![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I've always found it usefull to know not only who played on a record, but also the track number. Is there a consensus on how to add this info? I've seen a track by track listing, but I was thinking something like John Smith, drums (1, 5, 10) where the numbers are the tracks as they appear in the album info. Thanks, mike 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, please excuse me if I ask a question that's already been answered. What does one place in the "discussion" session of an article on a single? Some pages I've come across have the album template there, which is an idea I support, but many do not. And I don't want to go around adding the album template if it shouldn't be there...thanks! -- The-dissonance-reports 20:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
A lot of times I have trouble finding the length of the song. I usually find each track length and then I add them up. Are there sites that have the album length so I don't have to use my poor math skills? :) I've found emusic has them, but their music collection is not very big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gflores ( talk • contribs) 05:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I got two more questions... where do you guys find the producer of the album? i have trouble finding it. also, should demos have infoboxes? -- Gflores 06:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Lew19 Pop the CD into iTunes, if you own it.
Parts proposed to be removed are striked out, and the sentence proposed to be added is in green:
The chronology section should link to the previous album on the left and the next album on the right. (Only studio albums, usually excluding lives, compilations, singles and EPs.)
As per Wikipedia's date style guidelines, do not link to years within the chronology section.
Rationale:
-- Jiy ( talk) 00:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
For purposes of this encyclopedia, do mixtapes count as albums? For the uninitiated, mixtapes are unofficial underground releases, usually featuring hip hop music, R&B, reggae, etc, which are hand-made and distributed through the underground scene without the use of a major label (see [2] for a mixtape retail site). Most mixtapes are used to promote material that is either available on actual studio releases or will be at some future date. I nominated Fuck Death Row, a Snoop Dogg mixtape and/or bootleg, on AfD becasue I only get two or three relevant Google hits. -- FuriousFreddy 05:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Is this WikiProject ever going to complete its collaboration on The Beatles Revolver? -- Hollow Wilerding 14:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The image in this template used to be a black vinyl looking thing, and a little while ago it was changed to a CD with a little musical note, and now it has been reverted back. There has been next-to-no discussion on this. If anyone is interested, please go to Template talk:Album-stub and add your thoughts. -- Qirex 02:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed a few cases where the background color of a tribute album has been changed in various articles, presumably due to someone uniformed of the Albums project not liking the color. Personally, I don't like the admittedly effeminate purple color, which I believe is the reason I've seen people change it. If consensus is there, could we change it from plum to something a bit more decent ( List of colors), for example lemon (#FDE910), saffron (#F4C430) or vermillion (#FF4D00)? Those seem to be different enough from the other album-type colors. -- Liontamer 18:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I've looked again at the colors I suggested/tested, but they seem a bit too bright. Tan (#D2B48C) seems to work very well as a subdued color, doesn't closely look like any of the other color categories, and can be simply inputed as "tan" in the color area of the template (rather than hex code). -- Liontamer 19:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
EPs | salmon |
---|---|
Original studio albums | orange |
Live albums and live EPs | darkturquoise |
Greatest hits, box sets and other compilations | darkseagreen |
Cover and tribute albums | tan |
Soundtracks | gainsboro |
Television theme songs | chocolate |
Opinions? -- Liontamer 16:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It my opinion, the feathers are kind of out of the pillow on this issue, and it will be very time-consuming to go back and change so many albums colors just because one color appears "effeminate." This especially seems unnecessarily fastidious considering that there are sooooo many album articles that don't even meet basic requirements - or have an infoboxes at all. There's no evidence that the colors are getting changed because they are effeminate anyway. All that time and effort could go into changing them, and some infobox colors will (likely) get changed again occasionally, since the real problem is that some users haven't noticed that they are color-coded.-- Esprit15d 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a copy of the message left on Madchester's Talk page by me, on account of (IMHO) improper reverts of my edits that only preserve outdated Album/Song project style guidelines and superfluous internal linking. While my language was strong, this is not meant as any type of smear or harrassment, but rather to bring to attention to instances where reverts to proper edits are being done to the detriment of the project. The opinions of anyone very familiar with the MoS guidelines on internal linking as well as the subtlely changing style guidelines of WP:Albums would be appreciated. -- Liontamer 20:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I just saw you (Madchester) rollback all of the Manual of Style and WP:Album style fixes I did for Coldplay's singles, EPs and albums, thanks to the Song infobox template not being updated both properly and in conjuction with the edits to the Album infobox. It seems obvious to me that you selectively endorse the revisions to the Manual of Style or the WP:Albums style guide (e.g. bolding article titles in artists' chronologies), as your reverts (intentionally misrepresented in your edit summaries as "copyedits") to various article edits go against the current WikiProject Albums style and the MoS guidelines in terms of undoing En dashes, mm:ss album lengths, and proper track listing style, as well as propogating piping years to "XXXX in music", low added-value links to years and dates as well as duplicate Wikilinks in articles and templates for years, dates, bandnames, release titles, etc.. I'm being BOLD and editing the Song infobox template soon to be more like the Album infobox, as it should be. You should be reasonable enough to understand that the WP:Album standard is meant to be consistantly applied to WP:Songs, regardless of whether anyone has actually updated the Songs infobox template in due course. It's improper that you feel it necessary to revert completely legitimate edits ( generally without properly stating the reasons for revert no less) because you feel territorial about various Coldplay articles, which is against guidelines when people are making edits that are both in good faith, and legitimate alongside the style guides. While I don't take it personally, don't intend on getting into an edit war and I'm sure you can rebutt for yourself, I will be stating these issues in the Songs & Albums projects Talk pages in order to clarify that your reverts are misguided and impeding these projects. Please adapt to currently-in-use style guidelines for WP:Albums like most other users have in order for these projects to continue moving forward. -- Liontamer 19:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that we shouldn't use them. You have screw up your eyes to see whether the star is half yellow or completely white. (I have 1600x1200 screen.) The situation would improve, if there would be more contrast between white and another colour, but that isn't my only worry. The blind users and Lynx users can't see the stars, instead the get some mysterious text like Image:4hv out of 5.png. People practically never bother to write the alternative text to star images. And you understand more quickly how many stars an album got, when you see it as a number than when you start to count stars and half stars from an image. So let's remove the star images from the example albumboxes. -- Hapsiainen 14:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I've created Template:Stars to automate the addition of the alt-text. Sample usage:
etc. Enjoy. - Lee
(talk)
11:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I just thought that having a standard convention for naming cover art files for albums would be a REALLY good idea, since it would allow people to find the cover art files without first finding the specific album name. Maybe we could use a bot or something to correct the current files also? Thanks, Alex 10:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
This has probably been answered before, but I couldn't find it. Is there a standard for which comes first in album track lists, song title or artist? I've seen some people completely rotating tracklists from Song - Artist to Artist - Song. Obviously the Artists are much more likely to be linked than the songs - does this matter? Gram 11:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I've seen two styles for disambiguating similar named albums, could someone tell me which is the preferred style or come up with a straw poll to see which one is used.
Artist disambiguates title
Year disambiguates title
I personally prefer Artist disambiguation because the year can be ambiguous and a person may not know the year of release.
Thanks for clarifying. My apologies if this has already been dealt with elsewhere, I scanned though the voluminous talk pages and was not able to find anything. -- Reflex Reaction ( talk)• 15:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It's been about 4 days since I posted my original comment and it looks like that there will not be any other comments from other persons involved with the project. I will change the language so that the only convention is the artist disambiguation. -- Reflex Reaction ( talk)• 15:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that a separate template is created for adding "no cover available"-image (currently Image:Nocover.gif) to album info boxes. Mainly for two reason:
-- Easyas12c 16:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
{{Switch|{{{Cover|}}} |case:=Nocover.gif |default={{{Cover}}}}}
{{{Cover|Nocover.gif}}}
As you might have noticed, this template was recently protected, because it appeared in a list of high-risk templates at WP:HRT. As of 5 November, the template is used on 6559 pages. Although being used exclusively on talk pages makes it less expensive than some other templates, I would encourage you to reduce the frequency of edits to the page by linking to the to-do list rather than including it in the template. -- bainer ( talk) 02:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid to say that The Beatles and their number-one album for Revolver has spent enough time yielding the "current collaboration" standing. More than one year is plenty, and seeing how it has been even longer than that, a change is required. A fresh album article with little work completed is in desperate need of enhancing. Okay, perhaps not desperate. Does this proposal sound fair? I do believe so. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 01:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I have noticed that Revolver ( The Beatles, 1966 release) has been the featured album project for quite some time now. This would please me if the article had been enhancing — however, this does not appear to be the case. Judging by the number of edits that have been made in the history, it seems as though a collaboration on the article had never really commenced. The current five-hundredth edit was edited on the date of August 22 2002; had a collaboration been occurring, I am almost certain that the five-hundredth edit would not have taken place three and a half years ago. My proposal is simple: change the standards of the featured album project. The inactivity taking place in the article—also evident by the past fifty edits that were made (the fiftieth being made on September 20 2005)—has left a dead branch for other album articles that could have been significantly improved within that time period. It disappoints me so. The album project must be changed or even removed from Wikipedia if its inactivity is as great as it currently stands.
— Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I found that there are two seperate articles - Cover art and Album cover. Which one should be used as standard for the sleeve artist (if listed) in the Personnel section? In the Means of Production article, I linked the musician's credits as follows:
But on other articles I have seen links to Album cover instead. In addition, the article Album cover art is a redirect to Album cover, not Cover art... Gram 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a pop-album-stub for albums that don't necessarily in with rock, r&b, etc. ( MistaTee 21:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC))
Can there be a Christmas album background color, such as red or green, since Christmas albums usually are only played at Christmas anyway? Tunes 19:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It is rather ironic since I'm the one who made most of the stars in the album articles, but shouldn't we be using text instead of the images? Most of us thought it was a great idea when we first implemented it, but now that we think about it, although it may serve some visual purposes:
Yeah, consider this carefully. I realize it looks good on some articles, but it doesn't really have a good purpose... -- WB 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Instead of talking away in private and then setting up a bot, do you not think it wiser (not to mention more courteous) to make some attempt to let other know what's going on? All I saw was a bot replacing stars with no explanation, the image in question being untagged. I've reverted quite a few already, but then stumbled across this. Don't be surprised if other editors are reverting the change too. I see that some editors have made thses points above; unfortunately they were ignored. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I have posted regarding this on the Village Pump here - I think we need a consensus before a bot does anything on the topic. Tawker 15:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: There is also further discussion on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/List#Unfiltered, though it probably makes sense to keep any further talk here, in one place. Fourohfour 13:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on compilation albums such as the " Now!" series?
My personal feelings are that whilst the "Now!" phenomenon is notable, the individual albums really aren't, being just compilations of chart hits at the time, with little to be said beyond that- and I thought Wikipedia was intended as more than a simple repository for lists/info available elsewhere.
The other question is disambiguating entries in the different "Now!" series. For example, the UK "Now 4" came out in 1984, and was a double cassette/LP featuring hits from that year. The US "Now 4" came out in 2000, and was a single CD reflecting US hits from that year; totally different, although the name is the same.
I moved some entries to a new name such as Now That's What I Call Music! 17 (U.S. series), but realise that I should perhaps have got a consensus before doing this.
Any thoughts?
Fourohfour 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I should have made clear that my comments on naming were intended for *if* we decide to keep the articles anyway.
Fourohfour 13:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If they're so requested then people can read about them individually in the main article. No content is being lost, its just amalgamation. Support.-- Urthogie 13:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, there is also a list of Now! albums supporting the main article. Fourohfour 13:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
How frustrating! I began researching and adding these articles because they were in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/List topic, there described as "a list of album articles-to-be-written". I presumed this meant that the need for the articles (and, therefore, their place in the encyclopedia —particularly, their notability and naming scheme—had already been debated and determined). After all, that list has links that lead straight to the "edit" page for creating the new articles.
Apparently, that assumption was wrong. I'll butt-out, then, until the project can reach a decision about what it's asking contributors to provide. -- Mikeblas 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Although I disagree with you on this topic, your opinion is as valid as anyone elses when it comes down to it, so I'd rather you didn't "butt-out" for that reason. I don't believe that the project has a monopoly on what should/shouldn't be added, although it's obviously a very good focus for such activity.
BTW, I can't find any discussion on it in the archive of discussions around the date that the Now! albums were added by fonzy. I've posted a message on Fonzy's page, but he (she?!) seems to be semi-dormant, so we might not get anything in the forseeable future. It looks to me like they've just been stuck in there by one user, but I may be wrong.
Fourohfour 16:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think (hope?) we can agree that each "Now" album is an album in it's own right, so it's probably fair enough that they each retain a listing each. However, in terms of "notability" I would argue that it's the phenomenon as a whole that's notable, not the individual compilations. For me the key thing is consistency: if each album is to have a separate entry, the entries should be uniform across the whole collection (with the possible exception of the very first one in the series, and perhaps the first to be released on CD as opposed to other media). Waggers 20:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I work with J-pop albums, whose titles are almost always in Japanese. These names have a romaji version, in example, Koibumi / good night (this is a single, but should work as example, and I didn't want to cross-post between WP:SONG and WP:ALBUM, and this page seems to be more active than WP:SONG). The real name for this single is 恋文 / good night. In the previous, current and next album sections of the template, when the real name is in Kanji, should it be written in romaji (Koibumi / good night), in kanji "as is" (恋文 / good night) or in both (恋文 / good night, line break, Koibumi / good night)? I have been using the romaji-only version, because I believe it is the clearer version for both those who are in touch with the subject and the casual reader, but I want to get a confirmation. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Question: are these considered Studio albums (and thus under the orange color) or other (and thus darksea green), or such? Just curious, as I'm creating a couple of them that are, and I'd like to know what the consensus is.-- Mitsukai 20:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that the All Music Guide link in professional reviews field is italicized in many articles. Is there any reason to do so? Jogers 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
A standard format for citing liner notes has been added to the citation style guide: Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style#Liner_notes. Kaldari 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Anything that should be done different for iTunes exclusive releases? I'm editing Telescope Eyes E.P. and wondering if I should use the regular salmon for the infobox or something different. – gRegor 05:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed on several albums I had edited that the stub was changed from {{ rock-album-stub}} to a more specific {{ 2000s-rock-album-stub}} by the Stub Sorting Project, so I went ahead and added those to the list of stubs on our project page. The more specific the stub is the more helpful it will be, eh? -- gRegor 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about this way of track listing formatting [4] ? Should it be changed to conform the project's specificaton? Jogers 13:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I find this a very awkward and unmusical term and have been changing it at various articles to "credits" (didn't realise this was a standard). I actually assumed the person who had come up with personnel didn't speak english properly and had translated it out of a dictionary or something :) Anyone else agree? Is there a better term we could use? Stevage 19:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The WWW Music Database says it has 23,000 albums. Allmusic says it has 874,000 albums. Moreso, we're now gathering Category:Demo albums and Category:Unreleased albums. Do all of them deserve individual articles? -- Perfecto 05:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope not (see also Now! discussion above). Wasn't there a guideline that said for bands with countless "Greatest Hits" and compilations, they weren't all notable?
I mean, there must be countless cheap and obscure ABBA compilations which are essentially just "a few hits and a fairly random selection of album tracks" with little of interest to be said about them. The "proper" albums and famous compilations (e.g. "Greatest Hits", "Greatest Hits Vol. 2") are notable; I don't think a German "Reader's Digest" compilation of their work from 1977 is. Fourohfour 15:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
To / dev/null?? I witness "verifiable yet nonnotable" articles sent to /dev/null in AfD all the time. -- Perfecto 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. In the few album articles I've created, I've been linking the years in the chronology to [[Year in music]]. I've read WP:MOSDATE, so I understand the reasoning behind removing contextually neglible links to plain years, but in this case, linking to the year in music seems contextually relevant in the Chronology section of the infobox (it allows the reader to easily find out about the musical landscape when an album was released). I'd actually like to recommend that your project adopt it as a guideline, but I'm not much of a "joiner" so I'll leave the decision up to you all. Mike Dillon 08:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Has there been any prior discussion of creating categories or pages based on the various Rolling Stone/Pitchfork/... lists that are out there? I'm thinking of Rolling Stone's Top 500 Albums, and Pitchfork's Top 100 of the 70s/80s/90s lists. As precedent, I'd point to The 100, where a part of a similar list is included. While this article only includes 15/100 people, the distinction is mentioned on many of the lower-ranked peoples' pages (e.g. Leonhard Euler#Distinctions).
I would think that a category for something like the Rolling Stone Top 500 would probably be OK, since it wouldn't include the particular ordering, just a list of the albums. The drawback would be that with dozens of lists out there, the categories for some albums would get quite cluttered. An alternative would be some kind of standardized section for "Awards", much like there's a standardized way to include pop chart performance in album articles now. Some albums seem to have done this, e.g. Loveless, but not others, e.g. OK Computer, Daydream Nation, and Remain in Light. -- Dantheox 00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
What about upcoming albums, do they deserve their own article before any official confirmation? Is there any guideline? In this specific case, I am referring to the new Tool (band) release, which is untitled, with no official release date yet and so forth. As the specifics start to emerge one by one, the rumor mill goes wild. The article Aldaraia refers to the upcoming album (which already got an AfD tag Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldaraia). What do you folks think would be reasonable to do? Any suggestions are appreciated.. -- Johnnyw 18:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Did a quick search and didn't see anything about this on the main page, but is there any special way to do split albums? Dysfunktion 01:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any guidelines or templates to help with the formatting of discographies. Are there any? If there are, a headsup note on my talk page would be appreciated, thanks. -- kingboyk 15:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't really seen this addressed in the project page or in the Talk archives. What is the best way to handle alternate track listings for international versions of an album? I don't want to be "Americentric" and assume that the US/Canada version is the "default" track listing and everything else is just a noted mention. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to get into in-depth tables of track listings for the myriad international versions of some albums. Is there a standard here? Aguerriero 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
In regards to infobox album colors, two things:
So I created a template ( here) for adding tracks to a track list using the format recommended on the project page. A user has indicated that he doesn't particularly care for it, or see a reason for it. I do realize it's not much easier than just doing the entry yourself (sans template), but this does standardize the format, and I'm hoping to add some additional elements, such as adding an icon to indicate that a clip is available, or lyrics, or what not (as a rough idea, you can see the list I did at Listen...). I originally had a link to it under the track list section on the project page but the user removed it for the given reasons, which is fine. I'm just curious now if anyone actually considers this of any value, or at least potential value. I'd appreciate discussion/comments so I can decide how much effort to put into the template. bmearns.....( talk) 21:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the format recommended on the project page using a numbered list (with #)? And I also agree that it is a pretty useless template, and should be subst'ed when used. -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
{{Track listing item | number = 5 | title = The Super Secret Track of Eris | writers = Malaclypse The Younger, James Bojangles | length = 5:55 | on-line = ** }} {{Track listing item | number = 6 | title = Accordian Harmony | writers = unknown | length = 0:25 }}
{{Track listing item | number = 5 | title = The Super Secret Track of Eris | writers = Malaclypse The Younger, James Bojangles | length = 5:55 | on-line = ** }}{{Track listing item | number = 6 | title = Accordian Harmony | writers = unknown | length = 0:25 }}
I'm proposing a new wikiproject for articles regarding musical groups, individual musical artists, etc. If anyone has thoughts or comments on this, or if anyone can point out that I've missed an existing project for this purpose, please discuss it on my talk page. If you support the creation of this project, please add your name to the list here. The temporary pre-project page is here and is in desperate need of contributions from more experienced projecters. bmearns, KSC( talk) 20:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You guys were the only ones with anything on the talk page, so to give you a heads up: I moved Me First, by The Elected to Me First (Album) and set up Me First as a disambig between that page and Me First and the Gimme Gimmes. - AKMask 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Category:Albums by artist nationality seems pretty useful to me. I've just started to clean it up so the nationality subcategories contain the artist's albums categories rather than the invidual album articles. I believe this is the right way to arrange this so please correct me if I'm wrong. Jogers 12:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on a page for an album whose liner notes have separate writing credits for the music and the lyrics. How should this be addressed in the track listing? Say, for instance, track #1 has music by X and Y and lyrics by X and Z. Should the track be listed like this: 1. "Track 1" (X, Y, Z), or should the credits be listed after the track title in a different fashion? JJBunks 21:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
What colours should be used for demo / rehearsal releases? and bootlegs? Spearhead 22:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a good resource to find total times of albums? It gets sickening after a while when you have to add the time of each song. Weatherman90 19:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Another Question - How can I find if an album received any certification, and if it did, what kind, (Platinum, Gold, 2x Platinum, etc.) Thanks! -- Weatherman90 15:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I made this nifty little number, If anyone wants to use it. It will also place Category:Wikiproject Albums Member on your page. Enjoy!
![]() |
This user is a member of WikiProject Albums. |
--
Weatherman90
00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The rules say not to redlink to songs. That implies that it is okay to redlink to albums. Should we be doing that? Actively? Am I the only one who finds 60 red links out of 70 links on a list annoying?
Also, Do songs on discography lists require quotes? Freekee 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Album infobox#Update about the proposed changes to the album infobox template. I thought that someone here might be interested. Jogers ( talk) 10:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the Project's page to reflect the changes to the infobox. Jogers ( talk) 14:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps listing them alphabetically could by recommended? Jogers ( talk) 15:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, if there is a lot of reviews in the infobox it makes sense to arrange them in some order, don't you agree? I've noticed that they are already ordered alphabetically in some articles. Jogers ( talk) 08:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, anybody knows what's wrong with the link to the Q magazine review in the example infobox? Jogers ( talk) 13:48, 2 April 2006 (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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I've always found it usefull to know not only who played on a record, but also the track number. Is there a consensus on how to add this info? I've seen a track by track listing, but I was thinking something like John Smith, drums (1, 5, 10) where the numbers are the tracks as they appear in the album info. Thanks, mike 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, please excuse me if I ask a question that's already been answered. What does one place in the "discussion" session of an article on a single? Some pages I've come across have the album template there, which is an idea I support, but many do not. And I don't want to go around adding the album template if it shouldn't be there...thanks! -- The-dissonance-reports 20:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
A lot of times I have trouble finding the length of the song. I usually find each track length and then I add them up. Are there sites that have the album length so I don't have to use my poor math skills? :) I've found emusic has them, but their music collection is not very big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gflores ( talk • contribs) 05:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I got two more questions... where do you guys find the producer of the album? i have trouble finding it. also, should demos have infoboxes? -- Gflores 06:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Lew19 Pop the CD into iTunes, if you own it.
Parts proposed to be removed are striked out, and the sentence proposed to be added is in green:
The chronology section should link to the previous album on the left and the next album on the right. (Only studio albums, usually excluding lives, compilations, singles and EPs.)
As per Wikipedia's date style guidelines, do not link to years within the chronology section.
Rationale:
-- Jiy ( talk) 00:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
For purposes of this encyclopedia, do mixtapes count as albums? For the uninitiated, mixtapes are unofficial underground releases, usually featuring hip hop music, R&B, reggae, etc, which are hand-made and distributed through the underground scene without the use of a major label (see [2] for a mixtape retail site). Most mixtapes are used to promote material that is either available on actual studio releases or will be at some future date. I nominated Fuck Death Row, a Snoop Dogg mixtape and/or bootleg, on AfD becasue I only get two or three relevant Google hits. -- FuriousFreddy 05:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Is this WikiProject ever going to complete its collaboration on The Beatles Revolver? -- Hollow Wilerding 14:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The image in this template used to be a black vinyl looking thing, and a little while ago it was changed to a CD with a little musical note, and now it has been reverted back. There has been next-to-no discussion on this. If anyone is interested, please go to Template talk:Album-stub and add your thoughts. -- Qirex 02:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed a few cases where the background color of a tribute album has been changed in various articles, presumably due to someone uniformed of the Albums project not liking the color. Personally, I don't like the admittedly effeminate purple color, which I believe is the reason I've seen people change it. If consensus is there, could we change it from plum to something a bit more decent ( List of colors), for example lemon (#FDE910), saffron (#F4C430) or vermillion (#FF4D00)? Those seem to be different enough from the other album-type colors. -- Liontamer 18:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I've looked again at the colors I suggested/tested, but they seem a bit too bright. Tan (#D2B48C) seems to work very well as a subdued color, doesn't closely look like any of the other color categories, and can be simply inputed as "tan" in the color area of the template (rather than hex code). -- Liontamer 19:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
EPs | salmon |
---|---|
Original studio albums | orange |
Live albums and live EPs | darkturquoise |
Greatest hits, box sets and other compilations | darkseagreen |
Cover and tribute albums | tan |
Soundtracks | gainsboro |
Television theme songs | chocolate |
Opinions? -- Liontamer 16:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It my opinion, the feathers are kind of out of the pillow on this issue, and it will be very time-consuming to go back and change so many albums colors just because one color appears "effeminate." This especially seems unnecessarily fastidious considering that there are sooooo many album articles that don't even meet basic requirements - or have an infoboxes at all. There's no evidence that the colors are getting changed because they are effeminate anyway. All that time and effort could go into changing them, and some infobox colors will (likely) get changed again occasionally, since the real problem is that some users haven't noticed that they are color-coded.-- Esprit15d 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a copy of the message left on Madchester's Talk page by me, on account of (IMHO) improper reverts of my edits that only preserve outdated Album/Song project style guidelines and superfluous internal linking. While my language was strong, this is not meant as any type of smear or harrassment, but rather to bring to attention to instances where reverts to proper edits are being done to the detriment of the project. The opinions of anyone very familiar with the MoS guidelines on internal linking as well as the subtlely changing style guidelines of WP:Albums would be appreciated. -- Liontamer 20:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I just saw you (Madchester) rollback all of the Manual of Style and WP:Album style fixes I did for Coldplay's singles, EPs and albums, thanks to the Song infobox template not being updated both properly and in conjuction with the edits to the Album infobox. It seems obvious to me that you selectively endorse the revisions to the Manual of Style or the WP:Albums style guide (e.g. bolding article titles in artists' chronologies), as your reverts (intentionally misrepresented in your edit summaries as "copyedits") to various article edits go against the current WikiProject Albums style and the MoS guidelines in terms of undoing En dashes, mm:ss album lengths, and proper track listing style, as well as propogating piping years to "XXXX in music", low added-value links to years and dates as well as duplicate Wikilinks in articles and templates for years, dates, bandnames, release titles, etc.. I'm being BOLD and editing the Song infobox template soon to be more like the Album infobox, as it should be. You should be reasonable enough to understand that the WP:Album standard is meant to be consistantly applied to WP:Songs, regardless of whether anyone has actually updated the Songs infobox template in due course. It's improper that you feel it necessary to revert completely legitimate edits ( generally without properly stating the reasons for revert no less) because you feel territorial about various Coldplay articles, which is against guidelines when people are making edits that are both in good faith, and legitimate alongside the style guides. While I don't take it personally, don't intend on getting into an edit war and I'm sure you can rebutt for yourself, I will be stating these issues in the Songs & Albums projects Talk pages in order to clarify that your reverts are misguided and impeding these projects. Please adapt to currently-in-use style guidelines for WP:Albums like most other users have in order for these projects to continue moving forward. -- Liontamer 19:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that we shouldn't use them. You have screw up your eyes to see whether the star is half yellow or completely white. (I have 1600x1200 screen.) The situation would improve, if there would be more contrast between white and another colour, but that isn't my only worry. The blind users and Lynx users can't see the stars, instead the get some mysterious text like Image:4hv out of 5.png. People practically never bother to write the alternative text to star images. And you understand more quickly how many stars an album got, when you see it as a number than when you start to count stars and half stars from an image. So let's remove the star images from the example albumboxes. -- Hapsiainen 14:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I've created Template:Stars to automate the addition of the alt-text. Sample usage:
etc. Enjoy. - Lee
(talk)
11:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I just thought that having a standard convention for naming cover art files for albums would be a REALLY good idea, since it would allow people to find the cover art files without first finding the specific album name. Maybe we could use a bot or something to correct the current files also? Thanks, Alex 10:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
This has probably been answered before, but I couldn't find it. Is there a standard for which comes first in album track lists, song title or artist? I've seen some people completely rotating tracklists from Song - Artist to Artist - Song. Obviously the Artists are much more likely to be linked than the songs - does this matter? Gram 11:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I've seen two styles for disambiguating similar named albums, could someone tell me which is the preferred style or come up with a straw poll to see which one is used.
Artist disambiguates title
Year disambiguates title
I personally prefer Artist disambiguation because the year can be ambiguous and a person may not know the year of release.
Thanks for clarifying. My apologies if this has already been dealt with elsewhere, I scanned though the voluminous talk pages and was not able to find anything. -- Reflex Reaction ( talk)• 15:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It's been about 4 days since I posted my original comment and it looks like that there will not be any other comments from other persons involved with the project. I will change the language so that the only convention is the artist disambiguation. -- Reflex Reaction ( talk)• 15:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that a separate template is created for adding "no cover available"-image (currently Image:Nocover.gif) to album info boxes. Mainly for two reason:
-- Easyas12c 16:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
{{Switch|{{{Cover|}}} |case:=Nocover.gif |default={{{Cover}}}}}
{{{Cover|Nocover.gif}}}
As you might have noticed, this template was recently protected, because it appeared in a list of high-risk templates at WP:HRT. As of 5 November, the template is used on 6559 pages. Although being used exclusively on talk pages makes it less expensive than some other templates, I would encourage you to reduce the frequency of edits to the page by linking to the to-do list rather than including it in the template. -- bainer ( talk) 02:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid to say that The Beatles and their number-one album for Revolver has spent enough time yielding the "current collaboration" standing. More than one year is plenty, and seeing how it has been even longer than that, a change is required. A fresh album article with little work completed is in desperate need of enhancing. Okay, perhaps not desperate. Does this proposal sound fair? I do believe so. — Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 01:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I have noticed that Revolver ( The Beatles, 1966 release) has been the featured album project for quite some time now. This would please me if the article had been enhancing — however, this does not appear to be the case. Judging by the number of edits that have been made in the history, it seems as though a collaboration on the article had never really commenced. The current five-hundredth edit was edited on the date of August 22 2002; had a collaboration been occurring, I am almost certain that the five-hundredth edit would not have taken place three and a half years ago. My proposal is simple: change the standards of the featured album project. The inactivity taking place in the article—also evident by the past fifty edits that were made (the fiftieth being made on September 20 2005)—has left a dead branch for other album articles that could have been significantly improved within that time period. It disappoints me so. The album project must be changed or even removed from Wikipedia if its inactivity is as great as it currently stands.
— Hollow Wilerding . . . ( talk) 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I found that there are two seperate articles - Cover art and Album cover. Which one should be used as standard for the sleeve artist (if listed) in the Personnel section? In the Means of Production article, I linked the musician's credits as follows:
But on other articles I have seen links to Album cover instead. In addition, the article Album cover art is a redirect to Album cover, not Cover art... Gram 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a pop-album-stub for albums that don't necessarily in with rock, r&b, etc. ( MistaTee 21:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC))
Can there be a Christmas album background color, such as red or green, since Christmas albums usually are only played at Christmas anyway? Tunes 19:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It is rather ironic since I'm the one who made most of the stars in the album articles, but shouldn't we be using text instead of the images? Most of us thought it was a great idea when we first implemented it, but now that we think about it, although it may serve some visual purposes:
Yeah, consider this carefully. I realize it looks good on some articles, but it doesn't really have a good purpose... -- WB 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Instead of talking away in private and then setting up a bot, do you not think it wiser (not to mention more courteous) to make some attempt to let other know what's going on? All I saw was a bot replacing stars with no explanation, the image in question being untagged. I've reverted quite a few already, but then stumbled across this. Don't be surprised if other editors are reverting the change too. I see that some editors have made thses points above; unfortunately they were ignored. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I have posted regarding this on the Village Pump here - I think we need a consensus before a bot does anything on the topic. Tawker 15:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: There is also further discussion on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/List#Unfiltered, though it probably makes sense to keep any further talk here, in one place. Fourohfour 13:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on compilation albums such as the " Now!" series?
My personal feelings are that whilst the "Now!" phenomenon is notable, the individual albums really aren't, being just compilations of chart hits at the time, with little to be said beyond that- and I thought Wikipedia was intended as more than a simple repository for lists/info available elsewhere.
The other question is disambiguating entries in the different "Now!" series. For example, the UK "Now 4" came out in 1984, and was a double cassette/LP featuring hits from that year. The US "Now 4" came out in 2000, and was a single CD reflecting US hits from that year; totally different, although the name is the same.
I moved some entries to a new name such as Now That's What I Call Music! 17 (U.S. series), but realise that I should perhaps have got a consensus before doing this.
Any thoughts?
Fourohfour 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I should have made clear that my comments on naming were intended for *if* we decide to keep the articles anyway.
Fourohfour 13:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
If they're so requested then people can read about them individually in the main article. No content is being lost, its just amalgamation. Support.-- Urthogie 13:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, there is also a list of Now! albums supporting the main article. Fourohfour 13:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
How frustrating! I began researching and adding these articles because they were in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/List topic, there described as "a list of album articles-to-be-written". I presumed this meant that the need for the articles (and, therefore, their place in the encyclopedia —particularly, their notability and naming scheme—had already been debated and determined). After all, that list has links that lead straight to the "edit" page for creating the new articles.
Apparently, that assumption was wrong. I'll butt-out, then, until the project can reach a decision about what it's asking contributors to provide. -- Mikeblas 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Although I disagree with you on this topic, your opinion is as valid as anyone elses when it comes down to it, so I'd rather you didn't "butt-out" for that reason. I don't believe that the project has a monopoly on what should/shouldn't be added, although it's obviously a very good focus for such activity.
BTW, I can't find any discussion on it in the archive of discussions around the date that the Now! albums were added by fonzy. I've posted a message on Fonzy's page, but he (she?!) seems to be semi-dormant, so we might not get anything in the forseeable future. It looks to me like they've just been stuck in there by one user, but I may be wrong.
Fourohfour 16:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think (hope?) we can agree that each "Now" album is an album in it's own right, so it's probably fair enough that they each retain a listing each. However, in terms of "notability" I would argue that it's the phenomenon as a whole that's notable, not the individual compilations. For me the key thing is consistency: if each album is to have a separate entry, the entries should be uniform across the whole collection (with the possible exception of the very first one in the series, and perhaps the first to be released on CD as opposed to other media). Waggers 20:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I work with J-pop albums, whose titles are almost always in Japanese. These names have a romaji version, in example, Koibumi / good night (this is a single, but should work as example, and I didn't want to cross-post between WP:SONG and WP:ALBUM, and this page seems to be more active than WP:SONG). The real name for this single is 恋文 / good night. In the previous, current and next album sections of the template, when the real name is in Kanji, should it be written in romaji (Koibumi / good night), in kanji "as is" (恋文 / good night) or in both (恋文 / good night, line break, Koibumi / good night)? I have been using the romaji-only version, because I believe it is the clearer version for both those who are in touch with the subject and the casual reader, but I want to get a confirmation. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Question: are these considered Studio albums (and thus under the orange color) or other (and thus darksea green), or such? Just curious, as I'm creating a couple of them that are, and I'd like to know what the consensus is.-- Mitsukai 20:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that the All Music Guide link in professional reviews field is italicized in many articles. Is there any reason to do so? Jogers 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
A standard format for citing liner notes has been added to the citation style guide: Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style#Liner_notes. Kaldari 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Anything that should be done different for iTunes exclusive releases? I'm editing Telescope Eyes E.P. and wondering if I should use the regular salmon for the infobox or something different. – gRegor 05:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed on several albums I had edited that the stub was changed from {{ rock-album-stub}} to a more specific {{ 2000s-rock-album-stub}} by the Stub Sorting Project, so I went ahead and added those to the list of stubs on our project page. The more specific the stub is the more helpful it will be, eh? -- gRegor 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about this way of track listing formatting [4] ? Should it be changed to conform the project's specificaton? Jogers 13:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I find this a very awkward and unmusical term and have been changing it at various articles to "credits" (didn't realise this was a standard). I actually assumed the person who had come up with personnel didn't speak english properly and had translated it out of a dictionary or something :) Anyone else agree? Is there a better term we could use? Stevage 19:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The WWW Music Database says it has 23,000 albums. Allmusic says it has 874,000 albums. Moreso, we're now gathering Category:Demo albums and Category:Unreleased albums. Do all of them deserve individual articles? -- Perfecto 05:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I hope not (see also Now! discussion above). Wasn't there a guideline that said for bands with countless "Greatest Hits" and compilations, they weren't all notable?
I mean, there must be countless cheap and obscure ABBA compilations which are essentially just "a few hits and a fairly random selection of album tracks" with little of interest to be said about them. The "proper" albums and famous compilations (e.g. "Greatest Hits", "Greatest Hits Vol. 2") are notable; I don't think a German "Reader's Digest" compilation of their work from 1977 is. Fourohfour 15:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
To / dev/null?? I witness "verifiable yet nonnotable" articles sent to /dev/null in AfD all the time. -- Perfecto 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. In the few album articles I've created, I've been linking the years in the chronology to [[Year in music]]. I've read WP:MOSDATE, so I understand the reasoning behind removing contextually neglible links to plain years, but in this case, linking to the year in music seems contextually relevant in the Chronology section of the infobox (it allows the reader to easily find out about the musical landscape when an album was released). I'd actually like to recommend that your project adopt it as a guideline, but I'm not much of a "joiner" so I'll leave the decision up to you all. Mike Dillon 08:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Has there been any prior discussion of creating categories or pages based on the various Rolling Stone/Pitchfork/... lists that are out there? I'm thinking of Rolling Stone's Top 500 Albums, and Pitchfork's Top 100 of the 70s/80s/90s lists. As precedent, I'd point to The 100, where a part of a similar list is included. While this article only includes 15/100 people, the distinction is mentioned on many of the lower-ranked peoples' pages (e.g. Leonhard Euler#Distinctions).
I would think that a category for something like the Rolling Stone Top 500 would probably be OK, since it wouldn't include the particular ordering, just a list of the albums. The drawback would be that with dozens of lists out there, the categories for some albums would get quite cluttered. An alternative would be some kind of standardized section for "Awards", much like there's a standardized way to include pop chart performance in album articles now. Some albums seem to have done this, e.g. Loveless, but not others, e.g. OK Computer, Daydream Nation, and Remain in Light. -- Dantheox 00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
What about upcoming albums, do they deserve their own article before any official confirmation? Is there any guideline? In this specific case, I am referring to the new Tool (band) release, which is untitled, with no official release date yet and so forth. As the specifics start to emerge one by one, the rumor mill goes wild. The article Aldaraia refers to the upcoming album (which already got an AfD tag Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldaraia). What do you folks think would be reasonable to do? Any suggestions are appreciated.. -- Johnnyw 18:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Did a quick search and didn't see anything about this on the main page, but is there any special way to do split albums? Dysfunktion 01:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any guidelines or templates to help with the formatting of discographies. Are there any? If there are, a headsup note on my talk page would be appreciated, thanks. -- kingboyk 15:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't really seen this addressed in the project page or in the Talk archives. What is the best way to handle alternate track listings for international versions of an album? I don't want to be "Americentric" and assume that the US/Canada version is the "default" track listing and everything else is just a noted mention. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want to get into in-depth tables of track listings for the myriad international versions of some albums. Is there a standard here? Aguerriero 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
In regards to infobox album colors, two things:
So I created a template ( here) for adding tracks to a track list using the format recommended on the project page. A user has indicated that he doesn't particularly care for it, or see a reason for it. I do realize it's not much easier than just doing the entry yourself (sans template), but this does standardize the format, and I'm hoping to add some additional elements, such as adding an icon to indicate that a clip is available, or lyrics, or what not (as a rough idea, you can see the list I did at Listen...). I originally had a link to it under the track list section on the project page but the user removed it for the given reasons, which is fine. I'm just curious now if anyone actually considers this of any value, or at least potential value. I'd appreciate discussion/comments so I can decide how much effort to put into the template. bmearns.....( talk) 21:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the format recommended on the project page using a numbered list (with #)? And I also agree that it is a pretty useless template, and should be subst'ed when used. -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
{{Track listing item | number = 5 | title = The Super Secret Track of Eris | writers = Malaclypse The Younger, James Bojangles | length = 5:55 | on-line = ** }} {{Track listing item | number = 6 | title = Accordian Harmony | writers = unknown | length = 0:25 }}
{{Track listing item | number = 5 | title = The Super Secret Track of Eris | writers = Malaclypse The Younger, James Bojangles | length = 5:55 | on-line = ** }}{{Track listing item | number = 6 | title = Accordian Harmony | writers = unknown | length = 0:25 }}
I'm proposing a new wikiproject for articles regarding musical groups, individual musical artists, etc. If anyone has thoughts or comments on this, or if anyone can point out that I've missed an existing project for this purpose, please discuss it on my talk page. If you support the creation of this project, please add your name to the list here. The temporary pre-project page is here and is in desperate need of contributions from more experienced projecters. bmearns, KSC( talk) 20:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You guys were the only ones with anything on the talk page, so to give you a heads up: I moved Me First, by The Elected to Me First (Album) and set up Me First as a disambig between that page and Me First and the Gimme Gimmes. - AKMask 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Category:Albums by artist nationality seems pretty useful to me. I've just started to clean it up so the nationality subcategories contain the artist's albums categories rather than the invidual album articles. I believe this is the right way to arrange this so please correct me if I'm wrong. Jogers 12:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on a page for an album whose liner notes have separate writing credits for the music and the lyrics. How should this be addressed in the track listing? Say, for instance, track #1 has music by X and Y and lyrics by X and Z. Should the track be listed like this: 1. "Track 1" (X, Y, Z), or should the credits be listed after the track title in a different fashion? JJBunks 21:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
What colours should be used for demo / rehearsal releases? and bootlegs? Spearhead 22:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a good resource to find total times of albums? It gets sickening after a while when you have to add the time of each song. Weatherman90 19:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Another Question - How can I find if an album received any certification, and if it did, what kind, (Platinum, Gold, 2x Platinum, etc.) Thanks! -- Weatherman90 15:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I made this nifty little number, If anyone wants to use it. It will also place Category:Wikiproject Albums Member on your page. Enjoy!
![]() |
This user is a member of WikiProject Albums. |
--
Weatherman90
00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The rules say not to redlink to songs. That implies that it is okay to redlink to albums. Should we be doing that? Actively? Am I the only one who finds 60 red links out of 70 links on a list annoying?
Also, Do songs on discography lists require quotes? Freekee 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Template talk:Album infobox#Update about the proposed changes to the album infobox template. I thought that someone here might be interested. Jogers ( talk) 10:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the Project's page to reflect the changes to the infobox. Jogers ( talk) 14:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps listing them alphabetically could by recommended? Jogers ( talk) 15:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, if there is a lot of reviews in the infobox it makes sense to arrange them in some order, don't you agree? I've noticed that they are already ordered alphabetically in some articles. Jogers ( talk) 08:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, anybody knows what's wrong with the link to the Q magazine review in the example infobox? Jogers ( talk) 13:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)