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 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Partially a response to the above, but for any newcomer to the Album Project: I created a "template" to create a bare-minimum stub album article in my userspace ( here). Basically attempting to assist people to create a "nice" album article first time. :) I have no idea whether it will be helpful to new or experienced alike (it is for me to be honest!), but it's there if you need it. I'd appreciate any feed back either here or at my talkpage and please do add anything to it which you feel has been ommitted – especially in the notes section at the bottom (maybe it is still a bit confusing for newcomers). – B.hotep • talk• 08:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I forgot that we created a WP:ALBUM welcome template some time ago, I forgot why I deleted it from my userspace: because it got moved here – and I forgot that it was already mentioned on the project page here! Anyway, now you are aware of it (again?)– shall we use it to help people out? Embrace them to Wikipedia's general bosom, and that of WP:ALBUM, where they can find the handy album article creation template! – B.hotep • talk• 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Should the track listing show the consensus official name for a song, or the name of the song as it appears on the album/CD? — John Cardinal ( talk) 14:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi people.
We are well in the stub categories department, but i think we lack the Rap one, not that like the genre i think it should be placed in the same category as Hip-hop, but could someone create the template for Rap music, please. Zidane tribal ( talk) 05:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I consider myself a world class expert on Duke Ellington. I also have a really good knowldege of jazz. I am new to Wikipedia.
One of the things that is striking to me is that a lot of people are hung up about release dates. I can only speak for jazz. In the jazz community, we have discographies from tiny to hudge in size. All of them are based on recording date. Sometimes you might hear about release dates, but it is rare. If you don't have the recording dates listed, you are going against every standard reference work in jazz.
My near term goal is to list all of Duke Ellington's albums (not collections) from major to semi-major labels. -- Ellingtonrecords ( talk) 15:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey. I've seen a couple of album ratings by Georgiy Starostin appearing on Wikipedia (mostly Beatles albums), and I think it would be nice if his site was added to the Review sites list. Queenieacoustic ( talk) 17:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen the request to rename Category:EPs and all its sub-categories ?
I suggest you vote a.s.a.p. GrahamHardy ( talk) 16:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello i have a query regarding track listings. My main concern is should you include the producers for a song? i notice that WP:Albums does not mention anything about producers but it appears to have become a convention to include everyone who has contributed to a song. In some instances for example Battlefield (album) it is unclear who produced song number 5. but in other instances I Look to You for example there is a source which explicitly states "x & y" produced song 1, "a & b" produced song 2. One experienced editor said to me that featured articles don't include the producers of a song. help please. ( Lil-unique1 ( talk) 17:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC))
How about moving the Reviews sites section into a separate subpage and transclude it into the main project page? It would display just like today, but allow us to protect only that subpage without "freezing" the remaining of the project page. I am asking this question because it seems like the "metal-observer edit war" could be breaking out again. – IbLeo ( talk) 17:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I have the impression that have I opened up another Pandora's box here. I swear I didn't do it on purpose ;-). A myriad of questions are being asked above regarding professional reviews: (a) should we improve the guidelines? (b) should we add more entries to the list? (c) should we semi-protect the page? (d) Do we need professional reviews at all? Going back to my original proposal, I see much support and no serious protests against it. Consequently I have moved the "Review sites" into a subpage as-is (i.e. without any changes to the content) and transcluded it into the main project page. For the project page reader there is no change, it looks exactly like before. However what has been achieved is that the occasional drive-by IP is less prone to finding it and adding his favorite review site. Now, this change does not rule out IllaZilla's proposal at a later stage (as nothing is final here on WP). In fact, I see the different issues listed above —disregarding the last one, of course, but it's out-of-scope of this thread— as independent issues that should be discussed independently. Now, the next issue we could address is, should we go one step further and semi-protect the review sites subpage, like it is currently the case with the sourcing guide over at WP:CHARTS? – IbLeo ( talk) 19:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that I redirected the talk page of the subpage to here in order to avoid having discussions about review sites at several different places. Better keep those centralized. – IbLeo ( talk) 20:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Quick question. As background, the band page The Shells (and everything related to it, including its album page) came under deletion attack (primarily by two editors). The band page has survived as notable (though the nominating deleter is again seeking to have it deleted). The album page (see [2]) has been deleted.
My question is whether it is appropriate to move all or some of the information from the deleted album page (e.g., photo of album cover, track listings, mention of the review (and perhaps even a quote from the review)) to the band page now that the album page has been deleted. A couple of editors had indicated as much, but I wanted to solicit opinions from the experts here before doing so. Many thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose we add The A.V. Club to the list of review sites. It seems genuine to me, 662 articles currently links to it's article, many of them to cite reviews, including album articles like Love and Theft, St. Anger, Under Rug Swept, and Vespertine to name just a few. – IbLeo ( talk) 06:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I have done my research. It looks very plausible.
My main problem was its association with a 'fake' satirical newspaper, but all commentary about the site seems to indicate it is much more serious and a valuable resource for critique on popular culture, including music. Looks like an automatic add to the list to me, check it over and tell us what you think. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 13:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Number 1's (Mariah Carey album) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 07:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking through various of the 525 references to CD Baby on Wikipedia, it appears commonplace in those references for album articles to mention that the album is being sold through CD Baby (they also often mention other modes of sale/distribution, such as iTunes, Amazon, etc.). Is that appropriate? Thanks. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Similar question about songlyrics.com. I notice that 30 articles use it as a link, but I wonder whether that is OK. Many thanks. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 10:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, does anyone have a view as to whether I should take a crack at creating an article for Sterling Sound, the mastering studio? It seems to be already referred to in over 200 articles, but has no article. I imagine I could muster at least a stub, and perhaps a start.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Punk music has an assessment option for Future Class articles. Could this be a valid way of replacing the impending deletion/deprecation of Future templates? Is there any reason why we don't have Future class articles? I think it would be much easier to track Upcoming albums and get them assessed as they are released, rather than prior to release when they are still incomplete/building. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 08:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
→ Okay, finally finished cleaning this up. Let's try keep it neat in the future, make sure if you see a Future class that it's actually a Future album. Otherwise this will just be a burden. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 06:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I found a review linked to this site and they look legit. See their 'about us' page. Their writers have written for legit magazines, they have no ads, they don't sell albums, and the reviews are well written. I say to add them. They use a 6-point rating scale. J04n( talk page) 11:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
At FACs, the issue of using the most reputable reviewer sources first has come up time and time again. I'm proposing a hierarchical system for the review sites list as follows:
<see next topic>
I think this is a good way to encourage good quality authorship and raise the standards of our pop culture articles, which, let's face it, get more slack than most. I'd love to hear what people think. RB88 ( T) 17:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that some parts of wikipedia I have reviewed for album articles use discogs.com for citations. To my knowledge, discogs.com shouldn't be used as a valid source due to it being a "community-built database" as the site's main page promotes. WP:Film doesn't allow imdb used as a source either due to it's "user-submitted" info rather then expert submitted info. So is it safe to assume discogs.com isn't a valid source as well? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 13:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey there everyone, as I'm pretty involved with categories, I noticed while rummaging through Category:Album covers by artist that there doesn't seem to be consistency within categorizing album covers and single covers. For example, there are categories which group album covers and single covers together ( Category:Ricky Martin album covers) while others separate them ( Category:Coldplay album covers and Category:Coldplay single covers). I've come here to set a consistency with this categorization scheme, but am unsure on how it should be done. Should there be separate categories for album covers and single covers, or should they all be collected together? If the former, should Category:BandName single covers be a subcategory of Category:BandName album covers or should there be in some sort of Category:BandName images and keeping the two separate subcategories? I hope to see some responses to get this messy category in order. Regards. — ξ xplicit 05:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
<removed> The lists are as exhaustive as I could make them following Metacritic, the FA albums, and what we have written down on the page so far. Don't add to it or move stuff around. Drop a line below here first. Comments are very much welcome and necessary. RB88 ( T) 19:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
That's it from me I think. Hopefully people will like it and bear in mind that it will probably be a bit nicer if and when it goes live. I'm proposing to include the detail and websites for only LIST 1 to encourage people to scout those first. RB88 ( T) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
My biggest problem is with the classification ""Reputable media before internet saturation". How do we determine that? What marks the period of "internet saturation". Also, why should that be a metric for dividing music reviewers? What about "reputable media" who have excellent web presence anyway? It's a wholly subjective classifcation. By the way, when I tell people to look for print reviews for album articles, it's because I'm telling people to do their research and explore all major sources; it just so happens print reviews that aren't reproduced online are the easiest to overlook. Likewise, many print reviews are available online, in either free or paid formats. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
ADVICE
Hi. Just a friendly notice to alert you to the discussion at [7]. It concerns the proposed deletion of the articles on the band The Shells and its debut album Written Roads, for supposed lack of notability. While I have no idea what your view will be on this issue (if any), you may be interested in joining or following the indicated ongoing discussion. (This is the second time the same nom has nominated the article for AfD -- his prior effort was rebuffed two weeks ago). I have (hopefully correctly) indicated there my understanding (from the above discussions) that it is the convention that if the band article continues to survive the nom's AfDs, the album article should survive as well. Many thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
User IllaZilla recommended I bring this site to your attention in consideration of adding it to the list here WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. www.pinpointmusic.com focuses on recent album review with the focus being on indie rock, hip-hop, electronic and pop genres. The site contains both professional video and photography all copyrighted to the site. The staff consists of 12 established writers both in the US and UK. Pinpointmusic is linked to from several artists, labels, and various music industry sites establishing its notability. Bigdealben ( talk) 08:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Right, here's the deal after our discussions:
Question: What do we do now people? RB88 ( T) 18:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I think dividing reviewers into separate sections based on media format is unnecessary. Just list them all in alphabetical order, and indicate next to the name whether it is print or online, and include relevant URLs as necessary. Separating general publications (Time, The New York Times, The Guardian) from music-specific ones (Rolling Stone, Spin, NME) would be more useful. WesleyDodds ( talk) 06:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
On LOtUSFLOW3R#Track listings, a box set of 3 different albums, the albums are listed in alphabetical order. This order means that the least notable one is listed first, with the main album LOtUSFLOW3R listed second. This doesn't seem like a sensible order, but is there a guideline that says they should be alphabetically listed? If there's no guideline, what's the opinion here? Nelson58 ( talk) 00:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Done some work on this, yet to have a Wikipedia page but it is an established website with published credibility, judging from what I have found. The site has been referred to by many reliable sources, which include, but are not limited to:
Recommend it goes into the professional sites section, as a reliable source with a wide selection of reviews on different genres. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 13:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Starting its own wiki article would be beneficial as well. Especially as people (including yours truly) don't like to add reviews that don't have a wikilink. Any takers? RB88 ( T) 09:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
MusicOMH now created, make sure we link to it guys! :) Kiac ( talk) 10:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Could someone add it to the list please? I don't think I have to explain/prove this a lot: UK magazine owned by NME's media company and has been in publication since 1996. RB88 ( T) 15:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Personnel can include band members and also others such as session musicians, guest musicians to name but two categories. Thoughts/guidelines on formatting the Personnel section with regard to these? I've seen subheadings such as "Guests" in one or two articles but would like to know if there's a weight of opinion about this. (If so, perhaps the project page could usefully elaborate?) PL290 ( talk) 18:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
←I agree w/ Kiac. There's no reason to exclude pertinent, verifiable information, and the personnel section often contains more information on the production staff, etc. than the prose does. Even if it doesn't, having the section nicely summarizes these credits in a succinct way for the reader. Really, how often does the prose name every musician who played on an album, or the various recording engineers, mix engineers, and mastering technicians involved in finishing the album's production? -- IllaZilla ( talk) 17:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Template and nascent standard I noticed today that Remain in Light uses {{ italictitle}} to italicize the title of the article. When I applied it to Everything That Happens Will Happen Today, I was informed of this: Wikipedia:NC#Special_characters_and_formatting. Somehow or other, a special dispensation for italicized titles was made for taxonomic names, but I do not know where, when, or how this agreement was reached. Does anyone have any feedback to give on the prospect of italicized titles for album names? As far as I am concerned, it only makes sense to italicize the title of the article as long as that same phrase will be italicized in the text as well. Thoughts? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Again I feel compelled to point out that this is being used all over the place (e.g. Jack Kirby's Fourth World and Catch-22.) I will post at RfC to determine when/whether this should be used. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a good amount of debate on the sources used on the article for Trans-Europe Express (album). It's getting a bit out of control so if any editors would like to share their opinions, it would be greatly welcomed. Cheers. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 18:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I am new to this project, and noticed Remove articles from the Year in Music categories in the list of things to do/maintenance. What is the purpose of this endeavor? Is that type of category being discontinued for ALL album articles (I doubt it, because that would be an enormous project) or have certain album articles been targeted for this purpose? And if so, why? Please advise. Doomsdayer520 ( talk) 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Albums to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 06:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Should be enough to prove its worth, it seems to be a highly circulated and notable mag in the UK with sufficient coverage and useful and trustworthy critique. Comments encouraged. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 12:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I began researching this after realising it wasn't on the list. It's a given, not even going to review the sources there's that many, practically every major publication internationally has referenced the mag; here's a few:
Detailed info about the magazine in here, it was started in 1985 by General Media, which publishes Penthouse. The magazine was sold to the owners of Vibe at a price of US$43.3 million, with a circulation of over 500,000 way back in 1997. Comments encouraged. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 12:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well these are obviously going to be added, so I think since Metal Hammer's circulation is now bigger than NME's we can safely add that as well. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 13:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
And now we are at printed music magazines, could we add Mojo, the only music magazine that I subscribe to (so I don't have to go to the airport every month and pay double prize :-)? One of UK's biggest music magazines, established in 1993, monthly distribution of more than 100.000 copies, cited by many reliable sources:
I have added all above, however have not been able to find online reviews with ratings for Mojo or Vibe, partly due to their sites being unusually slow. If someone else would like to have a look and add the scales to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, would be appreciated. I assume their magazine issues would be a lot more abundant with reviews. Kiac ( talk) 04:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just realised we don't have this, either. It's an obvious inclusion, the major UK rock magazine, worldwide supply, etc. etc. My question is however, do we use their format of rating KKKK's out of five, or do we insist that a numbered system is used (4/5). Take into account that the current documentation says to use the same format as used in the publication, however, adding ' Kerrang! (KKKK)<ref>' isn't describing what the rating is out of, which is essentially the important part (could we use (KKKK/5)?). Kiac ( talk) 04:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
This article reveals that Q was Britain's biggest music magazine in 2008, measured in circulation. It seems an obvious omission inclusion to me. They use a 5-star rating scale, and as with the other music magazines published by
Bauer Media Group, their reviews are not available online. I think we should add it anyway. –
IbLeo (
talk) 07:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we should close this thread and address new suggestions for review sites in new sections. Otherwise it will just keep growing endlessly and never reach the 30 days age it takes to get archived. – IbLeo ( talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
After viewing the wonderful new Popular pages tool, I've noticed that a lot of movies have our template on their talk pages. I get that their soundtracks are technically albums, but don't see how films at all fall into our jurisdiction? Would it not be easier to cover soundtrack guidelines in the WP:FILM project with links to here for more info, and save us the bother of being linked to for no specific reason? You don't link to the film template on a singles or DVD page because there is a video discussed. kiac. ( talk- contrib) 12:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
So on an album page I noticed that someone removed the section about the album's singles and combined it together with information about the other songs. I changed it back since every other album page I saw had a Singles section. Yet this user keeps removing and combining them. Should this be changed? Aren't the articles supposed to have a section dedicated to the singles? -- -Shadow ( talk) 19:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Considering the sounds played by bands like tristeza, explosions in the sky, etc, wouldn't be Alice in chains' album "Jar of flies" considered as a forerunner of Post Rock genre?
I would like some feedback and consideration about this.
Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outofairplanes ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
In regards to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites: AbsolutePunk.net staff reviews should be listed as under sites that can be used in the Template:Infobox album review section. Not being an established user, I cannot edit this myself, but staff reviews from the mentioned website are genuine, critical and impartial reviews, hence a reliable source. Petternitter ( talk) 14:35 (GMT), November 11 2008.
There's two discussion at WikiProject Songs-- WikiProject Songs#Beatles songwriting credits and WikiProject Songs#Infobox proposal--that have some revelance to this project, given albums have to deal with song credits as well. WesleyDodds ( talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Shag Times/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for one week to allow for these issues to be fixed. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Mezzamorphis/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for one week to allow for these issues to be fixed. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
XXL, The Source and URB should be three more no-brainer print inclusions. Right now on the list only Allmusic, Stylus and the newly added Vibe deal with urban music significantly, leading to an over-reliance by editors on the sometimes eccentric coverage of Allmusic in this area, IMO. XXL and URB put some of their magazine content online.
One of the earliest hip hop websites and accepted in practice as an RS throughout en.wikipedia. A rare source for pre-2000s reviews, since editors are not at libraries combing through print mags. Cited by the International Herald Tribune [35], The Herald [36]. Founded by contributor to URB [37], interviewed on NPR [38]. Rapreviews is the only online review source recommended in Peter Shapiro's Rough Guide to Hip Hop, 2nd. ed., London: Rough Guides, 2005. ISBN 978-1843532637 (p. 403).
Hip-Hop Connection was a UK hip hop mag, the longest-running in the world. Again recommended by Shapiro (see above). Print only until very recently when it was re-born in PDF format.
This rather ugly-looking site seems a good source for reviews. Cited by the Boston Globe, [39] [40] LA Times, [41] MTV, [42] The Sunday Times ("respected site HipHopDX"), [43] cited by NPR for its part in debunking an LA Times investigation [44], senior editor on NPR [45]. Contributors have covered hip hop for outlets like the Washington Post, NPR, etc. so seems highly reputable.
86.44.18.22 ( talk) 14:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Any more comments on these? 86.44.27.180 ( talk) 11:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
joining this project (I am actually thrilled to discover that my scanned in two parts and then joined together cover of My Generation is still here, since Jan 2005) but am wondering if this is the place to do EPs, which are 45's but contain art work worthy of albums. Any thoughts before I head out and do the wrong thing? Carptrash ( talk) 22:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Illa. My opening opus, Freddie and the Dreamers (album) is almost ready - tho I'm not going to try any boxes or fancy stuff . . . . . . . . . ............. yet. Carptrash ( talk) 00:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to find the discussion behind the guidelines for saying that image art should be over 200px but not more than 300px. At the same time it recommends finding images at Amazon. Amazon users regularly post 500px images. How is "low-res" defined? I have found several Wikipedia cover-art images that are 500px and some are a little bigger. It seems to me that if 500px images are widely distributed over the internet by Amazon and others, Wikipedia can follow the trend. Before starting a discussion about this here, I'm wondering what previous discussions have already taken place. Can anyone provide links? Thanks. -- ☑ Sam uelWantman 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I was unaware of this section until I tried to solve the problem above, but, at least in the main section I have frequently tried to search information on favored but obscure groups and found information on another group that used the name. In particular there are two groups, CHRYSALIS and THE INFORMATION SOCIETY which I was looking for. (The CHRYSALIS one is particularly surprising, since several of the members were involved with other groups, Vocalist Nancy Nairn and (I think) writer and leader James "Spider" Barbour worked with Frank Zappa and drummer Dahoud Shaar was part of the band on at least the earliest Van Morrison solo albums, ASTRAL WEEKS and MOONDANCE.)
I could start a page, but it would be little more than a listing of tracks and snippets of information like the above -- in fact I couldn't even do this for INFORMATION SOCIETY unless I merely copied the liner notes, since all I know about the group is that they exist, I have their album, and that I like their music.
There are many other examples of this. For example, I believe at least four groups called WINGS released albums before the McCartney led group. (At least one did because I had it -- sadly, no longer.)
Anyway, should I just 'throw up stubs' on these groups, or is there likely to be someone who could do a better job now that the topic has been raised?
71.249.50.176 ( talk) 23:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Prup (aka Jim Benton)
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 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Partially a response to the above, but for any newcomer to the Album Project: I created a "template" to create a bare-minimum stub album article in my userspace ( here). Basically attempting to assist people to create a "nice" album article first time. :) I have no idea whether it will be helpful to new or experienced alike (it is for me to be honest!), but it's there if you need it. I'd appreciate any feed back either here or at my talkpage and please do add anything to it which you feel has been ommitted – especially in the notes section at the bottom (maybe it is still a bit confusing for newcomers). – B.hotep • talk• 08:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I forgot that we created a WP:ALBUM welcome template some time ago, I forgot why I deleted it from my userspace: because it got moved here – and I forgot that it was already mentioned on the project page here! Anyway, now you are aware of it (again?)– shall we use it to help people out? Embrace them to Wikipedia's general bosom, and that of WP:ALBUM, where they can find the handy album article creation template! – B.hotep • talk• 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Should the track listing show the consensus official name for a song, or the name of the song as it appears on the album/CD? — John Cardinal ( talk) 14:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi people.
We are well in the stub categories department, but i think we lack the Rap one, not that like the genre i think it should be placed in the same category as Hip-hop, but could someone create the template for Rap music, please. Zidane tribal ( talk) 05:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I consider myself a world class expert on Duke Ellington. I also have a really good knowldege of jazz. I am new to Wikipedia.
One of the things that is striking to me is that a lot of people are hung up about release dates. I can only speak for jazz. In the jazz community, we have discographies from tiny to hudge in size. All of them are based on recording date. Sometimes you might hear about release dates, but it is rare. If you don't have the recording dates listed, you are going against every standard reference work in jazz.
My near term goal is to list all of Duke Ellington's albums (not collections) from major to semi-major labels. -- Ellingtonrecords ( talk) 15:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey. I've seen a couple of album ratings by Georgiy Starostin appearing on Wikipedia (mostly Beatles albums), and I think it would be nice if his site was added to the Review sites list. Queenieacoustic ( talk) 17:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen the request to rename Category:EPs and all its sub-categories ?
I suggest you vote a.s.a.p. GrahamHardy ( talk) 16:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello i have a query regarding track listings. My main concern is should you include the producers for a song? i notice that WP:Albums does not mention anything about producers but it appears to have become a convention to include everyone who has contributed to a song. In some instances for example Battlefield (album) it is unclear who produced song number 5. but in other instances I Look to You for example there is a source which explicitly states "x & y" produced song 1, "a & b" produced song 2. One experienced editor said to me that featured articles don't include the producers of a song. help please. ( Lil-unique1 ( talk) 17:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC))
How about moving the Reviews sites section into a separate subpage and transclude it into the main project page? It would display just like today, but allow us to protect only that subpage without "freezing" the remaining of the project page. I am asking this question because it seems like the "metal-observer edit war" could be breaking out again. – IbLeo ( talk) 17:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I have the impression that have I opened up another Pandora's box here. I swear I didn't do it on purpose ;-). A myriad of questions are being asked above regarding professional reviews: (a) should we improve the guidelines? (b) should we add more entries to the list? (c) should we semi-protect the page? (d) Do we need professional reviews at all? Going back to my original proposal, I see much support and no serious protests against it. Consequently I have moved the "Review sites" into a subpage as-is (i.e. without any changes to the content) and transcluded it into the main project page. For the project page reader there is no change, it looks exactly like before. However what has been achieved is that the occasional drive-by IP is less prone to finding it and adding his favorite review site. Now, this change does not rule out IllaZilla's proposal at a later stage (as nothing is final here on WP). In fact, I see the different issues listed above —disregarding the last one, of course, but it's out-of-scope of this thread— as independent issues that should be discussed independently. Now, the next issue we could address is, should we go one step further and semi-protect the review sites subpage, like it is currently the case with the sourcing guide over at WP:CHARTS? – IbLeo ( talk) 19:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that I redirected the talk page of the subpage to here in order to avoid having discussions about review sites at several different places. Better keep those centralized. – IbLeo ( talk) 20:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Quick question. As background, the band page The Shells (and everything related to it, including its album page) came under deletion attack (primarily by two editors). The band page has survived as notable (though the nominating deleter is again seeking to have it deleted). The album page (see [2]) has been deleted.
My question is whether it is appropriate to move all or some of the information from the deleted album page (e.g., photo of album cover, track listings, mention of the review (and perhaps even a quote from the review)) to the band page now that the album page has been deleted. A couple of editors had indicated as much, but I wanted to solicit opinions from the experts here before doing so. Many thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose we add The A.V. Club to the list of review sites. It seems genuine to me, 662 articles currently links to it's article, many of them to cite reviews, including album articles like Love and Theft, St. Anger, Under Rug Swept, and Vespertine to name just a few. – IbLeo ( talk) 06:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I have done my research. It looks very plausible.
My main problem was its association with a 'fake' satirical newspaper, but all commentary about the site seems to indicate it is much more serious and a valuable resource for critique on popular culture, including music. Looks like an automatic add to the list to me, check it over and tell us what you think. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 13:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Number 1's (Mariah Carey album) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 07:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking through various of the 525 references to CD Baby on Wikipedia, it appears commonplace in those references for album articles to mention that the album is being sold through CD Baby (they also often mention other modes of sale/distribution, such as iTunes, Amazon, etc.). Is that appropriate? Thanks. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Similar question about songlyrics.com. I notice that 30 articles use it as a link, but I wonder whether that is OK. Many thanks. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 10:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, does anyone have a view as to whether I should take a crack at creating an article for Sterling Sound, the mastering studio? It seems to be already referred to in over 200 articles, but has no article. I imagine I could muster at least a stub, and perhaps a start.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Punk music has an assessment option for Future Class articles. Could this be a valid way of replacing the impending deletion/deprecation of Future templates? Is there any reason why we don't have Future class articles? I think it would be much easier to track Upcoming albums and get them assessed as they are released, rather than prior to release when they are still incomplete/building. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 08:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
→ Okay, finally finished cleaning this up. Let's try keep it neat in the future, make sure if you see a Future class that it's actually a Future album. Otherwise this will just be a burden. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 06:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I found a review linked to this site and they look legit. See their 'about us' page. Their writers have written for legit magazines, they have no ads, they don't sell albums, and the reviews are well written. I say to add them. They use a 6-point rating scale. J04n( talk page) 11:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
At FACs, the issue of using the most reputable reviewer sources first has come up time and time again. I'm proposing a hierarchical system for the review sites list as follows:
<see next topic>
I think this is a good way to encourage good quality authorship and raise the standards of our pop culture articles, which, let's face it, get more slack than most. I'd love to hear what people think. RB88 ( T) 17:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that some parts of wikipedia I have reviewed for album articles use discogs.com for citations. To my knowledge, discogs.com shouldn't be used as a valid source due to it being a "community-built database" as the site's main page promotes. WP:Film doesn't allow imdb used as a source either due to it's "user-submitted" info rather then expert submitted info. So is it safe to assume discogs.com isn't a valid source as well? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 13:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey there everyone, as I'm pretty involved with categories, I noticed while rummaging through Category:Album covers by artist that there doesn't seem to be consistency within categorizing album covers and single covers. For example, there are categories which group album covers and single covers together ( Category:Ricky Martin album covers) while others separate them ( Category:Coldplay album covers and Category:Coldplay single covers). I've come here to set a consistency with this categorization scheme, but am unsure on how it should be done. Should there be separate categories for album covers and single covers, or should they all be collected together? If the former, should Category:BandName single covers be a subcategory of Category:BandName album covers or should there be in some sort of Category:BandName images and keeping the two separate subcategories? I hope to see some responses to get this messy category in order. Regards. — ξ xplicit 05:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
<removed> The lists are as exhaustive as I could make them following Metacritic, the FA albums, and what we have written down on the page so far. Don't add to it or move stuff around. Drop a line below here first. Comments are very much welcome and necessary. RB88 ( T) 19:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
That's it from me I think. Hopefully people will like it and bear in mind that it will probably be a bit nicer if and when it goes live. I'm proposing to include the detail and websites for only LIST 1 to encourage people to scout those first. RB88 ( T) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
My biggest problem is with the classification ""Reputable media before internet saturation". How do we determine that? What marks the period of "internet saturation". Also, why should that be a metric for dividing music reviewers? What about "reputable media" who have excellent web presence anyway? It's a wholly subjective classifcation. By the way, when I tell people to look for print reviews for album articles, it's because I'm telling people to do their research and explore all major sources; it just so happens print reviews that aren't reproduced online are the easiest to overlook. Likewise, many print reviews are available online, in either free or paid formats. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
ADVICE
Hi. Just a friendly notice to alert you to the discussion at [7]. It concerns the proposed deletion of the articles on the band The Shells and its debut album Written Roads, for supposed lack of notability. While I have no idea what your view will be on this issue (if any), you may be interested in joining or following the indicated ongoing discussion. (This is the second time the same nom has nominated the article for AfD -- his prior effort was rebuffed two weeks ago). I have (hopefully correctly) indicated there my understanding (from the above discussions) that it is the convention that if the band article continues to survive the nom's AfDs, the album article should survive as well. Many thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
User IllaZilla recommended I bring this site to your attention in consideration of adding it to the list here WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. www.pinpointmusic.com focuses on recent album review with the focus being on indie rock, hip-hop, electronic and pop genres. The site contains both professional video and photography all copyrighted to the site. The staff consists of 12 established writers both in the US and UK. Pinpointmusic is linked to from several artists, labels, and various music industry sites establishing its notability. Bigdealben ( talk) 08:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Right, here's the deal after our discussions:
Question: What do we do now people? RB88 ( T) 18:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I think dividing reviewers into separate sections based on media format is unnecessary. Just list them all in alphabetical order, and indicate next to the name whether it is print or online, and include relevant URLs as necessary. Separating general publications (Time, The New York Times, The Guardian) from music-specific ones (Rolling Stone, Spin, NME) would be more useful. WesleyDodds ( talk) 06:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
On LOtUSFLOW3R#Track listings, a box set of 3 different albums, the albums are listed in alphabetical order. This order means that the least notable one is listed first, with the main album LOtUSFLOW3R listed second. This doesn't seem like a sensible order, but is there a guideline that says they should be alphabetically listed? If there's no guideline, what's the opinion here? Nelson58 ( talk) 00:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Done some work on this, yet to have a Wikipedia page but it is an established website with published credibility, judging from what I have found. The site has been referred to by many reliable sources, which include, but are not limited to:
Recommend it goes into the professional sites section, as a reliable source with a wide selection of reviews on different genres. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 13:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Starting its own wiki article would be beneficial as well. Especially as people (including yours truly) don't like to add reviews that don't have a wikilink. Any takers? RB88 ( T) 09:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
MusicOMH now created, make sure we link to it guys! :) Kiac ( talk) 10:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Could someone add it to the list please? I don't think I have to explain/prove this a lot: UK magazine owned by NME's media company and has been in publication since 1996. RB88 ( T) 15:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Personnel can include band members and also others such as session musicians, guest musicians to name but two categories. Thoughts/guidelines on formatting the Personnel section with regard to these? I've seen subheadings such as "Guests" in one or two articles but would like to know if there's a weight of opinion about this. (If so, perhaps the project page could usefully elaborate?) PL290 ( talk) 18:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
←I agree w/ Kiac. There's no reason to exclude pertinent, verifiable information, and the personnel section often contains more information on the production staff, etc. than the prose does. Even if it doesn't, having the section nicely summarizes these credits in a succinct way for the reader. Really, how often does the prose name every musician who played on an album, or the various recording engineers, mix engineers, and mastering technicians involved in finishing the album's production? -- IllaZilla ( talk) 17:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Template and nascent standard I noticed today that Remain in Light uses {{ italictitle}} to italicize the title of the article. When I applied it to Everything That Happens Will Happen Today, I was informed of this: Wikipedia:NC#Special_characters_and_formatting. Somehow or other, a special dispensation for italicized titles was made for taxonomic names, but I do not know where, when, or how this agreement was reached. Does anyone have any feedback to give on the prospect of italicized titles for album names? As far as I am concerned, it only makes sense to italicize the title of the article as long as that same phrase will be italicized in the text as well. Thoughts? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Again I feel compelled to point out that this is being used all over the place (e.g. Jack Kirby's Fourth World and Catch-22.) I will post at RfC to determine when/whether this should be used. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a good amount of debate on the sources used on the article for Trans-Europe Express (album). It's getting a bit out of control so if any editors would like to share their opinions, it would be greatly welcomed. Cheers. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 18:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I am new to this project, and noticed Remove articles from the Year in Music categories in the list of things to do/maintenance. What is the purpose of this endeavor? Is that type of category being discontinued for ALL album articles (I doubt it, because that would be an enormous project) or have certain album articles been targeted for this purpose? And if so, why? Please advise. Doomsdayer520 ( talk) 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Albums to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 06:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Should be enough to prove its worth, it seems to be a highly circulated and notable mag in the UK with sufficient coverage and useful and trustworthy critique. Comments encouraged. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 12:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I began researching this after realising it wasn't on the list. It's a given, not even going to review the sources there's that many, practically every major publication internationally has referenced the mag; here's a few:
Detailed info about the magazine in here, it was started in 1985 by General Media, which publishes Penthouse. The magazine was sold to the owners of Vibe at a price of US$43.3 million, with a circulation of over 500,000 way back in 1997. Comments encouraged. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 12:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well these are obviously going to be added, so I think since Metal Hammer's circulation is now bigger than NME's we can safely add that as well. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 13:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
And now we are at printed music magazines, could we add Mojo, the only music magazine that I subscribe to (so I don't have to go to the airport every month and pay double prize :-)? One of UK's biggest music magazines, established in 1993, monthly distribution of more than 100.000 copies, cited by many reliable sources:
I have added all above, however have not been able to find online reviews with ratings for Mojo or Vibe, partly due to their sites being unusually slow. If someone else would like to have a look and add the scales to WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, would be appreciated. I assume their magazine issues would be a lot more abundant with reviews. Kiac ( talk) 04:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just realised we don't have this, either. It's an obvious inclusion, the major UK rock magazine, worldwide supply, etc. etc. My question is however, do we use their format of rating KKKK's out of five, or do we insist that a numbered system is used (4/5). Take into account that the current documentation says to use the same format as used in the publication, however, adding ' Kerrang! (KKKK)<ref>' isn't describing what the rating is out of, which is essentially the important part (could we use (KKKK/5)?). Kiac ( talk) 04:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
This article reveals that Q was Britain's biggest music magazine in 2008, measured in circulation. It seems an obvious omission inclusion to me. They use a 5-star rating scale, and as with the other music magazines published by
Bauer Media Group, their reviews are not available online. I think we should add it anyway. –
IbLeo (
talk) 07:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we should close this thread and address new suggestions for review sites in new sections. Otherwise it will just keep growing endlessly and never reach the 30 days age it takes to get archived. – IbLeo ( talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
After viewing the wonderful new Popular pages tool, I've noticed that a lot of movies have our template on their talk pages. I get that their soundtracks are technically albums, but don't see how films at all fall into our jurisdiction? Would it not be easier to cover soundtrack guidelines in the WP:FILM project with links to here for more info, and save us the bother of being linked to for no specific reason? You don't link to the film template on a singles or DVD page because there is a video discussed. kiac. ( talk- contrib) 12:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
So on an album page I noticed that someone removed the section about the album's singles and combined it together with information about the other songs. I changed it back since every other album page I saw had a Singles section. Yet this user keeps removing and combining them. Should this be changed? Aren't the articles supposed to have a section dedicated to the singles? -- -Shadow ( talk) 19:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Considering the sounds played by bands like tristeza, explosions in the sky, etc, wouldn't be Alice in chains' album "Jar of flies" considered as a forerunner of Post Rock genre?
I would like some feedback and consideration about this.
Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outofairplanes ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
In regards to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites: AbsolutePunk.net staff reviews should be listed as under sites that can be used in the Template:Infobox album review section. Not being an established user, I cannot edit this myself, but staff reviews from the mentioned website are genuine, critical and impartial reviews, hence a reliable source. Petternitter ( talk) 14:35 (GMT), November 11 2008.
There's two discussion at WikiProject Songs-- WikiProject Songs#Beatles songwriting credits and WikiProject Songs#Infobox proposal--that have some revelance to this project, given albums have to deal with song credits as well. WesleyDodds ( talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Shag Times/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for one week to allow for these issues to be fixed. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Mezzamorphis/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for one week to allow for these issues to be fixed. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
XXL, The Source and URB should be three more no-brainer print inclusions. Right now on the list only Allmusic, Stylus and the newly added Vibe deal with urban music significantly, leading to an over-reliance by editors on the sometimes eccentric coverage of Allmusic in this area, IMO. XXL and URB put some of their magazine content online.
One of the earliest hip hop websites and accepted in practice as an RS throughout en.wikipedia. A rare source for pre-2000s reviews, since editors are not at libraries combing through print mags. Cited by the International Herald Tribune [35], The Herald [36]. Founded by contributor to URB [37], interviewed on NPR [38]. Rapreviews is the only online review source recommended in Peter Shapiro's Rough Guide to Hip Hop, 2nd. ed., London: Rough Guides, 2005. ISBN 978-1843532637 (p. 403).
Hip-Hop Connection was a UK hip hop mag, the longest-running in the world. Again recommended by Shapiro (see above). Print only until very recently when it was re-born in PDF format.
This rather ugly-looking site seems a good source for reviews. Cited by the Boston Globe, [39] [40] LA Times, [41] MTV, [42] The Sunday Times ("respected site HipHopDX"), [43] cited by NPR for its part in debunking an LA Times investigation [44], senior editor on NPR [45]. Contributors have covered hip hop for outlets like the Washington Post, NPR, etc. so seems highly reputable.
86.44.18.22 ( talk) 14:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Any more comments on these? 86.44.27.180 ( talk) 11:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
joining this project (I am actually thrilled to discover that my scanned in two parts and then joined together cover of My Generation is still here, since Jan 2005) but am wondering if this is the place to do EPs, which are 45's but contain art work worthy of albums. Any thoughts before I head out and do the wrong thing? Carptrash ( talk) 22:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Illa. My opening opus, Freddie and the Dreamers (album) is almost ready - tho I'm not going to try any boxes or fancy stuff . . . . . . . . . ............. yet. Carptrash ( talk) 00:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to find the discussion behind the guidelines for saying that image art should be over 200px but not more than 300px. At the same time it recommends finding images at Amazon. Amazon users regularly post 500px images. How is "low-res" defined? I have found several Wikipedia cover-art images that are 500px and some are a little bigger. It seems to me that if 500px images are widely distributed over the internet by Amazon and others, Wikipedia can follow the trend. Before starting a discussion about this here, I'm wondering what previous discussions have already taken place. Can anyone provide links? Thanks. -- ☑ Sam uelWantman 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I was unaware of this section until I tried to solve the problem above, but, at least in the main section I have frequently tried to search information on favored but obscure groups and found information on another group that used the name. In particular there are two groups, CHRYSALIS and THE INFORMATION SOCIETY which I was looking for. (The CHRYSALIS one is particularly surprising, since several of the members were involved with other groups, Vocalist Nancy Nairn and (I think) writer and leader James "Spider" Barbour worked with Frank Zappa and drummer Dahoud Shaar was part of the band on at least the earliest Van Morrison solo albums, ASTRAL WEEKS and MOONDANCE.)
I could start a page, but it would be little more than a listing of tracks and snippets of information like the above -- in fact I couldn't even do this for INFORMATION SOCIETY unless I merely copied the liner notes, since all I know about the group is that they exist, I have their album, and that I like their music.
There are many other examples of this. For example, I believe at least four groups called WINGS released albums before the McCartney led group. (At least one did because I had it -- sadly, no longer.)
Anyway, should I just 'throw up stubs' on these groups, or is there likely to be someone who could do a better job now that the topic has been raised?
71.249.50.176 ( talk) 23:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Prup (aka Jim Benton)