needs to check it out, rate it whatever. Cheers. Mlpearc Phone ( Powwow) 20:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, in relation to the discussion above, can people please comment on the discussion over at Talk:Two Eleven#Release dates. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop a note here letting this project know that the GOCE will be running a "blitz" from October 21–27 to copy edit all tagged articles from this WikiProject. Drop by and take a look if you're interested in helping. — Torchiest talk edits 23:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Does it make sense to categorize, for example, Category:Pearl Jam albums as Category:Eddie Vedder albums? If this is the case, shouldn't individual albums, such as 1984 (Van Halen album) be categorized as Category:David Lee Roth albums as well as Category:Van Halen albums and the same with 5150 (album) being categorized under Category:Sammy Hagar albums. Personally, I don't consider a Pearl Jam album as an Eddie Vedder album and don't think it should be categorized as such, but if that's going to be ok, individual albums should also be categorized by individual band members for those who were not part of band during its entire run. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 17:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the parenthentical note should be removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide because it is presenting conflicting information on how to categorize albums.
Note that albums are only categorized according the artist who is credited with the release. Consequently, Kind of Blue is categorized under Category:Miles Davis albums and not Category:John Coltrane albums, even though Coltrane is a sideman appearing on that recording. Similarly, Led Zeppelin II is categorized under Category:Led Zeppelin albums and not Category:Robert Plant albums as Plant was a member of Led Zeppelin at the time—the latter category is only for his solo work.
(Note that it is appropriate to make Category:Led Zeppelin albums a subcategory of Category:Robert Plant albums, as Plant appears on all Led Zeppelin recordings, but it is not appropriate to categorize Category:Miles Davis albums under Category:John Coltrane albums as Davis had several dozen releases without Coltrane's involvement.)
Otherwise, it says it's not ok to categorize a band's album as an album by a band member but it is ok to categorize all the band's albums as albums by a band member. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 20:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that Star... is right. I would like to suggest liberally using {{ Seealsocat}} for interlinking categories. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Backtable et al. This is the band's album not his solo album, hence a removal of the category would be correct. Regards.-- Tomcat ( 7) 10:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)