Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Recommending use of {{Singles}} template

There is a {{Singles}} template that is starting to be used on album articles. We don't currently mention this at WP:ALBUM#Misc. I think we should decide if this template should be used on album articles, and if so mention it in the guideline. I have some concerns about this template though: Is it meant to replace other sections (such as tables) of single information or supplement them? If the former, is this template sufficient for doing so? Many album articles contain more information about singles than just the name and release date. Chart positions are what come to mind, but I assume other info exists as well. Are we saying that name and release date is the only info we want about singles, or should the template be expanded? If the template is not meant to replace other sections about singles, it may be redundant duplication of info, especially if the other info is presented in a table. Another concern is how singles like the seventh single here are supposed to be used with this template. (That table used to contain a column of single covers which were removed for fair use reasons, which is why it looks a little odd.) I guess single 7 = Why Does My Heart Feel So Bad?" / "Honey would work technically, but it seems like a hack and wouldn't be very obvious to editors. Opinions? --PEJL 12:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that the use of this template has now been mentioned on WP:ALBUM. This makes resolving the issues mentioned above all the more urgent. --PEJL 13:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It was something I thought of when I first created the template, but I couldn't think of a simple way of doing it. But when it comes down to it, basic use editors will figure out a way of implementing it, and those that don't figure it out are likely to have it corrected by someone who knows what they're doing. I'm for making it simpler, but I don't know a way it can be done. Maybe adding in an "if" variable for "single 1 song 2, single 1, single 1 date; single 2 song 2, " etc and if it appears there, then you just use a carriage return and place the second song title on the secod line, much like I've done on Internaionalist (album) with Don't Wanna Be Left Out/Good-Day Ray. --lincalinca 02:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

attention

thre is no mention of the attention attribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs)

What attention attribute? Where should it be mentioned? --PEJL 22:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Professional review wording

When the text for the professional reviews was rewritten last month, an unintended change of meaning slipped in. This is what the text in question used to say before it was rewritten:

The second bit should be either a rating (e.g. 4/5) or the word favorable or unfavorable (possibly allowing for ambivalent, mixed, extremely favorable and more, but keep it short and simple).

This is what is says now:

If no rating is given in the review you can use the word (favorable) or (unfavorable) to describe the review, possibly allowing for (ambivalent), (mixed), (extremely favorable) and more, but keep it short and simple.

This wording "you can use" gives the impression that including such a summary is completely optional. With the old wording it was not optional, and it was not my intent to make it completely optional with the new wording. The intent was only to allow the user to not include the summary if they were unable to do so. This issue was brought to my attention when another editor removed such a summary on grounds of summaries being unnecessary in general, citing this new wording. I propose this be changed to the following, to make it closer to the old wording:

If no rating is given in the review you should use the word (favorable) or (unfavorable) to describe the review, possibly allowing for (ambivalent), (mixed), (extremely favorable) and more, but keep it short and simple. If you cannot summarize the review, just leave this second bit blank.

As this may be controversial, (I assume at least that one other editor disagrees with this new wording), I'm mentioning it here. If there are no objections in a few days, I'll make this change. --PEJL 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks PEJL. Yep, I'm the "at least one editor" (we've discussed this elsewhere) who doesn't believe that this is goodness. My take is that one-word interpretations of a professional review by Wikipedia editors are subjective, and best not employed for that reason. I'm all for including straightforward ratings that appear in the review like stars from AMG, etc, but don't see a need to reduce things to one word if the reviewer/publication doesn't. A practical point is that reviews that appear in infoboxes are almost invariably online and can be accessed easily by readers who can make up their own minds; if a review was not online, I wouldn't bother with it in the infobox but would discuss it - and quote from it as appropriate - in the body of the article.
Subjectivity is my main issue, but the current system gets you into other silliness, like spelling of the interpretation: "favorable" or "favourable"? If it's a UK album article with a US magazine review, which spelling convention do you favour (I mean favor)?! I did bring this up here a while back, recommending we remove it from the main page, and some discussion resulted before it got lost amidst other stuff and I didn't pursue it. I've occasionally seen other editors discussing and removing such interpretations on individual album pages and believe their use has diminished over the last year or so but I would like to see it eliminated entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This begs the question: why the supposed need to validate the article with a professional's review?Ricadus 02:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the purpose of including the reviews is to validate the article.
It was suggested that reviews that aren't online shouldn't be bothered with. Note that we currently don't have a policy of not including reviews just because they aren't available online. Such a policy would make it even harder to find reviews for older albums. I generated some statistics on this: 202 out of 4395 reviews (for 1370 albums) in my sample have no external link. That's 4.6% of reviews, too many for the claim "invariably online" to hold IMO. 179 out of the 4395 reviews (4.1%) include an interpretation. As for if it should be "favorable" or "favourable", I think the variant of English used in the rest of the article should be used (since it isn't a quote). I do see the potential problem with subjectivity, but I've never seen that be a problem in practice. So my position is, reviews should definitely stay in general, interpretations should probably stay (with tightened wording). --PEJL 10:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
checkY Done. As there were no further comments, I made this change. --PEJL 19:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
PEJL, sorry for not responding more quickly to your last comment - waiting, too long it seems, for others to weigh in - but pls do not take that as agreement with this change. I can't see a consensus for modifying the wording to an obligation, as you favour, any more than I can for eliminating the one-word interpretations entirely from the project page, as is my position. You suggest I said that the reviews in question are "invariably online", whereas I said "almost invariably online" - there is a difference, and 95%+ is a pretty high percentage in anyone's language. My position for those that are not online is that, even if they're listed in the infobox, they should still not have the one-word interpretation - which to me is getting into POV territory - but should have some words quoted from them in the body of the article (for instance in a 'Reaction' or 'Critical reception' section). This simply produces a more rounded article. The percentage you quote for those which currently include an interpretation indicates this practice is - thankfully IMO - not widespread, another consideration that leads me to believe that making it a requirement is uncalled for. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The difference between making a change to eliminate the one-word interpretation (like you favored) and making including one an obligation (like I favored), is that the guideline was until very recently that it was an obligation. This softening of the obligation was a mistake that seems to have largely gone unnoticed, an unintended change as a result of me rewriting that section. The change to restore it to the level of obligation before it was rewritten should therefore IMO require a lower level of approval than making a deliberate change to eliminate the one-word interpretation would. So I question the need for a consensus for modifying the wording to an obligation, and think we should instead see if there is consensus to have it not be an obligation. --PEJL 01:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I vote for removing reviews from the infobox. :-) -Freekee 03:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The what... Huh? PEJL is great at parties, I unclick the harness from his spiked collar and "Unleash the Devastation" in what I like to call "deer in the headlights"! He comotoses his victims with a mere explanation of policies and proceedures. All kidding aside, you almost have to prepare a legal brief before you can view this page. What happened to [|Be Bold]?

Heh! ;-) Yeah, my last message in this thread reads a bit dense to me too. The point was basically that I refuted the claim by Ian Rose that I was making it a requirement, because it had been a requirement all along (except briefly, due to an error on my part). --PEJL 01:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all,reading through the talk pages on various subjects, you seem to be the most knowledgable and assertive editor so far.(Those are worth 10 butt-kiss points...Each!) All this means is that if I have a challenge with something, I would ask you first to help solve it. It also means, I wouldn't want to meet you in court. (unless you were trying to get me off of a minor 'Toledo Window Box' posession charge, which I SWEAR was not mine)--ZapperZippy 15:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop it, you're making me blush! ;-) --PEJL 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking track names in track listing

Just a note that I added what should be an uncontroversial statement that track names should be linked in the track listing. This has been common practice, but I think it may be worth pointing out, because one editor recently made some changes that removed links to tracks in the track listing because they were already linked earlier in the text, claiming multiple links were redundant. I think readers assume that the primary link to a track will be at the track listing, and that if a track is not linked there, there is no article on the track. --PEJL 11:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

For those interested in the official word on the subject, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links).
note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article, may well be appropriate. Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection.
-Freekee 03:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The way "PEJL" suggested is certainly More convenient for people browsing the albums, but I don't know if that should be the case. I don't really have a preference. --Six 7 8 17:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we make things convenient for people browsing the albums, given that WP:MOS-L says it is fine to do so? I think users will expect track names in the track listing to be linked to articles on the tracks, if such articles exist. In that context, a possibly more controversial issue is whether track names should be allowed to be linked to non-track articles. See for example this change. Opinions? --PEJL 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(thinking out loud)...I think it enhances the article. If you have someone skimming through the article to get to the track listing(like I sometimes do)Hold on, let me understand the question. Maybe not, "multiple links were redundant"?? isn't the whole point of "Searching for an article in an Encyclopedia" to explore any and all relevant info(including any and all links)? Depending on your level of interest, you can skim or dissect. I don't think i'll get that bent out of shape to click on the same article that had the *same name* on the link that is found elsewhere in the article. Those individuals that do were disturbed LONG before Wikipedia came along(unproffesional opinion)

anyways,I think it's a good practice as long as the links are consistant like: they all link to an in-depth article of the track/single that would then have even more links to relevant info...Wow, you could get lost in Wiki.--ZapperZippy 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Many album articles contain a link to All Music Guide (AMG) in the professional reviews section, but very few album articles contain a link to AMG in the external links section. Recently some edits have been made to also add such external links to FA articles. I think we need a guideline about this, either that duplicate links should be avoided, or that they need not be avoided.

I think it is reasonable to avoid duplicate links to AMG (or any other review source). While it is possible to link to different tabs of AMG album entries, the ones relevant here are the "Overview" (example) and "Review" (example) tabs, which in practice are so similar that they are basically the same. Therefore I'm proposing adding the following text to the external links guidelines for albums:

Links to individual reviews shouldn't be included here, but links to professional reviews can be included in the professional reviews section of the infobox.

This also serves other purposes:

  • to point out that professional reviews should be elsewhere, for editors not familiar with the professional reviews section.
  • to clarify that non-professional reviews shouldn't be included anywhere in the article, even if they are in the external links section rather than the professional reviews section.

Any objections? --PEJL 13:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I tweaked the wording to "individual reviews", to avoid disallowing linking to Metacritic album entries. --PEJL 01:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
checkY Done. --PEJL 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the infobox

Just a note that I proposed some changes to improve the formatting of the infobox over at Template talk:Infobox Album#Proposed changes to the infobox. --PEJL 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Only studio albums in chronologies (again)

I'm reviving this thread from last month about the studio album only policy for chronologies, because I have some new thoughts on this subject. Unint pointed out in a user talk comment that the U2 album articles used to use separate chronologies for different album types. I think recommending doing this, along with using a "Chronology" field value like "U2 compilation chronology", could be a way to avoid getting compilations and such into the studio album chronologies. Because like Freekee said last month, otherwise it is hopeless to enforce the current guideline. --PEJL 18:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy itself is wrong-headed. To omit or segregate 1970s live albums such as At Fillmore East, Live/Dead, or Running on Empty from chronologies is crazy. And for many 1960s groups, their compilation albums were their best sellers and the ones they are most remembered by; The Best of The Animals is a good example. The judgement should be left to editors on an artist-by-artist basis as to which live and compilation albums are significiant to telling the artist's story and which are not. Wasted Time R 18:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right - those are important albums that shouldn't be left out of the chronologies. Unfortunately, once people see them in there, they think it's okay to add any live or comp album. There is no judgment call anymore, it's only a few hardnosed editors who put their feet down against the new editors who are excited that they get to make such a cool change to their favorite band's album page. And those kids see many examples of best-of records in other bands' chronologies... you know the story. Anyway, separating the chronologies (like we often do with discographies) might be a way to get people to think about the importance of records. -Freekee 03:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I recall a previous discussion on inclusion of live and compilation albums. Freekee, you've hit the nail right on the head re. the excited newbies adding all and sundry and the experienced ones putting a boundary on it. My position is the same as last time we talked about it, at least regarding 'established' artists with a decent bibliography: the commentary on those artists will include certain live and compilation albums as 'canon' and leave others out. Allowing for variations in professional opinion and the vagueries of different releases in different countries, we can use that as a measuring stick. Same as anything in Wikipedia, if you can cite reliable sources for a work's place in the canon, there's an argument to include it. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem with leaving it up to the judgement of the editor has been touched upon. Enforcing a non-obvious guideline among editors largely unaware of the guideline is an uphill battle. However if there is an infobox with "Chronology=U2 EP chronology" editors will be significantly less likely to add non-EPs to it, and since they won't do that, they will also be less likely to add the EPs to the studio album chronology. This rule would make it much more obvious how chronologies should work for editors unaware of the guideline. On the other hand I can certainly see how this would make the chronologies less useful for artists with well thought-out chronologies including only the essential live/compilation albums. Unfortunately I think such chronologies are quite rare. --PEJL 09:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If the discography presents an explicit rationale for what live or compilation albums are considered 'in sequence', then this can serve as a guide to the chronology. A good example of this is the Grateful Dead discography, where it is explained that "current" live albums go with studio albums but "retrospective" ones don't. Wasted Time R 10:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think to distingush current from past albums is a sily idea, considering neither is mroe important nor notable than the other. The thing that sullies the whole matter is that many Greatest Hits and Best Of albums contain unique tracks not found on any other albums (almost every artist in the last 10 years has done this at some point or another). Another thing that messes the matter is when in discographies people insist on putting all versions of the artist's live series on the chronology (Pearl Jam, anyone? They claim to be all for peace these days, and yet still will release over 200 bootlegs? WTF?) when there literally could be hundreds of recordings where none is any different to another. I think it does come down to editors being considerate of the purpose of the listing. I consider "key" best of and "key" live albums to be suitable to belong in chronologies and in the categories (as can be seen through my editing of Powderfinger and John Mayer content). --lincalinca 03:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(i'll be ranting and raving, but i've had my shots) What happened to the "Official Releases"? If I am understanding the problem correctly. Isn't there just one Discography page...for one(1) band? How many should there be? If you want to have a page for bootleg copies or the chart listing for downloaded copies or (in an earlier discussion I had in [|Release Dates] ("Well, it was initially released as a demo in july of 1982 in Japan, then later that year, part of a 2-disk compilation album 'Buckle-Up Razzle'(sorry bad humor)in Germany, then officially released in the US in 1983, but don't forget the pre-leaching and stolen songs (including the ones that were ripped off from the thief that stole them, that were officially-unofficially released on the internet (that you could only exclusively use at Al Gore's house(back in 83'))"...Link it!

I'm being slightly sarcastic, but there can only be a few categories for albums of a band. Hence Live, EP, Studio, etc., Compilation?, Best of?, Etc. Can these not all be listed on one page using level 2 headlines so as not to have my computer catch fire because I have 200 windows open? From there they then link to the album page that has the in-depth info on the album itself. "Wasted Time", I agree that segregation within the article of 'relevant content' is bad, I don't agree with editor perogative to decide what content is relevant. If it was officially released live then list it live. It's not up to you or I to determine the newsworthyness of the content. One(1) album could have been sold, if you take it upon yourself to censor the material i'm trying to explore, i'll resent it. "Freekee", whose 'judgment call are you making? yours? mine? Can't I make my own call within the article? whether or not I want to explore the "The Best of" link? If the band had *no* studio albums then leave it blank, fill in the live and compilation section and get on down the road. (i'm really harmless)
Good God, having chronologies for chronologies makes my head hurt. There's a saying, "MAKE IT BIG, but keep it simple" If the band in question is a MONDO GIGANTICUS then by all means it will naturally expand to obscure reference pages. I'm with "Linca" on this one. "Ian Rose" says: "if you can cite reliable sources for a work's place in the canon, there's an argument to include it". Touche'(sp?). "PEJL" said this discussion is about 'the studio album only policy for chronologies'. I think on the "Chronology" page(studios only?), is absurd. I think in the INFOBOX, it could very well get bogged down with insignificant album after another before you finally get to a 'meaty' studio cut. But policy, either way, is something anyone can get used to if it is used long enough. This is a complex issue...sometimes I like it six one way and sometimes I like it half a dozen the other.--ZapperZippy 19:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

DVDs and videos

Do things like live concerts and music video compilations released on DVD/VHS fall under the scope of this wikiproject? If so, should they be categorized in the same way as other albums? PC78 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked that a long time ago and nobody ever gave me an answer. I don't know. Violask81976 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
They can be treated similary. Do you have a specific question? They shouldn't go in album categories. No project seems to want to step forward and take them. Has anyone seen video infoboxes? -Freekee 05:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
There is an infobox for them (Template:Infobox music DVD), as well as a category (Category:Music videos and DVDs). I was wondering if articles like (for example) Kylie Showgirl belong in Category:Kylie Minogue albums? PC78 11:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I would say no. It should be under Category:Kylie Minogue videos and DVDs, which would then fall under Category:Kylie Minogue, alongside the albums category. It's a bit wordy, but it's the best way to catagorise, however the rule with albums is that even if an artist has only released one album, we create the category, but I'm not so sure the same rule should apply for music DVDs, as the majority of them are only one-shots except for really top end artists. I say we put it to the floor to see what people think about this. --lincalinca 02:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unorthodox extra chronologies

How do people feel about changes such as this change that add extra chronologies for the releases by a certain record label? Personally I think they're inappropriate and set a bad precedent, but since there are so many of them, I though it best to bring this up here before removing them. --PEJL 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Waste of space to me. Plus, not every release by a record label will ever have articles, and there are always gaps in the catalogue numbers. How would it be organized, by release date or number? Violask81976 20:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditch them, I say. Sounds like the label adding articles in to make their contribution to the album more noticable in the public eye, the greedy assholes. Ditch them all. Burn them. --lincalinca 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've taken care of this. Jogers (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to be un-taking care of it. I'm the one who added that chronology. I have never worked for SST Records, which was a much more important label in contemporary American music than some of the garbage you people listen to. --CJ Marsicano 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Really? I left a message about this discussion for the user who actually made the changes, User:Roman Dog Bird. Are you using multiple user accounts or something? As for whether these chronologies should stay or not, we'd be interested to hear actual arguments in favor of keeping them (preferably without insults about others musical tastes). --PEJL 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No, he's really the guy who started doing it. I thought it was a good idea and started where he left off. Roman Dog Bird 22:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
And a new WikiProject is being established by me for all SST Records releases artists, and one of the eventual goals of the project is going to be to reestablish the chronology. Roman Dog Bird picked up the ball where I had left it. --CJ Marsicano 15:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You should probably seek consensus for adding such chronologies here before adding them back. --PEJL 19:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
PEJL is right. You still didn't provide any arguments in favor of them. Jogers (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Jogers, since CJ Marsicano apparently added some of these, did you remove those as well, or just the ones by Roman Dog Bird? (We may want to hold off on nuking them for now if so, to allow arguments in favor of them to be presented.) --PEJL 19:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed all of them from pages that both transcluded {{Extra chronology 2}} and linked to SST Records. I missed Crazy Backwards Alphabet somehow, though. Jogers (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Album cover thumbnails: Dispute at WP:FURG

I've taken my wiki-life in my hands and put a disputed tag on the Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline page, becuase I do not believe the text there reflects either the underlying legal position, nor the consensus view on the subject in this project.

Specifically I believe, on the basis of the legal case-law precedents, that it is sufficient for album cover thumbnails to be attached to pages that discuss the album as a whole, regardless of whether or not the page discusses particular features of the cover-art.

The discussion is now on the talk page there.

Unfortunately I have only one revert left for the guideline page itself, and my stance appears not to be popular with some of the more extreme no-fair-use proponents over there. I will respect 3RR, so if people agree the presence of the dispute tag is valid, I probably won't be able to keep it on the page myself. Jheald 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, protected now sadly. The actual transition to guideline status seems to have occurred with very little discussion, and no real testing of the guideline. Now it has its first big test - the bot tagging nearly every album cover (and nearly every fair use image) for deletion within 7 days - it is evident from the mass confusion that the current guideline is insufficiently explained. --Iae 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Your dispute is not with that page, but with WP:FUC. -- Ned Scott 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ned, I don't see a problem with WP:FUC, but rather with its interpretation at WP:FURG. Okay, perhaps WP:FAIR could be clarified to make clear that what is required is critical commentary of the work as a whole of which the cover art is a part. But I think that is mostly taken as read. A real problem is the section of WP:FURG which is identified in the Wikipedia talk:Fair use rationale guideline discussion, and - more pressingly - that the people operating Betacommandbot flat out won't stop to see if we can resolve this point when they are constructively asked to, nor indeed give any constructive responses to issues raised at User talk:BetacommandBot.
That is why this issue is now also hitting WP:Village pump Jheald 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You want to use a generic fair use rationale, and that simply won't fly. If a user uploads something without reading all those warning tags on the upload page, then they have no right to bitch about it. "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't read the RULES". -- Ned Scott 21:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify:
It seems that the best-case scenario will be that all album covers get fair-use rationale added and (except for very few cases where the imagery itself is the subject of critical commentary), most album covers, while not having boilerplate fair-use rationales, will have essentially the same text as Image:BizarreRideIIthePharcyde.jpg, with small variations in phrasing or some lines swapped around.
Is this actually a satisfactory conclusion to all this? Have I missed anything? –Unint 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Category A cappella albums?

Please note the thread at Talk:A cappella#Category A cappella albums?. Cheers, BNutzer 20:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Standardizing upper caption of extra album cover

I propose the following text be added to WP:ALBUM#Template:Extra album cover 2:

The upper caption should be "Alternate cover" for alternate covers. (amended text below)

to codify existing practice. Any objections? --PEJL 21:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Cheers, Ian Rose 22:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It is sometimes helpful to see exactly what kind of alt. cover it is, i.e. why is there multiple covers (int'l release, re-release, censored original, etc.) Nonetheless, this could/should be covered in the article so I can't say that I completely disagree. (Sampm 03:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Such information can (and should IMO) be provided in the lower caption. That's actually what I meant, but failed to mention. I amend my proposal to the following:

For alternate covers the upper caption should be "Alternate cover" and the lower caption should mention where that cover was used (int'l release, re-release, censored original, etc.).

which reflects current practice to almost the same extent. Any objections to that? --PEJL 09:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The clarified wording sounds good to me. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
checkY Done. --PEJL 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Update on the fun at WP:FAIR

Currently under discussion on the talk page for the Wikipedia fair use page:

  • Whether to add the following text to the fair use policy:
Examples of unacceptable use
  • A CD cover, album cover, or boom cover used to illustrate an article about the CD, album, or book, when the article does not include critical commentary of the cover art
Discussion here.
  • Whether discographies should ever be allowed to include album cover images.
Discussion here.

These discussions are where policies are being fixed that the Album project will have to live with, so if you have a view, now is the time to make it heard. Jheald 18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Yea...I'm kinda sorry..but the whole Betacommandbot/WP:FAIR is too much shitcrap for me...I get extremely mad everytime I even come on here now because of the chosen few who have the power and just say "No...read the policy", "It can't happen" or just don't say anything to me when i try to talk about it. I'm tired of fighting a losing battle...face it. Wiki will be Free As A Bird, and 99% of the music articles. Let them become like every other enyclopedia that doesn't know what IV and Smash Hits would look like if they saw it in a store. I'm about to do what I've wanted since I found out what a wiki was: have a whole wiki dedicated to music. So I'm pretty much going to leave. When The Bled released their new album, I might make that article. Whenever DT puts out an album, I might help. Once all this whole fiasco ends, I'd love to know so I can watch the Wikipedia empire fall.

The only thing that's still holding me back is my un-knowledge of template-making. I've tried to copying the sourse codes of the Album infobox and it's transcluded templates..but it isn't worknig out. If anyone could help me with templates, I'd love it. If you're gonna help me out, then that'd be great. Lemme know if you do here: Forte. Violask81976 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh crap, I forgot to say why I'm needing the template: I am starting a wiki solely for music, and would like templates for things like albums and bands and genres and instruemtns. I don't sepcifically need wiki-type infoboxes..that'd probably be a bad idea-just to copy- because people whould see it as a knockoff. I dunno. Violask81976 20:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you for real? Do you know how long that would take? That's a colossal project. Good God Man, someone's smoking reefer and it's probably me... I would need some type of royalty for this or somm'm. Seriously though... Dude, my eyes are burning from just the few pages I put up *here*. If you think fighting the Wiki Purple Power Ranger Death Bot is bad, wait till you get legal notices from content you thought were free.(which is *nothing* in the music industry) I wish you best of luck brother. If I get tired here on Wiki, i'll just be archived, what are you going to do if you get tired?...On VioWikilask.--ZapperZippy 05:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, i know it's huge, but at least i have a model to go by that Wikipedia didn't-Wikipedia. And if i get tired before I can get others to help then...i jsut had fun. As far as legal notices...Wikipedia isn't getting them, why would i? Violask81976 13:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Singles and quotation marks

Hi, I'm member of polish wikiproject Music. We are wondering why singles are in quotation marks. Can someone send me a link or reply (best on pl.wiki). Thanks in advance. Yarl talk • PL 14:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines are here. I don't speak Polish, but you should check the Polish Manual of Style, as I believe each country tends to have its own standard style guidelines. - Alex valavanis 23:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know how, question is why. We want to change in plWiki quotes into italics, because single is a kind of release (like LP, EP etc.). Yarl talk • PL 11:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
singles are also songs, which should go in quotemarks a la Manual of Style. in terms of why, i suppose the simplest answer is because it's consistent, distinguishes from album titles, is non-cluttery and looks better. tomasz. 11:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Christgau bonus reviews

I just started adding Xgau ratings to a few infoboxen, and ran into a letter grade plus seperate review. Both are useful, and since most Xgau reviews are letter grade capsules, I don't want to break consistency by losing the capsule review in favor of the long one. Is there an agreed-upon way to squeeze these both into an infobox? I'm looking at these:

  1. Robert Christgau (C+) link
  2. Robert Christgau (C+) link (review)
  3. Robert Christgau (C+) rating (article)

#1 is inconsistent and ugly, but concise

#2 is my favorite, tho is suggests the capsule is "not a review".

#3 is a compromise, but deviates most from the current standard.

I confess I did not read all the WT:ALBUM archives. If this has been agreed upon before, please link me and I'll do my best to conform to precendent. / edgarde 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a few (about ten, I'd guess) other album articles with two different reviews from the same review source. In all those cases there were two separate entries for the reviews. This makes sense, since the recommended text to replace "link" is the date of the review, which should differ in most such cases. I don't know if that solution has ever been agreed upon, but it is in use. To me, it seems reasonable to have two separate entries, since they are two separate reviews, and since the list of reviews is a list of reviews, not a list of review sources. --PEJL 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you link me to some examples? Not 100% pleased with that solution since it's the least concise.
I actually linked a third Xgau review of Death Certificate from the external links section (tho that one is more a polemic and less about the album). There are also a cases where Xgau changes his review completely, either with rewrites for his books, or in simply changing his mind.
My ideal would be a standard for infobox Xgau that could be templatized — by the way, thanks for {{Rating-Christgau}} — to the current main (non-historical) capsule link (or rating if that's all there is) from RobertChristgau.com, plus an optional additional link to a "proper" review, e.g. his contemporary article from Village Voice music review section. / edgarde 14:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Here are all articles with duplicate review entries from my sample (11 out of ~1700):
The following also include two reviews, but in separate sections:
Note that including review links in the external links section has recently been discouraged, see #Duplicate links to All Music Guide.
I dislike your first option for the same reasons you do. Your second option does, as you say, suggests the capsule is "not a review". But it does this by using the term "link", which does not have this meaning in general, which may be problematic. (I can foresee people changing "link" to "review" for reviews by other reviewers if we were to adopt this.) I think option 3 is better than 2 for this reason. Or maybe just "link1" and "link2"? That makes it more obvious to the reader that there are two links. --PEJL 17:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Review-Christgau template proposal

Based on this list, there are not many facts on the ground yet for Christgau. My goal is to include longer Xgau reviews (in addition to linking Consumer Guide), but I'd like to keep it to one line.
Personal prejudice: I have difficulty naming links "link" (redundant, not descriptive), let alone "link1", "link2" (ambiguous). Dates aren't always clear for Xgau cos much on his site is revised for the Consumer Guide books.
For consistency's sake, I made this template: User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau, which is an enhancement (maybe) of Template:Rating-Christgau. Parameters:
             {{User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau
              |cgrating =
              |cgurl =
              |reviewurl =
             }}
Third parameter is optional; "link" changes to "rating" if the third is included. Letter grade is changed to upper case. Here are two examples:
I'm not sure it's worth having. If no one likes this, I can write it off as template practice. If it seems useful, I'll fix the documentation and move it to Template space.
Suggestions encouraged please. / edgarde 00:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think it may be useful to include two links for one review entry iff they refer to basically the same review. In the example you have provided they do. In other cases they don't (The Doors (album)), in which case I think it is better to provide two entries. If we want an entry to not occupy more than one line, the text "rating (article)" is too long, it will wrap to two lines. (I have no problem with "link" in general, and don't see anything that would be less redundant. review and [1] are just as redundant, link is quite short but more comprehensible and more consistent than [1].) Perhaps rating link? That would keep things on one line, while maintaining visual consistency with other reviews since it ends in "link". --PEJL 01:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
How about now? Is that superscript an improvement, or a distraction? Added a third line to see if it interferes with line spacing — it does somewhat at small font settings in Mozilla SeaMonkey.
/ edgarde 02:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In Safari it does interfere with line spacing at all reasonable font sizes (all except very very small). We're getting into very subjective territory here, but I don't think the superscripting is an improvement. To me the little symbol after external links makes it clear that there are two links, even if these look identical and are only separated by a space. If we actually want to de-emphasize the rating link, I guess using smaller text might be appropriate (for example by using <small> instead of <sup>). On the other hand having them the same size looks more neat. --PEJL 08:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Subjective's okay by me, and I want neatness too. First link unnamed if 2nd URL present:
First link named "rating" if 2nd url present:
Which is better? / edgarde 11:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I think using a named link is more comprehensible and more consistent than using an auto-numbered one. I believe this is why we recommend "link" instead of auto-numbered links. I see no reason to make an exception for the rating link.
BTW, there is a discussion about Christgau ratings in album infoboxes at Talk:Robert Christgau#How legit is this guy? that you may be interested in. --PEJL 12:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that discussion is what got me thinking I wanted to add more Xgau reviews, and find a way to include longer ones. I thought that conversation was supposed to move to this Talk page, but on your suggestion I've added a comment on Talk:Robert Christgau. / edgarde 12:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming to article space

So is this good enough to add to WP:ALBUM? If so, I'll move it to Template space. For consistency, the name should be {{Review-Christgau}}. Would make a redirect from {{Christgau}} as well. / edgarde 12:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume we agree on the formatting then. As for whether we should recommend using the Review-Christgau template, I am not sure that is needed. Most Christgau reviews will still have only one link, for which using a template is no more warranted than using one for any non-Christgau review. Assuming no superscript or such is used, including two links for an entry isn't very difficult as it is either. The main thing a template buys us, that might actually enhance consistency, are the labels "review" and "link". Even if we do recommend using the Review-Christgau template, I still think we should document when multiple external links may be used at WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews, with something like the following:
You may include additional external links for a review only if needed to fully portray the review, with the main link (as a date or "link") last, for example "Robert Christgau (C+) rating link". Different reviews by the same reviewer should be listed separately, if including both is warranted.
That would be applicable for non-Christgau reviews as well. Assuming we have this text, is using the template worth it? The template requires the user to know the difference between a capsule review and an expanded review, a distinction that is less than obvious. I think the template may just make things more complex than is needed. --PEJL 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we agree on the formatting. My goal was to have something standardized, like {{imdb name}}. If in practical terms the template takes an uncomplicated task and makes it a little complicated, then I guess it's not needed. / edgarde 14:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thinking more about this, perhaps the template could be simplified. {{imdb name}} by comparison is much simpler and more obvious to use. Looking at that example, we could simplify Review-Christgau to:
*{{User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau|dud|http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Ice+Cube}}
*{{User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau|A+|http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/music/rbicecub-91.php
  |rating-url = http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Ice+Cube}}
The idea being to make it as simple as possible for the common case, when only one link exists. The first two arguments (the rating, and the main link) would be mandatory and not require a named argument, while the named argument rating-url would be optional. What do you think?
Also, anyone object to my proposed text (italicized) above? Opinions requested. --PEJL 15:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In Christgau's case, I favor the distinctions I listed below — contemporary reviews, but not requiring clearly same review writ longer — but if that's not a popular idea it's no biggie to me. All the intentions I brought presume a familiarity with how Xgau works; that assumption might leads to a broken policy.
I agree {{Review-Christgau}} would be much easier to use with unnamed parameters (since there are only 2-3). I'll make the changes tonite — I want to figure out how to accept entry both ways (named or unnamed), but not require either. / edgarde 15:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, which distinctions? Capsule reviews versus longer reviews? If we're basically hard-coding support for capsule reviews from www.robertchristgau.com anyway, we might be able to simplify even further. Instead of having to specify "http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Ice+Cube" we could just take input like "Ice Cube" and transform that to the URL in the template. That assumes all such URLs are from that site and follow that naming scheme. I looked at the URLs in my sample. Out of 360 reviews by Christgau 2 had no URL, 1 had a URL not from www.robertchristgau.com (http://www.music.msn.com/music/consumerguide), 2 used get_album.php, 340 used get_artist.php, 12 used get_artist2.php, and 3 used other URLs from that site (to longer reviews). I've verified that the get_album.php and get_artist2.php URLs could be converted to get_artist.php URLs. --PEJL 16:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes you can snag a particular album — http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_album.php?id=2777 was direct-linked from a "later" link[3] . I'd like to leave whole-link in for flexbility, especially if updates on RobertChristgau.com allow more direct linking to album reviews.
By "distinctions", I meant the guideline you propose would allow 2nd link to only the expanded version of the same review, as with the Ice Cube link. I was suggesting (for Xgau) including contemporary reviews of same album, like the Rolling Stones link. But, from what you are saying, that will cause confusion and inconsistency. My idea was pretty vague as "distinctions" go. / edgarde 16:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unnamed parameters

Bloody equal sign. Wish I noticed that earlier. Equal signs in parameter values break unnamed calls. Closest I can get to unnamed would be with explicit numeric names, like this: 

*{{User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau|1=dud|2=http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Ice+Cube}}
*{{User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau|1=A+|2=http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/music/rbicecub-91.php
  |3=http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Ice+Cube}}

Does that sink the vessel? Since Xgau is writing for multiple sites, I think standardizing on a URL up to the equal sign would tie our hands somewhat. The "1=" isn't strictly needed, but "2=" and "3=" are. / edgarde 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If we need numeric parameters for the second and third arguments, we might be better off with named arguments for those arguments, assuming the names are good. We wouldn't have to tie our hands if we supported both the standardized URLs and other URLs, for example by supporting both "link-url=http...name=Ice+Cube" and "link-artist=Ice Cube" (and "rating-url=http...name=Ice+Cube" and "rating-artist=Ice Cube"). We could even support "link-xg". Putting that all together:
*{{User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau|dud|link-url=http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Ice+Cube}}
*{{User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau|dud|link-artist=Ice Cube}}
*{{User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau|A+|link-xg=music/rbicecub-91|rating-artist=Ice Cube}}
Pretty concise. Too cryptic? --PEJL 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Currently User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau takes 6 parameters, including four different ways to cite Consumer Guide ratings, plus this concise method:
      {{User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau|A-|411}}
... which produces:

Robert Christgau (A-) link

...linking to http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?id=411, the artist page for Elastica.
I would prefer to link just albums instead — http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_album.php?id=411, a Bonnie Raitt album — but these links are hard to find, so it's not convenient for a default. Currently the album parameter goes there.
I'm emailing the RobertChristgau.com webmaster to ask if finding album links is or will become easier than I think. / edgarde 21:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay I just heard from Tom Hull. Individual album reviews (and thus their album_id's) are linked from the List By Year pages:

http://robertchristgau.com/get_ylist.php?yr=2006

This does not include reviews without content (such as (dud)'s), but it's enough to make direct linking individual albums practical. I'll change the template back to accept unnamed IDs to album.
Any other suggestions before I move this thing to Template space? / edgarde 14:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Review-Christgau template usage

I didn't envision this system as being strictly for expanded versions of the same review — in my later examples I use the Rolling Stones Dirty Work review which is more different. My initial presumptions were that Xgau would seldom write more than 2 reviews of the same alb, exceptions being:

  • revisions for CG publication, in which case the last would be be "canonical" IMO. Radical changes (like his review for the last Minutemen, and maybe first Doors) may merit a 2nd entry.
  • Albums that stuck in his craw sufficiently that he felt a need to write a 3rd essay, such as Ice Cube Death Certificate. In this case, the 3rd review might be sufficiently notable to include in External links (tho I still haven't looked over that AMG case you pointed out).
  • Albums where he felt the reissue merited a review, such as Bill Withers Live At Carnegie Hall (great album, by the way), which got a new rating. This obvious necessitates a 2nd entry.

Does that make sense, and shall I encorporate this into User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau/doc#Usage? / edgarde 12:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to make more work for anyone, but as a thought, what if the chrstgau changes were implemented into the regular Please specify a rating. template? All of the variables could remain the same, and so you could simply add the variables you've created and add it to the rating template. What do you think? It wouldn't be too tough to work out. --lincalinca 15:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you link that template? I don't know what you are referring to.
Christgau uses an eccentric set of ratings, so at least some of this won't translate. / edgarde 15:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) That is a possibility. I assume you mean something like {{Rating|dud|Christgau}}. What would be the advantage of this over the current {{Rating-Christgau}} template though? Alternatively, we could rename {{Rating}} to {{Rating-stars}} to make the name accurate for its current purpose. --PEJL 15:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to hear more specifics from Linca. This might be fun to do.
I'm imagining something like {{Rating|4|5|amg|}}, where adding the 4th parameter would expand the output into a line suitable for the infobox (then allowing a 5th parameter for the URL). Since different review sources would need different automatic information, we'd have to agree on a basic list of such, and add when new ones were identified.
Might get unmanageably complex quickly. Since I only started learning this stuff yesterday, I don't know if potentially hundreds of complicated template transclusions cause problems for Wikipedia, so I'd want to look into that first. / edgarde 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should conflate the concepts of a rating and a review, so I'd prefer it be named {{Review}} if it should generate the entire line. (All lines don't actually include ratings.) See also #Professional review sources about maintainability of lists of review sources. UPDATE: Oh, I see {{Review}} already exists. Perhaps {{Album review}} then. --PEJL 19:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
What about making it {{Rating/XGAU}} (and such) and {{Rating/Star}} and {{Rating/Review}} and {{Rating/Misc}} (for things like thumbs up and whatever) so they all stem from the same page and share a single usage page, though have different variables and different outcomes but all serve the purpose of going into the professional reviews section of this infobox? --lincalinca 04:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The forward slashes won't be in there because the create sub-pages, and anyway hyphens are the precedent. The following templates currently exist:
A general purpose review template doesn't exist yet. Might be worth making, may be a challenge. / edgarde 23:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Also {{Rating-5}} and similar, which are still in much wider use than {{Rating}} that was designed to replace them. {{Rating}} is only used in about 200 articles. --PEJL 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's alive

I still need to clean up the documentation, but {{Review-Christgau}} is working.

The documentation (which still needs cleanup and organization) contains a few undiscussed recommendations on which I'd like feedback.

Unnamed defaults assume the album ID, so ... 

*{{User:Edgarde/Review-Christgau|A-|411}}

... returns [UPDATE: returned at the time of writing, now doesn't, see #Idiot proofing]

Album IDs can be found on List by Year pages: http://robertchristgau.com/get_ylist.php?yr=2007

Syntax details are on the documentation. I'll be watching the Talk pages for both the Template and the Template/doc page. / edgarde 15:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! I'm not sure it's appropriate to make the "album" parameter the default third parameter. I think it would be clearer if it required it to be a named parameter. While that would make the required input slightly longer, it would make it significantly clearer for someone who has never seen the usage page, especially since most existing reviews use get_artist rather than get_album. Other than that, "album", "artist" and "name" are pretty obvious. (The difference between "cgurl" and "review" is a bit less obvious, especially when only one review link will be used. I know you say that they should only be used in the the correct way, but what happens if someone uses the wrong one? If that doesn't make any difference in practice, I foresee people using the wrong one quite often...) --PEJL 15:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

2d parameter

Should the 2nd unnamed parameter be disabled entirely, or should it default to the whole-artist review page? Neither of these options seem really desireable for me.

I think links from album articles should be to single-album reviews. This spares the reader some scrolling on artists with long histories. Single album pages all link to whole artist review pages, so it's easier to get from fine to coarse than from coarse to fine.

Links made wrong can be fixed, but one imagines users would try the links they made sooner or later, so I don't expect widespread wrong-linking. I don't favor crippling the template to prevent these mistakes.

Anyway, if I recall correctly, the requirement for named parameters was considered a problem in the first version of this template. / edgarde 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that single-album reviews should be preferred. However, as I previously showed, the vast majority of existing articles link to the artist listings, a fact that should be taken into account. I don't think requiring "A+|album=411" instead of "A+|411" makes linking to single-album reviews significantly more difficult, or that that constitutes crippling the template. I want us to dissuade people from mistakenly changing get_artist=411 URLs to A+|411 template invokations. A template should ideally be so obvious that users can use it without ever looking at its documentation. My suggestion is simply to make the "album" parameter not be the default third parameter, but require it to be named, just like "artist" and the others. (That would mean ignoring the second and subsequent unnamed parameter, but recognize the "album" named parameter.) --PEJL 16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the the main reason for having the artist parameter is to provide backward-compatibility for whomever takes the initiative to revise all the existing reviews to include a template. All they need to do is change to A+|artist=411. It's not hard.
Agreed, and using A+|album=123 isn't any harder. --PEJL 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I want us to dissuade people from mistakenly changing get_artist=411 URLs to A+|411 template invokations

Of the editors who will make that particular mistake, how many would still put the artist_id into a parameter explicitly named album?
We can only speculate. I just know I wouldn't. --PEJL 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The template can only be so intuitive. If one doesn't read the documentation, one at least tries the link and figures out to where it points. I think the concise form ({{Review-Christgau|A-|411}}) should be kept as a convenience for editors who are doing the right thing by linking album_id pages. / edgarde 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure that everyone would try the link. People might not realize there are two sets of numeric IDs, and just assume there was one. Seeing A+|411 elsewhere, they might think they could change get_artist=123 to B+|123 and have that work.
Well, we disagree. But you get to choose, since you're the one doing the work. Good work, BTW! --PEJL 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Idiot proofing

Changed input validation to fail unnamed 2nd parameter, so this no longer works. (To view what this looks like, see above.) Rest of template basicly supports unnamed 2nd, so this can be easily restored once album_id links become commonplace. / edgarde 18:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

3d parameter

The third parameter was intended as essentially an advanced option. Most users won't know about these unless they read the documentation, so clarity in the documentation should minimize off-label usage.

I think what I'm hearing now is an objection to any inclusion of a 2nd link in the template. Is that really the issue? Should this be removed?

Is there a specific recommendation for how to improve this? I don't think incredibly long parameter names will fix this problem. Should this ability removed? Should we just not use this template? / edgarde 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to including a second link, I was merely noting that a potential editor might have problems understanding the difference between the "cgurl" and "review" parameters, if there really isn't one in the majority of cases (when only one link is used). As I noted before, one alternative is using parameters that differ on how they would actually be used (a separate "rating" parameter), rather than the type of link target (Consumer Guide/capsule or not). But that has problems of its own (two sets of album/artist/name/url parameters), so I'm fine with this implementation. --PEJL 16:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Got the album IDs

So the webmaster for RobertChristgau.com graciously sent me a file of the album database, just names, titles, IDs, grades and other IDs not of interest to this project. Given a list of all these, I wonder what is the best way to make this data convenient for {{Review-Christgau}} users?

While this hasn't been declared free, he seems amenable to making it public from Christgau.com at some point.

Interestingly, this webmaster appears to be Tom Hull, another published music critic whose tastes, writing style and ratings system resemble Christgau's, but whose website(s) ("Recycled Goods" and Jazz Prospecting, maybe others), are differently organized. Good jazz coverage. / edgarde 05:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_16&oldid=1190107565"