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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Respectfully suggest that there should be separate "type" categories for Broadway Cast Recordings and Original Broadway Cast Recordings. A show cast recording is an entirely different thing than a soundtrack. The former is related to a staged production where performers of the show record that show's songs in a studio; the latter has to do with the music used with a movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.58.159 ( talk) 01:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a place for certification in the albums infobox, ie. platinum? I know that the singles infobox has a spot for it. Grk1011 ( talk) 22:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I am still trying to figure out image uploading, and then putting into a page. I am trying to add the album cover for the split between Cipher System and By Night, but for some reason it will not show up. It is uploaded, and viewable at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cipher_system_and_by_night_split.jpg and so I followed the way that Dimmu Borgir's album "For All Tid" is edited, but it does not work. Can someone please help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pogrom666 ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes albums get a little creative with the manner in which personnel are listed. For example, I'm working on a page for Lari White's Lead Me Not album, and the liner notes credit one person as contributing "ridiculously high harmony vocals" on one song. In creating the album's page, would it be acceptable to use the liner notes' phrasing? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
How should we format unofficial titles like The White Album, The Blue Album, or Led Zeppelin IV? Do we italicize those or what? Italicizing kind of gives the impression of an official title, but I guess we can offset that by specifying in the intro that it's an unofficial title. What do people think? Torc2 ( talk) 07:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to include a statement in Personnel something to the effect that "At minimum, personnel should include band members. A full listing should incorporate guest musicians and technical personnel." Similar language is present at the assessment scale under the various rankings, but given what I've encountered in my futile album ranking quest, I don't believe this is widely understood by editors attempting to follow the format. Any objections? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Are there any criteria for the current listing acceptable review sites (see ALBUM#Review_sites). Someone added a bunch of links to reviews from Paste, they were all removed due to COI issues, but in reality, aren't reviews from Paste as credible or moreso than many that we've listed?
In truth, I've never liked the list. It will never be complete, and often times the best reviews are in genre specific publications. Isn't the only real criteria for this that the publicaitons should be reliable sources. - MrFizyx ( talk) 04:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In Spanish, titles like other text, the words must began with capital letter only if they are names or the first word (Real Academia Española: Ortografía 3.3.3.g; Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas 4.17).
Example: El tren de los momentos is OK. "El Tren de los Momentos", "El Tren De Los Momentos", etc. are wrong.
For a little light relief, check out Those Who Are About to Die Salute You and its talk page. A very determined editor has run through the album catalogue of Colosseum, tagging each album article to request verifiable sources for the information which, in most cases, consists only of an intro, an infobox, a tracklist and personnel. This comes 24 hours after he did the same with two albums by an ARIA Music Awards-winning Australian band, My Friend the Chocolate Cake, resorting to tagging one album article for deletion when I removed his "Sources" tag.
The nub of his reasoning, as explained at both the talk page above and his own talk page, is that these albums may all be hoaxes unless their existence is proved by a source for the information, which is clearly the album covers themselves. My point, argued repeatedly, is that Wiki's WP:V and WP:CITE guidelines require sources cited only for information likely to be challenged. He feels every Wiki article – even those containing little more than a tracklisting, should state its source, presumably on the grounds that the accuracy of every tracklisting is suspect. He also feels that sources denote notability to readers unfamiliar with the albums. Judging by his user contributions, he is one busy boy, hell bent on flagging every album article lacking a source. At what point does misguided and pigheaded zeal turn to vandalism? Grimhim ( talk) 11:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, here is the diff between one of the articles before I tagged it and now. It seems to have been much improved, especially considering how small an article it is. So, are my tags disruptive, or do they help improve Wikipedia? Blast Ulna ( talk) 12:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Are album covers ok for infoboxes? If no image of the artist exists isnt it legal to use an album cover and just set the caption to say that its an album cover? Its either that or not picture at all. Grk1011 ( talk) 04:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a debate on whether or not to use the original, foreign-language title for song names or use the translations (at Smile (album) specifically, but this applies everywhere). Personally I believe that original titles with translations should be used. What's the standard? (The archives here were no help.) = ∫ t c 5th Eye 15:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Just letting people from the project know: I've removed album reviews from RockReviews.org. As far as I can tell, these are not professional reviews from a well-established website and most of the reviews were added by the single-purpose account Wiki4U ( talk · contribs). Pichpich ( talk) 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The guidance says that live albums should not be included in the infobox chronology, which is fair enough. But what, then, do you do with the Chronology field in the infobox for a live album? Just leave it out altogether? -- Richardrj talk email 10:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do about Remixes 2004. Its technically a remix album, but charted in Greece on the singles charts. Is it a single or an album? Grk1011 ( talk) 22:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say single - a single can have remixes, that's the norm in pop/rap/hip-hop singles.- Viola sk8 1976 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I see the record is not listed on her own website. Do any of the charts list it? What about the record label? It was a Billboard #1 - was that a singles chart? What did they call it? - Freekee ( talk) 18:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think these are only on Classical albums, but what do we do in situations like this? —Torc. ( Talk.) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion you may be interested in over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Albums and songs. At issue is the wording of the guidelines at WP:MUSIC that help determine the notability of albums for inclusion in WP. My own starting point is a wish to see more, rather than less, album content on WP to strengthen its reputation as an authoritative knowledge base on albums. Not all see it this way, of course, and this divergence in opinion is acknowledged at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Notability. Contributors are referred back to WP:MUSIC for more information. Since that's where guidelines are formulated, you may wish to offer your opinion if you have one. Grimhim ( talk) 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I've had quick look through Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs and the archive here regarding this issue but can find no reference to it. Is there a Wikipedia guideline for how a writer's credit should be represented for people who use a stage/nick name but publish under their legal name? I seem to have found myself in an edit war with Rock Soldier with regards to the writer's credit for Lemmy on all of his songs. Although he is always credited as Kilmister on the releases, Rock Soldier contends that as his Wikipedia article is at Lemmy, the writer's credit should be changed to reflect this, my assertion being that this this does not follow Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are many other composers/musicians to whom this also applies, how should wikipedia handle this? Drwhawkfan ( talk) 13:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Drwhawkfan, your opinion is what I believe to be correct. I put the stage names in the personnel section, and the text of the article, and the credited name in the writing credits. It's important to make it known who we're talking about, so Zilla's method is good. At least make sure that the name is linked to the proper person. Like Jeffry Hyman. - Freekee ( talk) 18:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey. A user named Broken fixed has been creating a great number of articles about each stop on a Tori Amos tour. The articles claim that they're official bootlegs, whatever that means, but I don't know that they're notable on their own. Can someone else take a look at this and give their opinion? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I found an album cover for New Kids on the Blocks "Merry Merry Christmas" album http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/5673/1251b220dca054b51f75301tg2.jpg
I'd up it myself but after what happened last time I'll not be joining. 68.32.76.156 ( talk)
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/628/200707441gt6.jpg Jon B's Bonafide (album) 68.32.76.156 ( talk) 00:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an open request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) that discusses whether or not all conjunctions in the title of a published work should be lowercased, regardless of their length. As this obviously concerns music-related articles, input from members of this WikiProject would be much appreciated. – Cyrus XIII ( talk) 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this sort of thing is allowed or usual, but as peer reviews get so little attention - if anyone could check out the peer review for Costello Music and make a comment or two I'd be really grateful :) -- Naerii · plz create stuff 23:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This picks up from a disussion in the archive where several posters recommended deleting his reviews. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_21#Removing_Robert_Christgau.27s_Reviews_From_Album_Pages
I also think Christgau’s reviews should be deleted, for several reasons. If individual reviews are allowed then the review section could easily become very large. You could easily end up with dozens of reviews. Another problem with Christgau in particular is that he uses a very awkward scoring system that is very misleading at first glance. What would you assume *** means? If you didn’t know you’d think that it means 3 stars out of 5, or perhaps 3 out of 4, but in fact it means, “Honorable Mention is an enjoyable effort consumers attuned to its overriding aesthetic or individual vision may well treasure” ( http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bk-cg90/grades-90s.php). He uses letters, stars, and symbols in a system that is not easily understandable from just a quick glance. Also note that Christgau is often very out of step with other reviewers. The album Twin Cinema by the New Pornographers is a good example. Christgau’s own Pazz & Jop poll, which in 2005 polled 795 of what Christgau himself considers to be the top reviewers, ranked Twin Cinema as the 9th best album in the world. Christgau himself, on the other hand, only gave it a **. (You’ll have to look up what that means). Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but if Christgau can be that out of step with 800 of the top reviewers in the world then I don't think Wikipedia should value his reviews enough to allow them to be put in the review section ahead of other individual reviewers. Alternatively, if individual reviewers are going to be allowed then clearly there are dozens and dozens of reviewers who thought Twin Cinema was an outstanding album, and their reviews should be put into the review section along with Christgau’s in order to put his review in context as being out of step with the vast majority of the top reviews. I think the most reasonable solution, however, is to not use Christgau’s reviews at all. BigRockFan ( talk) 01:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering in what situations a table would be preferable to a numbered list. I personally feel tables are better for track listings, as they are easier to read. However, when I create track tables they are often reverted. ReverendG ( talk) 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Recently I put all of Da Yoopers' albums up for deletion; the consensus was to merge to a separate discography, as they don't appear notable enough for separate pages. Since they have at least a dozen albums out, a suggestion was made to create a separate discography page composed of each album's track listings. I've gotten a start at User:TenPoundHammer/Yoopers sandbox, using the {{ tracklist}} template to make hidden track listings. However, I would like to know whether I should also include an infobox for each album, given that most of them have been reviewed on All Music Guide. Also, I welcome any other suggestions as to how I can better organize this info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
on Wikipedia, there are currently more than 300 album articles with their notability questioned. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here.
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged e.g. to the corresponding band articles, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, what's up?! nice project you got there, keep it up! If you people dont mind, i added the article Mouled Sidi El-Latini to the project and i would like to request a rating and if possible some suggestions on how to improve the article! Thanks guys :) Maged M. Mahfouz ( talk) 21:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It says on the Peer Review page that I should ask around WikiProjects for people to help out reviewing the article. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks - Guerilla In Tha Mist ( talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I just found out about this template: Template:Tracklist. At first I didn't like it (maybe I fear change), but I'm warming up to it a little. Does anyone involved in this WikiProject have any opinions of it? If it is to be used, I think we should at the very least mention it on the main project page, if not make it the standard. My own opinion is that we should be consistent with this kind of thing. Anyone have any strong feelings about it? Drewcifer ( talk) 23:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this could be very very useful with Rap albums since they are always subject to significant changes with each track; example. But with Metal or Rock or Jazz, i dont think that's needed! However, since i encourage writing the articles with similar style, i guess if it is to be used in some albums, then it should be used in ALL albums! Maged M. Mahfouz ( talk) 02:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed a lot of editors removed the release dates of upcoming albums, citing Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Released as policy against release dates listed before it. I will quote this section for you:
Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified, using a single occurrence of
, for example July 31, 2007 (or July 2007 or 2007 if the exact date isn't known). Later release dates can be mentioned in a Release history section.I don't notice anything prohibiting release dates inserted before the album release. So, that should clear it up once and for all, right? If not, please be so kind as to point out what I'm missing. Tom Danson ( talk) 06:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
(Exdent) I have just invited several other editors who have crossed my path on this issue ( sample invite). I am specifically trying to avoid "stacking" this discussion, but would like as many voices on this as possible. So far, I have posted messages for User talk:Freekee, User talk:Torc2, User talk:Huntster, User talk:Hello Control, User talk:Tom Danson, User talk:Admc2006 and User talk:Spellcast. Without intending to speak for any one of them, I think Freekee is for some kind of change, Torc2 is weakly for, Hunster is for, Hello Control is for, Tom Danson is against (or at least disagree with my interpretation), IllaZilla is against, tomasz. is against, Spellcast is against, Admc2006 is against and you all should know where I stand. I think we have a decent sample of those involved, but bring more if you find anyone else interested. Again, my goal is to find a solid concensous on this so we can all move ahead. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Although people know what a future date in a "Released" field means, it's not grammatically correct so I don't think it should be added. Two possible solutions is changing the "Released" field to "Release date" or modifying WP:ALBUM#Released to say future dates should only be said in the article. I prefer the second option because the less redundancy in the infobox, the better. Spellcast ( talk) 08:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the best answer is to change the infobox field to "release date". That would be better than changing the guideline to exclude future dates, since that's harder to police. Having said that, I wouldn't complain if the guildeline were chaged. The third option, adding a field for "Scheduled date," would be fine too. The fourth option, to make no changes (or to explicitly allow future dates with no changes in wording), would not upset me either. It's only a minor grammatical issue. But my preference is for the first thing I mentioned. - Freekee ( talk) 01:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Moving ahead. 1) Any objections to change? 2) Which option: a)change "Released" to "Release date" or b) add "Release date" (or similar) to be used pre-release only or c) update infobox guide to bar future dates from the box?
My opinion: b. Changing to "Release date" just changes the nature of the problem. Usage instructions are widely ignored. Adding the new field preserves the "at-a-glance" nature of the box for future albums while avoiding the "we're saying it was released because we haven't updated it yet" problem. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think we need to be clear on this issue. Let's answer this question first, and then decide how to handle it, if necessary: Should scheduled or projected release dates appear in the infobox? - Freekee ( talk) 04:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of the album stub categories are getting rather large. I have been working through the Category:2000s album stubs and this has led me to propose some further splits (breaking down jazz, folk and R&B by decade). Any comments are welcome (especially here). Waacstats ( talk) 08:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to re-open the issue dealing with categories. I think that it is a waste of space to create a category that contains only one or two albums in it. Please shed some light on this issue. Undeath ( talk) 20:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a naming convention for soundtracks? In a list I am creating in my user space, I have been using film name (soundtrack) or television series name (soundtrack). I added The Big Chill on the list as The Big Chill (soundtrack) only to find it as The Big Chill (album). Several of the soundtracks use (soundtrack) after the name to disambiguate them. Which would this project prefer? - LA @ 08:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Would someone here be willing to help me find the titles of various soundtracks for a special project I am working on in my user space? I am trying to put together a list of media franchises from a list of my favorite films and television series which will possibly be used as a base by WikiProject Media franchises. You could also use this as a base for WikiProject Albums, maybe as a little side project or task force since there are soundtracks and scores for a good number of films released. (This is an invite to edit that page in my user space, so if I don't have the right title, please correct it. If a seperate article has not been started for the album, please make the red link. Click on the numbers in the soundtrack column to get to the headings for each franchise. Feel free to expand any section that is incomplete.) - LA @ 07:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This category page is a redlink, but is being heavily populated by {{ album}}. Should this actually be at Category:automatically assessed Album articles, say? If so, someone needs to fix the twisty maze of nested templates that will put about half the article-space on the job queue. Otherwise, the page could just be re-created. Alai ( talk) 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
On a few pages, I'm seeing mini edit wars based on the composers and producers of certain tracks. Can the liner notes themselves be a reference, or must there be an actual print source somewhere else stating the fact? I'm sorry if such a question sounds stupid, as to me, the liner notes should suffice, but it seems as though not everyone agrees, so I want to bring it up here. Thanks in advance. SKS2K6 ( talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders may have an impact on the widespread use of Image:Nocover.png so comments from members of this project would be appreciated. Genisock2 ( talk) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, it's sorta under your scope, and its the first album article I've written, let alone put up for FAC, so any comments would be appreciated. You can find the FAC page here. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 17:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I wish to edit the section of the article regarding one of the cues not in the Special Edition. It says that the film version of 'Funeral Pyre for a Jedi' was replaced with the Alternate verision, but that info. is flat-out wrong. The tracklist from the SE called 'Light of the Force' uses both versions of Funeral Pyre for a Jedi, with the alternate version played first followed immediately by the film version.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.27.59 ( talk • contribs) 04:03, April 28, 2008
So, just to clarify what is on the main page, EP is always preferred over E.P.? And EP should never be included in the title unless the name of the EP is already an article? I know this is made pretty clear, but there seems to be a need for unification. SorryGuy Talk 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
According to album capitalization guidelines like WP:ALBUM and WP:MUSTARD, conjunctions in album titles should not be capitalized. Depsite this I see the conjunction 'so' capitalized numerous times in articles such as " Don't Stand So Close to Me", " You Are So Beautiful", " You're So Vain", " (What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love, and Understanding", So Far, So Good... So What!, " You Look So Fine", etc. Can someone clarify for me what the official stance on this word is? Xnux the Echidna 22:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The page appears to be at the wrong title. Can someone look into this? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 02:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just looking at some of the album pages for Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, who are a punk band who only do covers. Would this be an OK time to use a table for the track listing, so that it will show number, title, writer and original artist? It seems like it would be a bit much to have a separate section just to list who the original performers were. As it is, they usually list the performer and not necessarily the writer in the parenthesis next to the title. - Joltman ( talk) 15:31, 30 April 2008 (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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Respectfully suggest that there should be separate "type" categories for Broadway Cast Recordings and Original Broadway Cast Recordings. A show cast recording is an entirely different thing than a soundtrack. The former is related to a staged production where performers of the show record that show's songs in a studio; the latter has to do with the music used with a movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.58.159 ( talk) 01:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a place for certification in the albums infobox, ie. platinum? I know that the singles infobox has a spot for it. Grk1011 ( talk) 22:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I am still trying to figure out image uploading, and then putting into a page. I am trying to add the album cover for the split between Cipher System and By Night, but for some reason it will not show up. It is uploaded, and viewable at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cipher_system_and_by_night_split.jpg and so I followed the way that Dimmu Borgir's album "For All Tid" is edited, but it does not work. Can someone please help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pogrom666 ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes albums get a little creative with the manner in which personnel are listed. For example, I'm working on a page for Lari White's Lead Me Not album, and the liner notes credit one person as contributing "ridiculously high harmony vocals" on one song. In creating the album's page, would it be acceptable to use the liner notes' phrasing? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
How should we format unofficial titles like The White Album, The Blue Album, or Led Zeppelin IV? Do we italicize those or what? Italicizing kind of gives the impression of an official title, but I guess we can offset that by specifying in the intro that it's an unofficial title. What do people think? Torc2 ( talk) 07:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to include a statement in Personnel something to the effect that "At minimum, personnel should include band members. A full listing should incorporate guest musicians and technical personnel." Similar language is present at the assessment scale under the various rankings, but given what I've encountered in my futile album ranking quest, I don't believe this is widely understood by editors attempting to follow the format. Any objections? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Are there any criteria for the current listing acceptable review sites (see ALBUM#Review_sites). Someone added a bunch of links to reviews from Paste, they were all removed due to COI issues, but in reality, aren't reviews from Paste as credible or moreso than many that we've listed?
In truth, I've never liked the list. It will never be complete, and often times the best reviews are in genre specific publications. Isn't the only real criteria for this that the publicaitons should be reliable sources. - MrFizyx ( talk) 04:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In Spanish, titles like other text, the words must began with capital letter only if they are names or the first word (Real Academia Española: Ortografía 3.3.3.g; Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas 4.17).
Example: El tren de los momentos is OK. "El Tren de los Momentos", "El Tren De Los Momentos", etc. are wrong.
For a little light relief, check out Those Who Are About to Die Salute You and its talk page. A very determined editor has run through the album catalogue of Colosseum, tagging each album article to request verifiable sources for the information which, in most cases, consists only of an intro, an infobox, a tracklist and personnel. This comes 24 hours after he did the same with two albums by an ARIA Music Awards-winning Australian band, My Friend the Chocolate Cake, resorting to tagging one album article for deletion when I removed his "Sources" tag.
The nub of his reasoning, as explained at both the talk page above and his own talk page, is that these albums may all be hoaxes unless their existence is proved by a source for the information, which is clearly the album covers themselves. My point, argued repeatedly, is that Wiki's WP:V and WP:CITE guidelines require sources cited only for information likely to be challenged. He feels every Wiki article – even those containing little more than a tracklisting, should state its source, presumably on the grounds that the accuracy of every tracklisting is suspect. He also feels that sources denote notability to readers unfamiliar with the albums. Judging by his user contributions, he is one busy boy, hell bent on flagging every album article lacking a source. At what point does misguided and pigheaded zeal turn to vandalism? Grimhim ( talk) 11:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, here is the diff between one of the articles before I tagged it and now. It seems to have been much improved, especially considering how small an article it is. So, are my tags disruptive, or do they help improve Wikipedia? Blast Ulna ( talk) 12:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Are album covers ok for infoboxes? If no image of the artist exists isnt it legal to use an album cover and just set the caption to say that its an album cover? Its either that or not picture at all. Grk1011 ( talk) 04:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a debate on whether or not to use the original, foreign-language title for song names or use the translations (at Smile (album) specifically, but this applies everywhere). Personally I believe that original titles with translations should be used. What's the standard? (The archives here were no help.) = ∫ t c 5th Eye 15:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Just letting people from the project know: I've removed album reviews from RockReviews.org. As far as I can tell, these are not professional reviews from a well-established website and most of the reviews were added by the single-purpose account Wiki4U ( talk · contribs). Pichpich ( talk) 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The guidance says that live albums should not be included in the infobox chronology, which is fair enough. But what, then, do you do with the Chronology field in the infobox for a live album? Just leave it out altogether? -- Richardrj talk email 10:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do about Remixes 2004. Its technically a remix album, but charted in Greece on the singles charts. Is it a single or an album? Grk1011 ( talk) 22:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say single - a single can have remixes, that's the norm in pop/rap/hip-hop singles.- Viola sk8 1976 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I see the record is not listed on her own website. Do any of the charts list it? What about the record label? It was a Billboard #1 - was that a singles chart? What did they call it? - Freekee ( talk) 18:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think these are only on Classical albums, but what do we do in situations like this? —Torc. ( Talk.) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion you may be interested in over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Albums and songs. At issue is the wording of the guidelines at WP:MUSIC that help determine the notability of albums for inclusion in WP. My own starting point is a wish to see more, rather than less, album content on WP to strengthen its reputation as an authoritative knowledge base on albums. Not all see it this way, of course, and this divergence in opinion is acknowledged at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Notability. Contributors are referred back to WP:MUSIC for more information. Since that's where guidelines are formulated, you may wish to offer your opinion if you have one. Grimhim ( talk) 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I've had quick look through Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs and the archive here regarding this issue but can find no reference to it. Is there a Wikipedia guideline for how a writer's credit should be represented for people who use a stage/nick name but publish under their legal name? I seem to have found myself in an edit war with Rock Soldier with regards to the writer's credit for Lemmy on all of his songs. Although he is always credited as Kilmister on the releases, Rock Soldier contends that as his Wikipedia article is at Lemmy, the writer's credit should be changed to reflect this, my assertion being that this this does not follow Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are many other composers/musicians to whom this also applies, how should wikipedia handle this? Drwhawkfan ( talk) 13:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Drwhawkfan, your opinion is what I believe to be correct. I put the stage names in the personnel section, and the text of the article, and the credited name in the writing credits. It's important to make it known who we're talking about, so Zilla's method is good. At least make sure that the name is linked to the proper person. Like Jeffry Hyman. - Freekee ( talk) 18:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey. A user named Broken fixed has been creating a great number of articles about each stop on a Tori Amos tour. The articles claim that they're official bootlegs, whatever that means, but I don't know that they're notable on their own. Can someone else take a look at this and give their opinion? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I found an album cover for New Kids on the Blocks "Merry Merry Christmas" album http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/5673/1251b220dca054b51f75301tg2.jpg
I'd up it myself but after what happened last time I'll not be joining. 68.32.76.156 ( talk)
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/628/200707441gt6.jpg Jon B's Bonafide (album) 68.32.76.156 ( talk) 00:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an open request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) that discusses whether or not all conjunctions in the title of a published work should be lowercased, regardless of their length. As this obviously concerns music-related articles, input from members of this WikiProject would be much appreciated. – Cyrus XIII ( talk) 00:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this sort of thing is allowed or usual, but as peer reviews get so little attention - if anyone could check out the peer review for Costello Music and make a comment or two I'd be really grateful :) -- Naerii · plz create stuff 23:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This picks up from a disussion in the archive where several posters recommended deleting his reviews. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_21#Removing_Robert_Christgau.27s_Reviews_From_Album_Pages
I also think Christgau’s reviews should be deleted, for several reasons. If individual reviews are allowed then the review section could easily become very large. You could easily end up with dozens of reviews. Another problem with Christgau in particular is that he uses a very awkward scoring system that is very misleading at first glance. What would you assume *** means? If you didn’t know you’d think that it means 3 stars out of 5, or perhaps 3 out of 4, but in fact it means, “Honorable Mention is an enjoyable effort consumers attuned to its overriding aesthetic or individual vision may well treasure” ( http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bk-cg90/grades-90s.php). He uses letters, stars, and symbols in a system that is not easily understandable from just a quick glance. Also note that Christgau is often very out of step with other reviewers. The album Twin Cinema by the New Pornographers is a good example. Christgau’s own Pazz & Jop poll, which in 2005 polled 795 of what Christgau himself considers to be the top reviewers, ranked Twin Cinema as the 9th best album in the world. Christgau himself, on the other hand, only gave it a **. (You’ll have to look up what that means). Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but if Christgau can be that out of step with 800 of the top reviewers in the world then I don't think Wikipedia should value his reviews enough to allow them to be put in the review section ahead of other individual reviewers. Alternatively, if individual reviewers are going to be allowed then clearly there are dozens and dozens of reviewers who thought Twin Cinema was an outstanding album, and their reviews should be put into the review section along with Christgau’s in order to put his review in context as being out of step with the vast majority of the top reviews. I think the most reasonable solution, however, is to not use Christgau’s reviews at all. BigRockFan ( talk) 01:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering in what situations a table would be preferable to a numbered list. I personally feel tables are better for track listings, as they are easier to read. However, when I create track tables they are often reverted. ReverendG ( talk) 15:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Recently I put all of Da Yoopers' albums up for deletion; the consensus was to merge to a separate discography, as they don't appear notable enough for separate pages. Since they have at least a dozen albums out, a suggestion was made to create a separate discography page composed of each album's track listings. I've gotten a start at User:TenPoundHammer/Yoopers sandbox, using the {{ tracklist}} template to make hidden track listings. However, I would like to know whether I should also include an infobox for each album, given that most of them have been reviewed on All Music Guide. Also, I welcome any other suggestions as to how I can better organize this info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
on Wikipedia, there are currently more than 300 album articles with their notability questioned. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here.
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged e.g. to the corresponding band articles, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, what's up?! nice project you got there, keep it up! If you people dont mind, i added the article Mouled Sidi El-Latini to the project and i would like to request a rating and if possible some suggestions on how to improve the article! Thanks guys :) Maged M. Mahfouz ( talk) 21:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It says on the Peer Review page that I should ask around WikiProjects for people to help out reviewing the article. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks - Guerilla In Tha Mist ( talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I just found out about this template: Template:Tracklist. At first I didn't like it (maybe I fear change), but I'm warming up to it a little. Does anyone involved in this WikiProject have any opinions of it? If it is to be used, I think we should at the very least mention it on the main project page, if not make it the standard. My own opinion is that we should be consistent with this kind of thing. Anyone have any strong feelings about it? Drewcifer ( talk) 23:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this could be very very useful with Rap albums since they are always subject to significant changes with each track; example. But with Metal or Rock or Jazz, i dont think that's needed! However, since i encourage writing the articles with similar style, i guess if it is to be used in some albums, then it should be used in ALL albums! Maged M. Mahfouz ( talk) 02:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed a lot of editors removed the release dates of upcoming albums, citing Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Released as policy against release dates listed before it. I will quote this section for you:
Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified, using a single occurrence of
, for example July 31, 2007 (or July 2007 or 2007 if the exact date isn't known). Later release dates can be mentioned in a Release history section.I don't notice anything prohibiting release dates inserted before the album release. So, that should clear it up once and for all, right? If not, please be so kind as to point out what I'm missing. Tom Danson ( talk) 06:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
(Exdent) I have just invited several other editors who have crossed my path on this issue ( sample invite). I am specifically trying to avoid "stacking" this discussion, but would like as many voices on this as possible. So far, I have posted messages for User talk:Freekee, User talk:Torc2, User talk:Huntster, User talk:Hello Control, User talk:Tom Danson, User talk:Admc2006 and User talk:Spellcast. Without intending to speak for any one of them, I think Freekee is for some kind of change, Torc2 is weakly for, Hunster is for, Hello Control is for, Tom Danson is against (or at least disagree with my interpretation), IllaZilla is against, tomasz. is against, Spellcast is against, Admc2006 is against and you all should know where I stand. I think we have a decent sample of those involved, but bring more if you find anyone else interested. Again, my goal is to find a solid concensous on this so we can all move ahead. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Although people know what a future date in a "Released" field means, it's not grammatically correct so I don't think it should be added. Two possible solutions is changing the "Released" field to "Release date" or modifying WP:ALBUM#Released to say future dates should only be said in the article. I prefer the second option because the less redundancy in the infobox, the better. Spellcast ( talk) 08:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the best answer is to change the infobox field to "release date". That would be better than changing the guideline to exclude future dates, since that's harder to police. Having said that, I wouldn't complain if the guildeline were chaged. The third option, adding a field for "Scheduled date," would be fine too. The fourth option, to make no changes (or to explicitly allow future dates with no changes in wording), would not upset me either. It's only a minor grammatical issue. But my preference is for the first thing I mentioned. - Freekee ( talk) 01:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Moving ahead. 1) Any objections to change? 2) Which option: a)change "Released" to "Release date" or b) add "Release date" (or similar) to be used pre-release only or c) update infobox guide to bar future dates from the box?
My opinion: b. Changing to "Release date" just changes the nature of the problem. Usage instructions are widely ignored. Adding the new field preserves the "at-a-glance" nature of the box for future albums while avoiding the "we're saying it was released because we haven't updated it yet" problem. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think we need to be clear on this issue. Let's answer this question first, and then decide how to handle it, if necessary: Should scheduled or projected release dates appear in the infobox? - Freekee ( talk) 04:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of the album stub categories are getting rather large. I have been working through the Category:2000s album stubs and this has led me to propose some further splits (breaking down jazz, folk and R&B by decade). Any comments are welcome (especially here). Waacstats ( talk) 08:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to re-open the issue dealing with categories. I think that it is a waste of space to create a category that contains only one or two albums in it. Please shed some light on this issue. Undeath ( talk) 20:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a naming convention for soundtracks? In a list I am creating in my user space, I have been using film name (soundtrack) or television series name (soundtrack). I added The Big Chill on the list as The Big Chill (soundtrack) only to find it as The Big Chill (album). Several of the soundtracks use (soundtrack) after the name to disambiguate them. Which would this project prefer? - LA @ 08:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Would someone here be willing to help me find the titles of various soundtracks for a special project I am working on in my user space? I am trying to put together a list of media franchises from a list of my favorite films and television series which will possibly be used as a base by WikiProject Media franchises. You could also use this as a base for WikiProject Albums, maybe as a little side project or task force since there are soundtracks and scores for a good number of films released. (This is an invite to edit that page in my user space, so if I don't have the right title, please correct it. If a seperate article has not been started for the album, please make the red link. Click on the numbers in the soundtrack column to get to the headings for each franchise. Feel free to expand any section that is incomplete.) - LA @ 07:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This category page is a redlink, but is being heavily populated by {{ album}}. Should this actually be at Category:automatically assessed Album articles, say? If so, someone needs to fix the twisty maze of nested templates that will put about half the article-space on the job queue. Otherwise, the page could just be re-created. Alai ( talk) 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
On a few pages, I'm seeing mini edit wars based on the composers and producers of certain tracks. Can the liner notes themselves be a reference, or must there be an actual print source somewhere else stating the fact? I'm sorry if such a question sounds stupid, as to me, the liner notes should suffice, but it seems as though not everyone agrees, so I want to bring it up here. Thanks in advance. SKS2K6 ( talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders may have an impact on the widespread use of Image:Nocover.png so comments from members of this project would be appreciated. Genisock2 ( talk) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, it's sorta under your scope, and its the first album article I've written, let alone put up for FAC, so any comments would be appreciated. You can find the FAC page here. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 17:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I wish to edit the section of the article regarding one of the cues not in the Special Edition. It says that the film version of 'Funeral Pyre for a Jedi' was replaced with the Alternate verision, but that info. is flat-out wrong. The tracklist from the SE called 'Light of the Force' uses both versions of Funeral Pyre for a Jedi, with the alternate version played first followed immediately by the film version.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.27.59 ( talk • contribs) 04:03, April 28, 2008
So, just to clarify what is on the main page, EP is always preferred over E.P.? And EP should never be included in the title unless the name of the EP is already an article? I know this is made pretty clear, but there seems to be a need for unification. SorryGuy Talk 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
According to album capitalization guidelines like WP:ALBUM and WP:MUSTARD, conjunctions in album titles should not be capitalized. Depsite this I see the conjunction 'so' capitalized numerous times in articles such as " Don't Stand So Close to Me", " You Are So Beautiful", " You're So Vain", " (What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love, and Understanding", So Far, So Good... So What!, " You Look So Fine", etc. Can someone clarify for me what the official stance on this word is? Xnux the Echidna 22:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The page appears to be at the wrong title. Can someone look into this? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 02:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just looking at some of the album pages for Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, who are a punk band who only do covers. Would this be an OK time to use a table for the track listing, so that it will show number, title, writer and original artist? It seems like it would be a bit much to have a separate section just to list who the original performers were. As it is, they usually list the performer and not necessarily the writer in the parenthesis next to the title. - Joltman ( talk) 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)